Arron M on How To Be The ULTIMATE Alpha Male! (7 Tips To Totally DOMINATE)

The use of classification and differences to dehumanize and the manosphere

If you have ever listened to a video from the Skeptic Community online you will sometimes hear words that seem out of place. You will hear these same words in various places within the broader manosphere as well. I am referring to terms like beta, omega, cuck and among the PUA's "everyday chump." Often, when someone disagrees with someone else usually a man they will start calling them these sorts of terms as a way of saying "these men are not men at all."

Instead of saying that person is wrong or even evil as an individual and has bad ideas. Instead of rebuking their grey matter and attacking their ideas they make things personal. They make claim that if you do not think like me your manhood is in question. Or in some scenarios these folks will attack the man's orientation as if that matters. Or they will call them something like Soy Boys or such things. I am surprised they are not using the term sissy. It would do the same thing and create a similar split between men.

I very much am not in favor of using these terms for anyone you disagree with. Even if you think someone can be a beta male disagreeing with you is not the determination of that. Hell, even being a vile far left peace of shit is not being a beta male. These men are making things personal and attacking other men's very gender identity as a man by making it seem like their identity is warped or defective because of their views. To them alpha, beta and omega are not just different classifications for places in the social hierarchy they are the differences between being able to speak as a man or not.

Alpha males are not just men with specific traits which have a human constructed label placed on them based on the behavior of animals of certain kinds. To them Alphas are the only real men the only men that are not deformed and even disordered in their thinking. That Betas are the programmed and surfs of the left and or downright evil depending on the person if you have a penis. That Omegas are useless, a genetic dead end and so you should just go kill yourself. Oh, and dare not be a cuck which is not even reserved for an actual cuck as in participating in cuckholding an actual fetish some men and women have.

This is downright disgraceful and shows how little labels and their definitions actually mean to so many people and especially in certain places online. Someone not being an Alpha Male does not equal being evil, bad, wrong or disordered as a man. So, no one should be calling people with bad ideas these names. Further more it helps to push a narrative that dehumanizes men that do not fit into certain labels and definitions. It pushes the idea that men, and maleness is not simply being biologically male, but, requires more. It paints a picture that breaks up into groups that can be harmed because after all they are not human they are not men.

Dehumanization of men is already pushed by the far left progressive authoritarian groups and a great deal of the mainstream. One does not want that to continue even more into some groups of men that are human and some that are not. Just because someone disagrees does not make them evil that has its own definition. Some of the men called these names might actually be evil,  but, if they are it is their ideas that are evil. They could be adopting these ideas out of ignorance and be perfectly fine people that just need to learn the truth. However, even if they were in fact evil in their politics does not mean you are justified in dehumanizing them and basing that on their status as a true man.

You do not need to be an "Alpha" to be a real man. You do not need to be a high status male to be worth value. You have value where you are doing whatever productive work you are engaging in by virtue of producing value in the world through your production in it. Going even further a homeless man with no job and no friends whom requires help through voluntary charity to get on his feet is still a man of possible immense value. All humans that are not truly evil and even those whom are evil by ignorance have the possibility of great value in the future. A man whom seems to have no skills at all can still and often will find something that they can outright master that thing which brings joy to as the old saying goes their very soul. Men do not need to be at the top to be worth your respect.

If you find men espousing evil ideas do not attack their humanity or their manhood. Attack the fact they hold evil ideas and find out why they hold those ideas. They maybe misinformed and ignorant a kind talk might just set them on the correct path no need to dehumanize and treat them unjustly. However, if you do inform them the truth and they do not want to the right thing than you can call them truly evil. Yet, this does not mean they lack being human and that does not mean that if they are not threatening to initiate harm to others or their property there is no right to be lower case evil. There definitely is such a right it is called freedom of conscious and as long as they are evil in peace even this level of person does not deserve to be dehumanized. Call them evil and not less than a man. There are plenty "real men" that have been in favor of evil and vile ideologies in this world.

Individuals that are betas, omegas and cucks do not deserve to be tarred with the brush of all being evil and vile people by associating them with people that hold bed or downright evil ideas. Being into cuckholding is not necessarily evil you need to know the motivation behind living the lifestyle. Being somewhere other than the cock of walk at the top does not make you less of a man. Being not good with women or other men if you like them as well does not make you less than a man. Being someone that does not fit into some specific place in some label does not make you less of a man. It definitely is not the equivalent of being evil and to think you have anyway of taking others man cards because of differences between you and that individual man is thinking you can play God. Essentially you are no better than the SJW's that want to take away men's man cards for not being in lockstep with Feminists

Mystery Method Madness on VH1, pseudo-confidence and the Pick Up Conception of the Alpha Male.

Last night I watched a major trainwreck of a reality show called "The Pick Up Artist." A reality show on The Mystery Method of Pick up and the training of several men bad with women into master PUA's. They essentially took several men and trained them in techniques used within The Mystery Method. It consisted of people ranging from the overly single to no less than 3 men mistaken to be gay by women. It also consisted of a virgin as well and two people that wanted to find the love of their life not just hook up. These men I bet had no idea what they were in for when they signed up to be on the show though.

The first thing they do on the show is have them walk into a club to try and chat up women. Within 10 minutes of arriving to the show not ready at all for a night on the town the men are thrown to the fire. They are monitored via cameras setup in the club by Mystery and his wing people which changed from Season 1 to Season 2. The men are critiqued on everything from the way they walk into the bar to the way they stand. As well as their willingness to as they call it "use an opener and get into a set." The men with the worst criticism are those men whom do not try to approach women. The men whom are too scared to open a conversation with a woman are "average everyday chumps."

In one case one very shy man decided to dip his toe into the anxiety ridden waters of clubbing by chatting up some bros first. To this Mystery questions if they are sharing the same "kind of targets." Thus insinuating that said man is gay or bisexual, so, looking for other men for sets not women. Oh, women "in a set" are called Mysteries "targets." Even though approaching women and getting laid is not in anyway predatory the wording used throughout the show at times is quite unnerving. It is clear that it is because Mystery has a system and uses it. So, for him picking up women is simply using his system to achieve his goals. It is in fact a system that does indeed work as is shown throughout the process of training these men.

However, just because something works does not mean you should use it. Yes, the Mystery Method does work on at least a certain number of women. Yes, it does contain some parts within it that are not themselves bad or wrong, or anything. However, the good is covered in a lot of shit. Body language for sure can be very important. Yes, touching absolutely when appropriate can help escalate the mundane to the sensual for sure. Yes, tone and way of speaking can change someones impression of you. Yet, the first thing they do is to begin a process of complete change for these men. Starting with creating an Avatar almost like a new identity via switching how they dress. Some of the men even change their names.

From here things are beginning to ramp up for the men as they are introduced to opening, displaying higher value and getting into "a set." The first thing one notices is a stack of papers like 15 pages thick dropped in their lap. A first look at how literally systematic the method Mystery uses is. To the point of having written out what openings that can be used that work. Written down also are examples of dropping as they call it displays of higher value in a short time and the art of stacking. This leads to 5 minutes of the show with a condensed version of all the men literally memorizing all aspects of the 15 papers. Which includes reading back every single line to themselves like practicing to put on a play or a movie shoot. The audience already knows what these women will hear line for line and word for word before the approach happens.

This becomes what the audience will see every episode as the men are treated to lesson after lesson. Which they memorize like homework and are expected to play out and use with every single experience with the women they meet. So, it comes time for the Field Test as the men are going to be driven to the club for trying out their new techniques. Sure enough in they go and slowly they approach women. They begin saying the same words we have heard in the memorization faze. Mystery and his wing people watch from a van outside and critique them. However, not everyone is happy with canned lines and dropping hints of higher value that are predetermined by Mystery and the show.

Several of the men do not use the material given to them and wing it. Mystery and his people are not happy when their material is not used. They get quite agitated to see the men say what they want and not just regurgitating lines. They really get upset with men that use their own jokes or whom do not touch when they think they should. You should have rubbed her arm there, you should have kissed her there and so on. If a man gets a woman alone, but, does not escalate his desire to get a woman is questioned. Or if they decide to keep being around a woman's friends as opposed to spending time alone that too is frowned upon. Oh and too much in the comfort faze means they are just friends now.

If a man talks to a woman, has an amazing interaction, but, does not get a kiss, make-out or sexual vibes of some kind it is considered a failure to complete a challenge. Why? I guess in the minds of Mystery and his people a great and amazingly positive night of conversation without ending up all over each other is a waste of their time. So what if these men could not even talk to women without literally shitting themselves inside and now can talk up a storm and women do not scare them. Who cares that they kissed their hand or forehand, but, just not their lips and even got their number to contact them out of the interaction.

These men now have confidence and a feeling of being more than enough which is all they needed to have instruction in. They did not need instructions on how to tell compliance or escalation of Kenostetics. Although there is nothing wrong with knowing when to tell that a woman is showing indicators of interest it is clear Mystery only wants it done within his own system with its own goals. One does not need to go through all the shit infested in the half decent stuff here to be good with women. Knowing if someone is showing interest is not something that needs to be infested with Mysteries talk of "targets." The last thing that any man should have on his mind is anyone being a "target." That does not mean just women... any other individual should never be a "target."

As the series goes on occasionally the term "Alpha" shows up in things like the body language section of the show. Mystery will comment on the men sitting in an Alpha style or standing in an Alpha style. Also, there is somewhat talk here and there of taking control of the situation. The term Alpha Male in its entirety is not used all that often which was a surprise. Normally Pick Up types will use terms like Alpha Male quite a lot, and, so, it was interesting to see only certain traits called Alpha and not the man himself. It is surprisingly lax of use of the word which was a break away.

Yet, the confidence that is newly found is it really confidence at all? If these men needed to be made over to feel self-esteem and confidence did they really gain any? Every night they go out in the same Avatar outfit and eventually use the same or similar lines and get the same results. Is that really confidence? What if the lines blew? What if the woman knows all the lines? What if they had to walk into the club in their old clothes and were told to meet women? Could these men do that be whom they were and approach women? We will never know because they were in their Avatar persona every time expect one that they met women. So, is it confidence or a mask that they are comfortable acting through like acting out a part in their favorite play?

The Pick-Up conception of confidence and Alpha Males when they come up as well are often times shallow and based on a fake it till you make it sort of theme. The problem is that fake it till you make it was never intended as a psychological trick to erase your own self and replace it with a fake facade. Even in the broadest terms fake it till you make it would mean faking confidently being really you and showing up powerfully. Showing up as yourself and not going out for an entire new wardrobe to mask your insecurities with a veneer of ladies man. This is I fear a trap a lot of Pick Up men fall into and it is not healthy at all.

While by the end of the series some of these men seem to be better off we do not really know if they are as we never have any follow ups. They might have crashed and became socially anxious the moment they did not have a script and some nice clothes to wear. Mystery does teach these and other men some important skills and traits within his method. However, it is so top heavy with being fake and disingenuous. It is so filled with its own coded language that has no relevance to the real world. No one goes out "looking for sets." They go out look to socialize to have fun and hopefully for us that are into women a woman that clicks with you. I do not go out looking for "targets." Most men do not go out looking for "targets."

In fact, if I heard any man using the term "target" for anyone I was with regardless of sex I would tell them to get the fuck away from them. This is not some White Knighting; poor women being called targets by the big bad Pick Up artists. This is a genuine no one should be your "target." I would not care if women said the same thing about men I am not a woman's target either. In the end Pick Up Artistry contains a hint of OK truths, but, it is packed upon a mountain of bile that reaches the sky. I would not recommend Pick Up Artist training as a way to gain confidence. It definitely will not teach you long term "Alpha" to use a phrase traits either. It will only paint a fake coat of paint on you to make you look like something or someone you are not.

Once we get passed the fear and keep going that is real mastery in life! I got this covered!

Confessions of a "book club purist" on principal. Also, a bit more on immigration and borders.

Today I was watching The Rubin Report while nursing myself from not feeling 100% and ran across a term I have never heard before. That term was "book club purist" and it was surprising to hear it from a person whom I have often considered very reasonable. It was used to say that it was unreasonable to support the protection of individualism/individual rights via the non-initiation of force. That there was other things the government needs to do including being Nationalistic, That you need to take care of The Nation as a collective. I find this very odd for someone that has been an ex-candidate for the Libertarian Party of Canada. The person I am speaking of is Lauren Southern.

As someone whom is anti-collectivism in all its forms the idea of a libertarian whom is OK with collectivizing nation over individuals, and country over the person actually makes me roll my eyes. Followed by making me cringe and then have pause. I thought it was quite odd for her to make it seem like people whom were for the NIFP or the individual was anti-reality in some way. She made it seem like the County and Nations role is more than just to protect individuals. More than just centrally making sure that Objective Rule of Law exists and that NIFP/ZAP/NAP is enforced. More than just the defense of individuals and their rights, That somehow the Nation has rights when it does not.

Only individuals have rights and the sole nature of a moral and legally just government is to protect the rights of those individuals. The proper functions of a properly moral and just government is the courts, cops and defense from external threats usually through a military. The only moral way for it to exist is to exist on the basis of serving the individuals in the protection of said individuals. The only just way to do that is to be based on voluntary funding and the non-initiation of infringement of rights AKA NIFP/ZAP/NAP. Taxation breaks an individuals rights and is initiating harm on individuals. In other words I am a "book club purist." I would be identified as such under Lauren's rules and I would proudly wear that label if it is what it is.

This outcome is a logical outcome from the underlying individualism which underpins the entire idea of freedom itself. Freedom means nothing if the individual means nothing. Individualism, individual rights and individual thinking is The Trinity of Liberty; a term coined by The Objective Standard's Craig Biddle. It all comes back the individual and individualism vs collectivism. This is not to dismiss general trends either or that groups do exist. Or that statistics can and do show that certain people tend to be different ways. Nor does this mean dismissing evolutionary psychology as some Objectivist do. Nor does this mean biological determinism is wrong either if it in fact is right. It means that those individuals that make up those groups in themselves as individuals have individual minds. Have individual person-hood and this individual has rights.

This means that if you deny individualism at a fundamental level you are cutting off the legs on which freedom stands. If you place any group as having rights or worth above the individuals in the group on a person to person basis that is not going to be able to give a consistent defense of ones rights. The real culture war is not gays vs straights or men vs women, but, individualism (individual worth) vs collectivism (sacrificing ones worth and mind to an nonexistent hive mind,) This is the real philosophical war and cultural fight. I am an individualist. I am anti-collectivism in all its forms and I will say that unabashedly.

That does not mean I am against co-operation or being social. That does not mean I am against working in groups to get things done. That does mean the individual always comes first. Each of us individually as humans have individual worth and protecting that is what is important. The group has no right only the individuals inside of it. Remove the individuals and the group does not exist. I am a "club book purist." As I am against the idea of Nations superseding peaceful individuals in anyway. Thus I am anti-Nationalism as well. Whether it be economical or otherwise. It is a culture of individualism, individual thinking and individual responsibility based on peaceful living that needs to be saved. Not any culture of any specific ethnicity or Country persay.

Canadian Values are good and should be kept, yes, but, not because they come from Canada. Due to them being values that contain within them a history of things like rule of law and due process. Things like being able to be peaceful with your neighbor. If it was not Canada, but, some other Country that had values such as these and our local values were those of barbarians there would be no reason for some Nationalistic pride nor defense of our Country. We would be ashamed or should be ashamed and welcome people with enlightened values to be here instead. It is not due to the Nation, but, the Canadians. The individuals in the Country that the values are what they are. Individuals with values. Not because Nations are great or a Country because it exists is great.

I do not think my ideas will be put into practice anytime soon, but, that does not mean one should drop their ideas. My idea of a just and moral government is the one I lay out above. Anything else is not moral. However, we live in the real world and this I can agree with Lauren on. We do need to do what we can within the scope of reality as it exists. This does not mean we should be championing Nationalism though as against some Ghost called Globalism. Which is just extending Free Trade worldwide.

I am for both protecting us from dangers from outside the borders that do exist. As well as leaving the borders open to total unilateral free trade with the world into and out of the borders. I am a Globalist in the best sense of the word. I am Pro-Global Capitalism and I am pro a future where Nations protect the individual citizens, but, do not tell them whom they can or cannot sell to or from. Provided all parties are not committing criminal acts and not harming others. Someone in Canada should be able to sell things and buy things from anywhere in the world they can afford to buy/sell with.

Equally someone whom is not connected to criminal activity or terrorist groups should be able to travel anywhere they want for any reason they want full stop. If someone in the US wants to hire someone from another Country to work it is their private property and they get to control whom is allowed on it not the government. However, we do have a real threat in radical Islam. We are at War with a horrid ideology as Trump stated in his RNC speech. I agree with doing something to finally squash the threat and end this War for good. That does not mean that you can extend the treatment of a known threat to the treatment of all immigrants. (AKA Mexicans or any one else) Nor should you treat peaceful immigrants the same as the non-peaceful.

I am for anyone being able to cross the border that is deemed not to be a criminal nor a terrorist threat of some kind. This means the border of any Country in the West. That does not mean I support the way the mass immigrations have been dealt with either. That is immigration from an area that is a hotbed of terrorism without hardly any checking on them at all. You do not do that when you are at war with people in that region it is sacrificial and self-mutilating. I both think we are being pussies when it comes to the threat of Islam, but, also think as an individualist on this issue as well. People whom are attached to being criminal or sympathize with terrorist groups should be dealt with. Peaceful people should be left alone and once checked be given the means to have free movement around wherever they wish to go.

Illegal immigrants whom are not engaging in activities which are harming others or their property should be transitioned to being legal immigrants. Whereas illegals whom are committing crimes should be dealt with accordingly. Illegals with links to terrorist sympathizing views should also be dealt with accordingly. That does not mean you turn The West into Police States either. You do not sacrifice freedom for security without becoming a surf and with the existence of the filthy luger of taxation we are all surfs enough already as it is. What needs to happen is a constitutional and freedom compatible way of dealing with immigration. That is both principled on freedom as well as taking into account the world as it is. However, you cannot do anything that sacrifices freedom for the sake of reality.You can go in the direction of the ideal, but, never away from it. Or else you have given up on the ideas to begin with.

Manhood, Masculinity, Manliness : A re-orientation and review of masculine vs feminine

When I began this blog back in the end of last March and going into April I presented a very detailed explanation of masculine vs feminine. A very detailed outlay of manliness and manhood in general vs what some people think is manliness. In this post I am going to do a review of what masculine is vs feminine. What manliness in fact is VS not being manly. What manhood means in general.

The definition of masculine is as follows; having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man.  Of or relating to men or boys; male. Characterized by or possessing qualities traditionally attributed to men. Or things associated with a masculine brain/mind/spirit. 

The definition of feminine is as follows; Of or relating to women or girls.Characterized by or possessing qualities traditionally attributed to women, such as demureness. Effeminate; womanish. Or things associated with a feminine brain/mind/spirit. 

The definition of manliness is as follows; Of, relating to, or characteristic of men, especially when considered traditionally masculine, as in being courageous or direct. 

The definition of manhood is as follows; The state or time of being an adult male human. The composite of qualities, such as courage, determination, and vigor, often thought to be appropriate to a man. 

I want to point out to you that nowhere in these definitions taken from the Merriam -Webster dictionary do you see being a Football playing jock or anything. Not that I think jocks are bad people, but, I just want to point that out. Someone whom is a Comic Book geek or a Science Nerd could just as easily fall into this definition. Someone whom wears glasses with Pink frames (wink wink) falls into this definition too. There are things to do with masculinity that is so much more than surface level cues. I am all man, I am masculine as fuck, I am also someone that has had NSync and Backstreet Boys on my Youtube playlist.

I want to point out that so many of the surface and superficial bullshit out there bandied about to do with masculinity is not listed in the very definition of masculinity itself. That does not mean there are not any masculine or feminine things objectively. There absolutely is, but, superficial nonsense is not where those objectively masculine vs feminine things are. There is very much an inner core and life to masculine traits that exists. A=A and masculine = masculine, but, that does not = what everyone thinks it does. 

Masculinity VS femininity in a person is to do with ones mind/brain/spirit. It goes so much deeper than just the surface level BS that people take for the truth of the matter. It is made up of fundamental spiritual values at the core of a man and his being. Men; all men no matter whom they bed can have masculinity at their core. As long as they are in align with their Inner masculine core as a man. Something that can be accessed through serious introspection and realizing your inner nature as a man in our species. 

Have you as a man ever felt compelled deep from within to protect someone else? That is your manhood speaking, your masculine brain firing off testosterone soaked circuits to do your natural "job" so to speak. It is the primal part of your maleness talking to you; your evolutionary psychology and part of what makes you a masculine entity/spirit/brain/mind. Protection is a masculine spiritual virtue and value traditionally speaking. Men have traditionally for obvious reasons been the protectors of their tribe and it is from Sexual Dimorphism.

Have you as man ever felt compelled to provide for someone else; more than likely a woman or someone younger than you? Once again that is your masculine brain firing off primal urges to provide for women and children in your tribe from back in the days of Hunting and Gathering. So, wanting to provide for others is in fact an extension of misfiring in a way of looking after your woman and your offspring. This is a good misfiring because we can use it as a form of benevolence and good will towards others despite not being kin. 

These are only two of the many biologically masculine things that lie in all men; irregardless of whom you bed all men. By virtue of going through puberty and being drenched in testicle juice this is whom you are deep at a primal and evolutionary level if you are a male human being. Does this mean no women protect or provide for others? No, but, women that are doing this are showing for whatever reason to be displaying masculine tendencies and traits. Or as I call them Manly Women of Honor. Applaud them and give them a shout they rock!

What I think we really need is a re-orientation back to the true orientation and meaning of masculine. Away from the superficial BS spread by feminists and also equally BS spread my MGTOWS whom claim that wanting to protect/provide for women is a social construct. We also need to remove the collectivism inherent in both the feminist outlook and so many of the "brotherhood" people in the MRA. Both feminism and elements of the Men's Human Rights movement are just as collectivist. Philosophical altruism is underlying both movements. Men's drive to do men things is an individual drive. Neither all women nor other men as a collective hive mind are entitled to those drives. 
 
We also need to remove the idea that Pick Up Artists are somehow the only real men. Or that masculinity is the same as being able to get chicks left and right. Men need to be able to be happily masculine without a single woman around. Masculinity is not a performance it is a truism about men and the way our minds work. Let individual men celebrate as they so choose a re-orientation back to what it really does mean to be a grown ass man and not what idiots on both sides of the isle want men to be. Let us all just be ourselves; relish in the joys of being a man and all that means. In what it means to be ourselves. Just be ourselves irregardless of how others want to label us this or that.

Love and emotions are not the domain of "women." Loving and emotion is absolutley masculine/manly!

One of the biggest misunderstandings of manliness and masculinity is that it means one is an emotionless entity. That just because of masculinity being associated classically with a form of stoicism means that manliness means to be unfeeling. To be an uncaring and callous domination over others and things. This could not be further from the truth of manliness and masculinity. The truth of the matter is that manliness is filled with emotion and love. Men do express and act on their emotions differently than women usually, but, they still have them. To argue I as a man do not love or have emotions is to deny my humanity. To deny masculinity has an emotional component is to deny men have a consciousness at all.

I am going to argue that manliness and masculinity are built on core principles of nurturing. Those principles are protection, provision and production. Men are traditionally and historically the human animal that protects, provides and produces for other individuals. This includes guarding against the barbarians at the gates in our human history. It includes being the hunters of our species food and protection of those around them. It includes being historically the workers outside the home whom made the money and then provisioned it to ones wife and children. It was about producing the things needed to help you and your kin to survive.

All of these things are emotional as much as material. All of these are forms of nurturing other than breaking down into an emotional honey trap of tears while arrows fly at you. Emotional mastery as found in traditional masculine and manly archetypes is a form of emotional strength and resilience. It is also a form of self nurturing which helps to be able to do the things needed to nurture other people; including historically ones kin. You cannot have emotional mastery without emotions; even very intense and overwhelming emotions which you learn to nurture and master. Mastery is a form of love in a serious way.

Men protect other people throughout time immemorial. Please do not listen the to the rabid anti-history feminists whom claim history is built on men oppressing women. The truth is that it is the total opposite. Every single strict rule for women was put in not to oppress them, but, as a form of trading freedom for protection. Why did women not work? Due to how dangerous it was for women to work at the jobs that existed at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution that is why. It was a continuation of the idea of women being safe at home protected while men were out hunting for food. Any man that oppresses another person irregardless of gender is an aberration from a man and a brutal, savage monster. He is the opposite of masculine he is damaged.

Oh, wait you say, what about the vote? The vote was not a right it was a privilege associated with going to war associated with conscription. It was a way of protecting women from war and destruction not meant as a form of oppression. Not only that, but, not all men could vote only certain sectors and classes could. Women eventually got their right to vote, but, men never did. To this day Men in the USA NEED TO BY LAW register with Selected Service (AKA the list used for Drafts). Women do not meaning they have no responsibility to the Military they have something for nothing.

Does this mean I support those security over freedom rules? Of course not, but, it is not oppression at all. There is a specific definition of oppression and that would not be it. The point is that masculinity is not and never has been about oppressing other people. It has always been about protection, provision, production and I will also throw in procreation as well. It has been all about nurturing, but, just in a different way from women. Men, manliness and masculinity has always been emotional, loving and these things are not "feminine" or "womanly" things. Masculinity is nurturing at its core and manliness is definitely not cold or emotionless. Love is manly and love is masculine. Love is human after all!

Ringing in a New Year: Do not be afraid to have Shameless Pride in 2017 it is beautiful!

This passed 2016 is leaving us and 2017 is about to begin. It is time to go out with the old and in with the new. A time for saying to goodbye to whom we were and hello to whom we are now. A time to let the past go and embrace the now, our future. For me removing the old year and beginning a new includes saying goodbye to an unauthentic me. It includes ringing in the real me and presenting it in an authentic manor to all I meet. It includes forgiving ourselves and giving ourselves unlimited self--compassion. With letting things become a water under a bridge.

Tonight I was told I am the most kind-hearted person one of my co workers ever met. I must admit it touched me on a very personal level. We are going into the New Year and to know this made me very happy to know it. It showed me that indeed I am the man of value I prize myself on being. It helped to cement within my mind that I am that great man I always pride myself on being. It gives me even more practical confidence to expand my positive attitude even more. As this year gets under way I plan on ringing it in right. With a huge dose of shameless Christopher Pride!

So-called Academic Paper claims "masculine same sex attraction" is Male Misogyny.

Sometimes you read something so ludicrous it makes you feel like hitting your head on your desk. Recently I came across a paper that made me want to do just that till my head bled, but, as I am sane I did not. A group of Radical feminist Scholars in academia are claiming that masculine bisexual and homosexual men are somehow brainwashed fools. Or are devious fiends depending on how you read their paper. That they are in fact "becoming part of the masculine ideology of female oppression." Yes, men not sleeping with women are oppressing them if those men are not effeminate and are in fact manly men. The insanity is so high it leaks off the page into the air. 

It is pointed out that most effeminate bi and homosexual men stop being feminine and begin to de-feminize as they called it usually during or following their adolescents. Is this pointed out to be the obvious testosterone flood of hormones and brain chemistry during this formative time of a growing boys life? The most obvious culprit that they have if anything received the replacement flood for the testosterone they might have missed out on in the womb? Nope, not at all it is that they are giving into "their oppressors" the heterosexual patriarchy. I have never heard such ridiculous inane bullshit like this in a long, long time. 

So, manly and masculine homos and bis are basically Trojan Horses in disguise and they are even worse "repressing their true selves." Bullshit, masculine men that have or even might continue to be with other men are not "repressing their true selves." This is just what and whom they are and nothing more. The idea that bi and homosexual equals an effete pussy with a purse for a mouth and a swish for a walk is totally built up from a straw man. There are 6 pack ab, Greek god looking, swaggering Alpha male bis and homosexuals just as much as there is heterosexuals. 

This is insane! Most men whom have been with other men you would not even know had been. They do not walk around saying look at me I have been with another man. They are just a typical man with a typical masculinity. In fact, most men that have been with men turn out mostly straight as they grow up and more than likely end up in long term commitments to women. I have noticed this myself with myself currently having no desire to pair bond with a man. I would still sleep with one, but, I have no desire for a commitment to a man at this time. Nor is a man my first choice for mating, but, I am not going to deny with the right one I could. 

The role of biology and that we are talking about men is never considered in this article. The idea that a man could "masculinize" over time just due to internal hormonal and neurological forces is not even considered. The idea that men have a hormone called testosterone which when in balance and properly circulating tends to cause masculine behavior and interests is not even considered. That there is an interplay with society and nature or biology and neural programming is never considered. The idea that testosterone will change your voice when you get enough of a rush of it is not even considered. Or your walk or anything else they might be meaning.

Next we move onto their thesis that the only reason to detest Queens and "feminine" men is because of the hatred of women. First of all it is not true in the slightest. To point out that it seems exaggerated and performative over authentic when you run into a flaming queen is not saying you hate or detest said person. It is simply pointing out, "hey man you do not act like that all the time it comes and goes.. just be yourself." Also, there is a difference between being "feminine" and a catty toxic bitch like most "feminine" men act and Queens are the worst. They have all the worst traits of the biggest bitches and toxic women with a penis. Sorry, they just do! Trust me I have been around the community long enough to know!

I am not a fan of flaming gay men at all to be honest. Their attitude drives me crazy and I put that as the reason over anything else. It has nothing to do with a hatred of women or even the feminine per-say. It has to do with their attitude and it has to do with their behavior. On both scores they drive me batty and the fact that so many of them are presented as the face of bisexual or gay men drives me bananas. It is my opinion that "community" needs a major injection of men with proper masculine virtue and whom do not go out of their way to perform a stereotype. Give me a man whom is not closeted, but, not a camp "Queer Eye" wannabe any day! It is performative and it is annoying!

 

 

Keep a proper attitude it makes all the difference!!

A little bit on my views on the War on Terror.

I think Trump actually had a good idea when he said in his campaign we should stop all immigration from Countries affiliated with groups and ideologies in league with Radical Islam. Not permanently, but, until we have a much better vetting and screening process. As a freedom person I bet you expected me to be a pussy when it comes to the whole War on Terror, but, I am not a pacifist. NAP is not pacifism and I fully consider Islam a real threat governments need to be fighting.

We have been in a War with Islam within the West since the Iranian Hostage situation with the US in the 1970's. That is really when this all began not on 9/11. 9/11 was just one of the most horrendous moments in it. This is an old war really, but, it was not talked much about until 9./11 and it got its own name. The war on Terror, which is a ridiculous name. It is in fact the War with Islam and it always has been. My views are contrary to many libertarians on this issue and the nature of this threat. It is a serious threat akin to the Nazis and WWII and we are not hardly even fighting. We are laying down letting the threat take us out little by little.

We need to do to the various Radical Islam ideology what we did back then. We need to eliminate the threat and yes that means lots of people will lose their life, but, the threat needs to be taken out completely, so, peace can come back. We need to do to Terrorists and their funding sources what we did to the Nazis. Take them out; first give the ultimatum and then no follow through we eliminate them. Yes, that means we need to give Iran an ultimate and then act on it if they do not stop funding terrorist groups. Yes, I mean threaten to attack and do so if they do not comply. Iraq was the wrong target it was not responsible for the terrorist threat, but, Iran is a major cause of it.

We also need to do the same thing with Saudi Arabia; give them an ultimatum to stop supporting Radical Islamic terrorism. If they do not comply well we also go after them too. Those are the real big funding sources of terrorism as well as where most of the propaganda comes from. It was not Iraq that the USA should have gone after. Afghanistan can be seen as a just retaliation to 9/11 to remove a threat. However, the hijackers were all Saudi's after all. In my opinion The West has not been too harsh on fighting Islam, but, not defending itself strong enough. Not being serious enough about eliminating the threat at its true sources. We also need to work on internal Radicals on a more serious level as well.

Yes, you heard me right we are not fighting the war strong enough. This is because we are not fighting wisely we keep choosing bad targets that do not need to be taken out. While over looking all of the legitimate targets we should be working towards dealing with and eliminating. We have been too altruistic and made it into a "War for spreading democracy." Into a "World Police," and it is not is it is a matter of self-defense against legitimate threat which needs to be eliminated. We should not care about spreading anything. We should only care about keeping The West and the citizens in the West safe from a threat. Doing what needs to be done to do that no matter how messy that might be in the process. We need to defend the innocent against these Radical killing machines at all costs.

I am not a warhawk that is wanting War for the sake of war. Not at all, but, Islamic Jihad is too much of a real and ever present threat akin to the Nazis that I cannot take a do nothing position like so many libertarians take. Once the threat is eliminated we will be able to have peace. However, you cannot have peace when we are in this situation that we are in right now. We need to eliminate the threats and be serious about it now, so, that we can have the peaceful Global Capitalist world all freedom lovers want for the future. Hell, once we eliminate the threats then maybe we can have those Open Borders libertarians love so much. However, not while we have a serious threat we have not yet eliminated.

Why I will fight peacefully for the right of a "community" I find toxic

I talk a lot about how toxic GBLT communities are on here and how they are toxic. I stand by this statement and will not take what I have said back. However, that does not mean I want these peoples rights to be toxic curtailed by The State in fact far from it. The best way to learn to be more moral is to reap what you sew and not to have force initiated on you. These people will get what is coming to them naturally and one does not use force because one has a disagreement even over concretes. Unless that concrete is the initiation of force itself. 

The toxic community should have its own ability to live as it sees fit no matter how toxic that is. People whom are Kinsey 5-7's have the same individual rights as people not on the scale or at the Straight end like me. I do not wish harm on said individuals which is why I want to point out that the world is not crumbling. Trump will not be repealing Marriage rights or anything of the sort. In addition, even if he did want to he cannot it is a Supreme Court Ruling. The USA system does not work that way.

Everyone has individual rights and own themselves, anything else is to condone slavery. So, toxic people have the right to be toxic. They also have the need to face consequences and reap what they sew they do not get protected from themselves. If Mr. Pence decided to initiate force against the community I would be the first to step in line to defend them. I might not agree with the type of people you are and your mindset. I might not agree with your behavior and exclusivity, but, I sure as hell will fight for your right to exist on this Earth. Individual rights are just that INDIVIDUAL rights. 

You can Stump the Trump and riots are not peaceful protests.

Once again I am writing about this fated election of Donald J. Trump and the response is insane. I mean insane and crazy! People claim Trump is crazy, but, the response to his election is even more insane. Riots are not peaceful protests and it is peaceful protests that are protected under the natural right of self-expression. Not the act of going around and putting other people's lives or property in danger by initiating violence or threatening it. Which is exactly what these rioters are doing in response to the election. Regardless of your views on Trump and Pence none of that excuses harming others or their property. 

That does not include blocking traffic and literally holding people captive on the sidewalks. That does not include threatening to use violence against Trump and his administration. That does not include talking about casualties like this is another Civil War within the USA. Obama has peacefully transitioned with a handshake to the Trump elect. While I think Obama is a corrupt douche he at least is not being a vile scum when it comes to the transition of power. These people that are rioting I have 0 respect for. These people that are looting, settings things on fire and threatening to harm Trump supporters are vile, scum. They might not be bad people deep inside, but, their ideology is evil and has tuned their mindset to vile acts of negative expressions. 

You can stump the Trump and it does not require you to threaten violence against him or his supporters. Nor does it require using violence or threats thereof towards peoples property. Nor does it require blocking streets and turning the USA into a war zone. Congress, the Senate and the House can stump him on anything that his fellow Republicans and remaining house Democrats do not agree on pursuing. One does not need to resort to violence against innocents. In fact, it is never moral to use violence against innocents. Violence and threats of are only moral as a form of self-defense against an initiated threat of the same manor. 

What the Leftists and other extremist Progressives are doing right now is showing how shallow and immoral their views are. They seem nice and flowery on the outside, but, all they know is coercion and forcing people to do their bidding. Even if the Country voted for a view counter to theirs they cannot take it and need people to fall into line. This is insane, it is immoral and it is not something that I think should be happening. Nor is it something the Police should be letting happen. We have riot police for a reason use them to help the innocent against the violent thugs infesting the US streets and show mercy only on those whom will not continue their violence. 

Libertarians are at civil war and it all goes back to the importance of moral philsophy and ideas.

I came across an article last night with detailed how John McAfee and Daryl W. Perry were refusing to vote for Gary Johnson for president. This has caused quite a stir in the Libertarian Party in the US. It has caused these folks to be trashed and denounced for hurting the cause. For caring more about themselves than the "movement." For themselves than the spreading of liberty. Something I find quite ironic considering that all the Libertarian Party is supposed to require is agreeing with the philosophy of libertarianism. The last time I checked libertarianism was an individualistic philosophy. 

Of course; this could be seen as something foreshadowed in the debates for the presidential nominee for the party. As Gary Johnson was the most middle of the road person out of all of the choices. His VP is so moderate he is hardly libertarian really and he is only slightly more libertarian leaning. Gary Johnson is s better choice than Trump or Hillary for sure, but, he lacks a grounding in the philosophy that is concrete and not just abstract. For example; his views on not letting bakers refuse gay wedding cakes is authoritarian and not libertarian.

Objectivists often argue that without a concrete grounding libertarians let in too much unprincipled people in the name of a big tent. While there is staunch venom that will sometimes come from objectivists towards anyone that even uses the label libertarian they sometimes do have a point. Even if said individual objectivists make the rest of the objectivists look dogmatic. The argument is that politics without moral philosophy first leads to an abstraction that is too open to the point of being useless. Too much of a big tent lets anyone in at all and not just actual liberty folks.

The truth is that libertarianism has a moral viewpoint a philosophy if you will despite them often claiming there is not. Their need to distance themselves from objectivists in having an actual philosophy or ideology makes them back off even the most important core of a freedom philosophy. Whether you are an objectivist, libertarian, or a radical for capitalism. All of them are housed on the same concrete. That is the non-initiation of coercion, force, zero aggression principle. Which is a moral philosophy! It is an ideology in the best and most wonderful definition of the word.

The thing that links all Capitalists together is the NAP/NIFP/NICP/ZAP or "as long as you harm none the government leaves you alone." This is due to us all needing to be able to think for ourselves and make decisions free of coercion from others on our mind or our body. Or we are not free we are serfs, we are slaves and we are chattel. It is because we own our minds and bodies that we get to own our external property as well. Gary Johnson is no libertarian and neither is his VP. He is an ex-Republican that simply switched parties while continuing to be in the uncentered center, the muddled middle and half poison moderate.

For those whom did not know consider this my coming out on this Manhood blog as me being on The Right. I am hell of not a moderate, in the middle nor the uncentered center. I am of The Right, and I am right. I have the right view to a moral society to leave peaceful people alone. The Right is "the right" view for a truly prosperous, free and civilized society. Theocracy and Fascism which is often considered on the right is in fact both extreme Left ideologies which do not honor people's private use, obtaining and maintaining of their own property. One in the name of a fake idol called God and the other a false idol called Government or The State.

Libertarians abandoning being of The Right makes them no longer libertarian as they are no longer for liberty as they are no longer part of the broader Freedom Philosophy. Gary Johnson is better than Trump or Hillary, but, he is still not "the right" choice. Austin Peterson as much as I am not a fan is much more within the freedom philosophy. OK, I am going to say it, there is no left libertarian, there is no moderate libertarian, there is no center libertarian. You leave The Right and you are not libertarian you are not for liberty you are for small amounts of poison seeping into a healthy body of philosophy and only The Left wins. Only the State wins.

You are of The Right or you are just wrong; dead wrong and economically ignorant. There is nothing else, but, The right that is right. You do not need to be a libertarian, or an objectivist or a radical for capitalism. However, you are of The Right if you think all peaceful people should be left alone. You are of The Right and right morally if you are for leaving people alone whom are not harming others. You cannot want to admit it, but, pro-peace is pro-The Right. OK, there I said it, I am of the Right.
I am not ashamed in fact I am proud of my rightness. If you have issues with that fuck off!

If you need more understanding of The Right vs The Left I recommend a few things to check out;

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/06/political-left-and-right-properly-defined/
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2016/07/liberal-right-vs-regressive-left-and-religious-right/ 
http://www.justrightmedia.org/BROADCASTS-2013/20130912-justRIGHT-317-LEFTnRIGHT-justRIGHT-Syria.mp3 
http://kentforliberty.com/zap.html
https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org/mental-lever/zero-aggression-principle/


Here is the thing though I am not going to be dick to you if you are more leftist than me. I will not respect your political or economical or even your morals possibly, but, I will not treat you like an ass. I am after all, all about being a man of value and the right will do better to show we are for trading value for value by living that way. Show people what capitalists are really like by living as a person whom is great. Be a capitalist trading value for value using the trader principle. Show people how wonderful capitalism and voluntarily ran life is VS authoritarianism is. Lead by example and not crushing people like a bully. Be the Great Guy Alpha Beast and not the small scared bully!

Yggdrasill - Viking Pagan Folk Song

Viking nordic song Herr Manneling & Yggdrasil

The heart of masculinity is pure and passioanate love; sometime's overly assertive and sometime's overprotective, but, love!

What I am about to say will sound sort of Woo Woo to some and out to lunch to others. Especially those whom dislike manliness and masculinity in men. However, I am coming to realize the more I age and the more of time I am a man on this earth the heart of manliness and masculinity is a pure love. A love that is passionate; sometimes can be aggressively passionate and overly assertive, but, love. The heart and soul if you will of every man is love and passionate love pulsating every pour.

Providing and protecting is an act of love and benevolence towards the people a man loves and the others in the world whom might need that same protection/provision. Aggression while so often dehumanized is often an intense and passionate display of love as well. Used in defending the tribe in ancient times against invading hordes and also still to this day in protecting a man's family, or nation in defensive action.

Soldiers are not horrible vile scum, no matter what the anti-veteran types try to fling. Cops are mostly good despite often enforcing horrid laws and sometimes using excessive force. The Cop is using aggression, but, only does it because he has been told it is protecting the innocent from the predatory. The answer is to make the laws no longer go after Victimless Crimes and not to have denigrated men whom are cops. It is all an act of passionate love and aggressively helping the innocent. It is masculinity personified.

When it comes to the often sited "male domination," this too is love. No, seriously it is love as well. Males dominating the work force in certain places is an act of love. Men naturally love certain things it is part of being a man and having a masculine brain. Those things he loves happen to be the most dangerous and deadly jobs. He dominates them because he loves them despite their dangers. Why? He is doing his natural duty Mother Nature is tyrannical and they are listening to that hormone soaked brain. Following their desires and in by taking jobs most women do not want they are loving those women by protecting them from the deadly and dangerous jobs.

Same can be said of the idea of Males leading. A male leading is not evil, vile and far from it. Men leading are taking charge and putting themselves out there. Putting themselves into the most dangerous places for rejection or heart break. As well as danger from leading with an idea that might make them homeless in a month if no one buys the idea. Men being most of the CEO's are in fact protecting the women whom might not be able to take such stress from having to worry about the life of a leader.

One can literally go down a whole list of things men do just in a single day that is out of love. Out of nothing, but, love for themselves and others. All men, and not just some men. By all I mean the majority; the fucked up minority does not represent the masculine of the species. All of the majority love and do due to love every day of their lives. Masculinity is built on love; first on that positive selfishness of soul called self-respect and a proper self-esteem. From their it moves outwards like a wave among everyone they deal with. Love and pure, positive, radiant love. That is masculinity.

The majority of men are good. I am good, the man reading this is good if there are any. Masculinity is good, no it is better than good. It is a Universal need it is a necessity of existence. Reality does not make any sense without it. You cannot have femininity without masculinity. As they say yin and yang need to exist. Every man; from the most vanilla man to the ones whom consensually tie their mates and fuck them ALA Christian Grey. Every man is probably you will find good. Or at least CAN be good! The natural nature of the human male is good, and evil men are MADE not born.

People need to learn to look behind the external. Even the most aggressive, violent behavior can come from a positive, purely loving intended place. Masculinity in its heart and soul is purely positive goodness. Yes, yes, I am saying MOST men are excellent people. That does not mean there are not evil men there are. Again, they are MADE not born all evil men and evil women were born GOOD and MADE evil. Evolutionary Psychology says we are not noble savages to which I agree. However, even the savages that killed did it because of their instincts to protect their own; which is an instinct of love.

I also think the true heart of the feminine is love. Radical feminists and harpies make a horrid mess of femininity and make it seem vile. When it too is made at its heart of love, and goodness, motherly nurturing goodness. However, the feminine is not under attack and undermined by societies while masculinity is. It never should be and never should have been marked as bad. Love, yes, LOVE, is the heart of all integrated men. For it is the heart of all masculinity from a very primal place in our species and The Universe. Masculinity is love and love is masculinity. To love deeply is one of the most manly things in the world.