True Liberalism is of the right and not the left end of the political spectrum.

Craig Biddle of The awesome Objective Standard wrote an amazing article pointing out why the left is not liberal in anyway shape or form. That "the left" is an anti-liberal and anti-freedom political point of view and always has been. That "the left" is an immoral and anti-reason mindset that has always been anti-freedom. Which is simply a fact.

The Eugenics movement which took numerous lives and involuntarily sterilized whole demographics of people was "of the left." Hitler and Nazis are "the left." Mussolini and his fascist views were a variant of socialism and thus "of the left." It was the "left Democrats" in the early American Independence that supported slavery and fought against the "anti-Slavery Republicans" on "the right."

It was the "the right-wing" H.L Menken whom also called himself a "liberal," and a "libertarian" whom pushed to end the prohibition of alcohol. It was the "leftist," including the first feminists whom were pro-prohibition of alcohol. Women's groups went around with slogans like "lips that taste liquor will never taste ours." It was the right-libertarian and "liberal-right" heritage where you will find all of the pushes for extended liberty to all. It is the "left wing" at it's most radical and thus it's root that you find every extension of state overreach and power.

The term right should not be shed, but, instead shown proudly by rightists. The right is the true liberal and the true liberal's home is on the right. He or she is a person on the right end of the spectrum and not the left. A consistent liberal is a capitalist and a consistent capitalist is a right-liberal. Really, all labels such as right-wing libertarian, Constitutional Republican, Objectivist, Laissez-Faire Capitalist are really just other labels for classical liberal. Or a consistent liberal or a member of the broader right.

Rightism is the views of the right and the views supporting of protection of individual rights. Of views like those mentioned above and it does not include those whom would use states to push their values on others with force. Rightism supports protection of freedom, liberty and individual rights for all. It is views that support the notion of the Non-Initiation of Coercion on ones neighbor. That this is an imperative and must be protected. That it is the only moral framework for a society of civilized people and that retaliatory force in self defense is a moral good.

Rightism is also rational and reasonable. The more you tip your toes into irrational politics the more leftist you are becoming. It is truth vs fantasy running the world. Rightism is the moral and practically right approach to economics and politics.

In conclusion we need self-love, compassion and respect that our views are correct. They are in accordance with facts of reality and we can have pride in our intellectual rigor. Do not let the leftist sympathizers get you down. The regressive-left is not liberal and never has been liberal. You and I have been the True Liberals all along and always will be! Let the haters hate just do not initiate coercion on them. Let them stew in their delusional nonsense and reality will let them reap what they have sewn.

Ayn Rand and The Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged (archive.org)

Ayn Rand & the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged is a feature length
documentary film that examines the resurging interest in Ayn Rand’s epic
and controversial 1957 novel and the validity of its dire prediction
for America.

Set in what novelist and philosopher Rand called ‘the day after
tomorrow,’ Atlas depicts an America in crisis, brought to her knees by a
corrupt establishment of government regulators and businessmen with
political pull – the ‘looters’ and the ‘moochers’ – who prey on
individual achievement.

Less a conventional work of fiction than a philosophical manifesto in
the form of a romantic novel, over the course of a thousand-plus pages,
Atlas tackles no less an essential argument than the one debated by
philosophers and theologians since time immemorial: altruism vs.
self-interest. Am I my brother’s keeper – or not? For Ayn Rand, the
answer is an emphatic no. To Rand and the disciples of her Objectivist
philosophy, self-sacrifice is as heinous an act as murder…murder of the
soul.

Upon publication, Atlas Shrugged was widely scorned by critics for
its ‘preposterous’ plot and one-dimensional characters. Intellectuals
and academics from across the ideological spectrum roundly dismissed the
new and original philosophy called ‘Objectivism’ that Rand so
compellingly illustrated in the novel.

Despite this pummeling, Atlas became a best seller and has remained
in print ever selling a healthy 75,000 or so copies each year. Then
with the new century, sales began to increase dramatically. In 2007,
its fiftieth anniversary year, Atlas sold a record 180,000 copies.
Since then Atlas Shrugged – published over a half century ago – has
sold over a million copies.

Why? Because – as evidenced by pointed and frequent references to
Rand and Atlas Shrugged in the media – an increasing number of Americans
– right or wrong – see their society devolving into a nightmare
scenario like the one Rand projected over a half century ago.

Ayn Rand & the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged looks into Rand’s
background for the ideas and philosophy that inspired and shaped her
novel and seeks to determine whether America is indeed headed for the
disastrous outcome she predicted.

The Penultimate defense of the proper left and right.

I recommended anyone that is considering dropping the left-right spectrum and the defense of rightist as defenders of individual rights read Craig Biddle's recent essay in The Objective Standard. They are committing numerous fallacies by making it seem that saying rightist is freedom and individualism is incorrect or to be shunned. As Craig Biddle correctly points out it is the very nature of any political spectrum to have a rights side and an authoritarian side. We need to explain and provide proper definitions for the right Vs the left hand pole not pretend there is no left and right poles to a political spectrum.


As Craig Biddle points out so eloquently in his article;

One way in which people commit this fallacy is by assuming that we can abandon the left-right political spectrum and speak strictly in terms of a statism-capitalism spectrum or a collectivism-individualism spectrum without correcting misconceptions about the left-right spectrum. That may sound great—until we think about it, reflect on the broader context, and realize that a two-pole spectrum by its very nature has a left side and a right side.10 No matter which words we place on the opposite ends, the spectrum will still have a left side and a right side; thus, people will still think about it and refer to it in terms of left and right.11

This is 100% correct that there is not a single spectrum that exists that does not have two poles a left and a right pole of the spectrum. The idea that the Nolan Chart or multi-axis Charts are the answer is factually obliterated in Craig's other masterful work, "The Muddy Waters of The Nolan Chart."

We need to define the essentials objectively and properly; then make our home without shame on the side that is "right." Which is the Right of the spectrum on the side of individual rights and non-initiation of coercion or consent based societies. It is Capitalism the social system; the only moral social system; the Political Right on which classical liberals, constitutional republicans, Objectivists, Laissez-Fairest, et cetera reside. One needs to defend their rightness on the spectrum as well as in matters of facts. The political right represents the morally proper system of social interaction. As visualized and clarified on the below spectrum.

Bob Metz is Just Wrong when it comes to The Essentialized Political Spectrum

Last night I was listening to archived episodes of Just Right Radio when I came across his episode on The Objective Standard's essentials based political spectrum. I have done an article on this previously in which I pointed out the episode was a misinterpretation of the essay attached to the spectrum. However, this time I realized I had missed the most important thing about this episode. The fact that nowhere in the episode does he even mention the essay/article which explained the spectrum he was looking at.

Instead of reading one of the many, many articles on The Objective Standard which explained the views of the periodical on left vs right Bob acted like a stubborn mule. He simply evaded/ignored any explanation given in great detail by Craig Biddle on the subject. This was very wrong on his part and he did not even bother to investigate and/or present anything from Craig's marvelous essays/articles on the subject of the left-right spectrum. I wish to address some of his biggest mistakes below.


1. The Essentialized Political Spectrum ignores the binary nature and polarity of left vs right.

Bob claims that Craig Biddle thinks that there is no binary within politics. That essentially left vs right contains no absolutes or does not define to opposite ideological views of the nature of government. However, this is not the case at all and if he did even 4 minutes of research via looking over the various articles available under the political spectrum tag he would know he was dead wrong on this matter.

When it comes to explaining the problem with the Nolan Chart used by some whom favor liberty Craig points to just this binary polarity.

"The Nolan chart treats the realm of politics as non-binary when, in fact, it is binary. 

Politics is about freedom and force. Freedom is the condition in which a person is free to act on his judgment. Force is the opposite: To the extent that force is used against a person, he cannot act on his judgment; he is forced to act against it. 

In terms of essentials, politics is either-or: Either you are (fully) free to speak your mind about controversial issues—even when doing so offends others—or you are not. Either you and your doctor are (fully) free to contract by mutual consent to mutual benefit—or you’re not. Either you and your lover are free to marry—or you’re not. Either you and a potential employer or employee are free to negotiate wages in accordance with your respective judgment—or you’re not. 

The Nolan chart presents the basic alternatives in politics as non-binary and “nuanced.” But the alternatives are in fact binary and, when presented properly, vivid. The Nolan chart does not clarify the basic alternatives; it obfuscates them."

Unlike what Bob Metz paints Craig Biddle as believing about ideological fundamentals he does understand left vs right correctly in their essentials.


2.  The existence of the middle is a myth and there is no such thing as mixed ideologies or "the center." 

Bob Metz claims that there is no middle in the political spectrum and that a center is in fact a myth. His reason for believing this is the binary nature of freedom vs force, but this is to deny reality. In reality most people are not far left and most people are not on the Right. Most mainstream voters are in fact mixed in their ideological precepts around politics. Most people are not on The Right AKA for Pure Lassiez-Faire as the essentials spectrum defines The Right.

Nor are most people on the actual far left or extreme left. They are not pure Capitalism proponents nor are they pure Socialism proponents. They are for a mixed economy of some sort they are for "a degree" of infringement of the initiation of non-consent principal. Most people are not consistent ideologically because they are not totally coherent philosophically. They are working on mixed premises which leads to being in the very real middle of the left-right political spectrum.

Which means that they are to some "degree" to the left and thus middle not on The Right. Due to not doing research on what the middle means Bob Metz makes it seem as though Craig Biddle, I, or anyone else that uses the essentials spectrum are the ones denying reality. When in fact, it is Bob and his ignorant stubbornness that is causing him to evade the reality of the mainstream being a mixed premises. This is why Capitalism proponents and liberty lovers can find support depending on the policy from people in various parties/think tanks around the Globe.

"Observe the clarity gained by this conception of the political spectrum. The far left comprises the pure forms of all the rights-violating social systems: communism, socialism, fascism, Islamism, theocracy, democracy (i.e., rule by the majority), and anarchism (i.e., rule by gangs). The far right comprises the pure forms of rights-respecting social systems: laissez-faire capitalism, classical liberalism, constitutional republicanism—all of which require essentially the same thing: a government that protects and does not violate rights. The middle area consists of all the compromised, mixed, mongrel systems advocated by modern “liberals,” conservatives, unprincipled Tea Partiers (as opposed to the good ones), and all those who want government to protect some rights while violating other rights—whether by forcing people to fund other people’s health care, education, retirement, or the like—or by forcing people to comply with religious or traditional mores regarding sex, marriage, drugs, or what have you."

Bob Metz is a mule stubborn beyond compare and he needs to learn to admit when he makes mistakes. As much as he seems to think he is unable to be wrong in this case it is Craig Biddle that is Just Right.

The modern socialist embraces the best of the fruits of Capitalism well denouncing their cause.

Proper Pride is a virtue

Craig Biddle and Carl Barney pamphlet on Liberty

Recently The Objective Standard released a pamphlet that explains Liberty from the ground up. I highly suggest that anyone whom wishes to understand Liberty and the importance of a secular/rationally factual based footing download/view it. 

The Rubin Report | Ayn Rand's Philosophy on Helping the Poor, Capitalism, and Human Nature

Ayn Rand's philosophy on social safety nets, capitalism, human nature and more.

The Penultimate defense of the proper left and right.

I recommended anyone that is considering dropping the left-right spectrum and the defense of rightist as individual rights read Craig Biddle's recent essay in The Objective Standard. They are committing numerous fallacies by making it seem that saying rightist is freedom and individualism is incorrect or to be shunned. As Craig Biddle correctly points out it is the very nature of any political spectrum to have a rights side and an authoritarian side. We need to explain and provide proper definitions for the right Vs the left hand pole not pretend there is no left and right poles to a political spectrum.


As Craig Biddle points out so eloquently in his article;

One way in which people commit this fallacy is by assuming that we can abandon the left-right political spectrum and speak strictly in terms of a statism-capitalism spectrum or a collectivism-individualism spectrum without correcting misconceptions about the left-right spectrum. That may sound great—until we think about it, reflect on the broader context, and realize that a two-pole spectrum by its very nature has a left side and a right side.10 No matter which words we place on the opposite ends, the spectrum will still have a left side and a right side; thus, people will still think about it and refer to it in terms of left and right.11

This is 100% correct that there is not a single spectrum that exists that does not have two poles a left and a right pole of the spectrum. The idea that the Nolan Chart or multi-axis Charts are the answer is factually obliterated in Craig's other masterful work, "The Muddy Waters of The Nolan Chart."

We need to define the essentials objectively and properly; then make our home without shame on the side that is "right." Which is the Right of the spectrum on the side of individual rights and non-initiation of coercion or consent based societies. It is Capitalism the social system; the only moral social system; the Political Right on which classical liberals, constitutional republicans, Objectivists, Laissez-Fairest, et cetera reside. One needs to defend their rightness on the spectrum as well as in matters of facts. The political right represents the morally proper system of social interaction. As visualized and clarified on the below spectrum.

The meme speaks for itself

The right to self-defense is as much a personal right as marriage.

John Stossel | Greed (ABC 20/20 - 1998) (with English subtitles)

Trump is not a Rightist and he is no Republican either

Before I go ahead with writing this article I need to provide definitions on what I mean by rightist and what I mean by Republican. By a Republican I mean someone whom is in favor of a government limited to the functions vital of a functioning free society. Specifically, limited to the use of defensive force against those whom are harming others and their property. With all of the proper limits, checks, balances and separations of powers. By rightist I mean in favor of the elimination of the initiation of a breaking of consent among society. To me to be "right" is the equivalent of being an Auberon Herbert "voluntaryist" or in the modern day equivalent to be for Capitalism.

Whom is on the right? Auberon Herbert based "volunatryists," Constitutional Republicanism, Classical Liberalism, Capitalism, better and consistent Right-Libertarians (fiscally responsible/socially tolerant types VS actual libertarianism philosophy or movement which is an ammoral and immoral mess). It also includes anyone that would consider themselves a radical for capitalism.

I find the best way to illustrate what I mean by The Right is the below chart/spectrum which shows what I consider leftist vs rightist and why you might actually be on the right on some issues in my definition.

  

In my view pro-same sex marriage legalization is on the right as it is for granting choice to consenting adults to own and use their bodies as they see fit. It is removing force from peaceful peoples lives. However, at the same time so is being pro-choice on abortions as it is about removing force on peoples lives. It is leftist to be pro-government using force in peoples lives. So, anyone that claims to be "right-wing," but, then is for adding more initiation of coercion that person is to the left or even depending on how much force the extreme left on that issue. A lot of you would be on The Right to me in social or personal issues, but, most more to the left on using force in the economy through taxation, regulations and the like. This places you in the degrees of leftism which is considered the moderate middle of modern Liberalism (as opposed to Classical Rightist Liberalism) or modern Conservatism.

I needed to setup the above opposition of views to show why I contend that Trump is not a Rightist and he is not a Republican in any sense of the actual definition. He is anti-Free Trade and pro-Tariffs which means that he is against the Global system of individual rights and thus anti-Capitalist. He has much more in line with classical Fascists and even certain forms of Socialism than he is a Capitalist. He is for initiating coercion into the lives of peaceful "illegal" immigrants whom he does not feel have the individual human rights the government is supposed to defend as their core reason for existing. Individual rights belonging to humans does not stop because they entered your Country through your borders.

In fact, if he was President in 1920's USA Ms. Rand would be rounded up and deported back to her very likely death in ironically of all places Russia. (Ironic, given how much Trump admires the Communist Dictator Putin.) This is because her way of getting here would not be allowed and she would be deemed illegal in his definition these days. What the US needs is a truly Rational and Reality based means of immigration.

I am in favor of Open Immigration for anyone that is not carrying an infectious disease, is an actual criminal (like the actual gangs of sex traffickers and such) and those whom are connected to/receive funds from organizations connected to or are themselves terrorists or terrorist material. This does not mean no screening at all and absolutely no border control. It means that you have one easy to access and easy to get screened for, and easy to cross border for new citizens to come through Openly VS Closed off borders.

In matters of trade I am for full Unilateral Free Trade globally for all. Capitalism is not a local thing, but, a universal and global thing. It is in essence of the system a Globalist or Globalism system of unfettered lassiez-fair trade across borders. Individuals and groups of individuals get to engage in consensual trade between each other for mutual benefit to mutual advantage, in win/win mutual exchanges or you are not in Capitalism. You get to hire workers from anywhere as well and that is part of trade. Free Trade and Open Immigration are corollary to one another. Labor should be open to as much of  Unilateral Unfettered Lassiez-Fair trade as goods or services are.

This ironically is also the position Mike Pence used too have before he became Vice Presidential Candidate and then VP with Trump. He used too be much more Capitalistic in that sense, was for TPP and NAFTA for example. The point is that Trump is not a Capitalist if anything he is a Crony and he is actually well modeled in the villains in Atlas Shrugged. Whom used lobbying and pull, connections between the State and Economy to get their way over consensual trade between individuals. He is not as some have called him an Ayn Rand Hero he is someone Ms. Rand would hate and she would be rolling in her grave.

Finally, I need to erase any sort of conclusions you might be making based on a flawed view of what I mean by Capitalism. I do not mean Corporatism, Lobbyism, Cronyism, et cetera. What I mean by Capitalism is not even just the existence of Capitalists either. Capitalism is a form of social system with a distinct identity and character which separates it from all other ISMS. It is in essence consensualism or Voluntaryism. It is a free society it is a true market free of any sort of coercion backed monopolies or anything of the like.

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The sort of social system I support does not really exist fully anywhere in any Country at this time nor in anytime in history. Capitalism is not a Conservative idea no matter how Conservatives steal and hijack the term for their own intruding into peoples rights for the sake or religion or tradition or family values. Capitalism is not a system of yesterday, but, as Ayn Rand said is the "Unknown Ideal." The ideal setup and system which has not yet been fully put into practice anywhere on this Earth. It is a forward looking system. In fact, it was the system and vision of the world of the Classical Lassiez-Fair Liberals. Of a world united in Individualism, Individual Enlightenment thinking and Individual Rights. This is what I mean by Capitalism; this is what I mean by The Right and those whom are of The Right and what a True Constitutional Republican would be defending too.

 In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. They can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit. The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree—and thus keeps the road open to man’s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind.

This is what it means to be fully of The Right it means to be for this view of the world. Trump has a malevolent sense of life he sees not opportunity not for win/win solutions, but, only the win/lose. There is no understanding of the need for greater philosophy either. He is a dead end road of pure pragmatism and populism with no sense of underlying principles or code of virtues to guide what he wants in life. He is an amoral at best and grossly immoral at worst human being. He is the kind of savage one dare not meet in a black alley on their own without a weapon to defend you. For he has no underlying code other than to trample others. This is not the code of a proper business man it is the code of the Highway robber, the code of the irrational whim worshiping mystic and a horrific second handed mentality.

Trump is as far from reality, reason, morality and rights as a President could get and he admires dictators of all stripes; look at his gushing over North Korea and Putin previously. This is not a good day for the American Dream and I fear where this is leading the West. USA please wake up you voted in a Wolf in Sheep clothing better snap out of it well you can. Before your Country is changed so fundamentally the World does not recognize Lady Liberty because she is dead in the name of Making America Great Again (for the Cronies.)

The Alt-Right is Completely and totally Alt-Wrong.

Most of my politics based articles on this site have been going against the left and I have not really tackled my views of the alt-right movement. I want to let it be known I am no fan of the movement which is filled with people whom make race and nation to be some sort of supernatural and more than human characteristic to put faith in.

It is in fact not a rightist or right-wing movement at all with its huge combination of protectionist anti-free trade nationalism and also hordes of White Supremacists. Not too mention the people that are in fact National Socialists whom are in no way on the right at all. They try to lay claim to being on the right when they are not and in fact like the so-called religious right which is in fact left theocracy.

Any form of ideology which paints race as putting one group above another is very dangerous and also insane. People whom are against the regressive left should not be swayed into supporting a collectivist so-called right. The actual philosophical right, rightist or right-wing is individualism and voluntarism. It is methodologically individualist which is not the same as some sort of atomistic rejection of co-operation and groups. Or of generalized actual biological or psychological trends within our species. It simply means individuals, individual thinking and individual rights are the cornerstone of rightist ideologies and philosophy VS collectivism on the left.

The so-called Alt-Right hates individualism and voluntarism. They are a group of nationalistic and protectionist anti-right ideologies which dare call themselves right when they are in fact on the collectivist left. Race is not the cornerstone of ideology such an idea is a vile evil no worse than the feminists and their hate of men. Individualism comes first and from that comes individual thinking and the rights of each of those individuals irregardless of color, creed, lack of creed, sex, orientation or anything else that is meaningless to the content of ones character.

The regressive left is a vile movement with too much power, but, we must guard against the likes of the Alt-Right gaining power too. This does not mean alt-right members deserve to be punched in the face as the regressive left say either. Instead there needs to be a cultural change and push through words, through philosophy and the intellect. Force is the enemy of reason and truth removing alt-right members rights is the enemy of the very reason needed to work towards the better future we really can have.

The MHRM/MGTOW philosophical idea of Gynocentrism dare not say it's name.

I have distanced myself a bit from the broader Men's Human Rights Movement, but, not because of not being a Men's Human Rights Advocate. It is because it is very clear that there seems to be a bit of an issue with this movement and one particular word. That is the word Gynocentrism and what it really is talking about. What the fundamental aspects of this Gynocentrism are really made up of that makes it so appalling. 

The truth is that philosophically what is so appalling about Gynocentrism is altruism as it was defined by the founder of the philosophy one Auguste Comte. Whom was a known extreme left-utopian/dystopian and one of the founders of the formation of the non-science of sociology. He also was a quack that decided to create a "religion of Humanity." Which was an insane way of trying to make a heaven on earth. 

A key part of August Comte's view being altruism or the idea that what is moral is to live for others. As opposed to being selfish which is defined as looking after self and what the self finds is in its best long term interests and rational good. However, this view was not original it was he simply extended it to be in a secular context and removed the inclusion of God. All religions are altruistic in the philosophical definition as none of them say being selfish is good and they hate the mind. The one thing that is anything like a "human soul." 

Our neuron networks, our brain and our person is that which mystics mistake for a soul. Mystics of mind either are ignorant, or evil and simply evading the fact our brain structure/our mind is what makes us human just as much as the rest of the functions of our body. There is no mind/body dichotomy. For our mind is in our brain and that is the core of our body and its functioning in so many ways. 

Thus altruism which says we should live for others at the expense of ourselves is basically a slow death sentence. It is choosing a long slow suicide for the sake of others living like being the energy source for a world of parasites and vampires. How is this philosophical Gynocentrism? Well, how is Gynocentrism as a moral philosophy anything, but, altruism taken to its most extreme. It is simply taking the floating-abstraction other and giving it an image that of the female human of the species. 

Gynocerntrism is a collective death sentence for males saying to all men to live for women and die for them too. It is a collectivism within a collectivism a gendered division within the greater altruism and societal collectivism of both genders. Except it's ideas are targeted towards men and manipulate men's natural tendency to desire to protect and provide for women with ideas that one should always act on such instincts. As a blank check without thinking about what it means for the self of that man. 

There are two Gynocentrism's; the natural instincts to protect women and children and the "philosophy" which says all women need saving and you the man are the one to do it. The philosophy is altruism writ large over all men on a collective scale. It collectivizes all men as wanting the same thing. Even if these instincts exist not all men want, nor should need to have a woman or children around; let alone protect them at the expense of their own life. It is the anti-male division of the greater collectivism we see in society. 

Yet, the Men's Human Rights Movement never seems to bring it up. Neither does MGTOW which has now made it too susceptible to collectivism. As Men supposedly going their own way make their own collectivist shrieks and shrills of "all women are evil." Which is simply taking the Feminist idea of male Patriarchy and reversing it calling "all women toxic." Even if a lot, hell, a good portion of women in the modern day are toxic in their views of men, especially feminists, that does not equal a collective "all women." 

A truly liberating movement for men would champion individualism and not collectivism. For it is collectivism that is at the heart of Philosophical Gynocentrism and it is that which fueled the existence of a feminist movement. Feminism with it's all men were evil throughout history views are simply one more modern version of collectivism. Which is itself a manifestation of altruism's core tenants of living for others like a servant at the expense of ones own self-worth and value. To live for women by women's social rules has always been nothing more than altruism brought to bare to men. 

It has always taken the natural instincts of protecting and providing for women/children within ones own relations and extended that to being "living for all women and all children everywhere." I am not arguing men protecting the women they love and their children is wrong. Hell, that would be to go against the reality of men's evolved psychology and a core of masculinity. However, I contend Philosophical Gynotheism, as was coined by Youtuber Jay Double Gee, is instincts gone insane. Pushed upon and unleashed without reason or rhyme on purpose. 

Not as part of some conspiracy or any such tin foil views of the extremer MGTOW's out there. It came into being because irrational people drank the kool-aid that collectivism was good and act ignorant. It is also very possibly a reaction to the ever more expanding freedom of expression of women's own psychologies being gone unchecked by being told to "shut the fuck up special snowflake." Thus pushing ever more worse collectivism and Philosophical Gynocentrism through men reacting at a more instinctive level and less reasoning manor to women's exposed evolved psychologies. 

That freedom without understanding of individualism vs collectivism can unleash collectivist attitudes on us. Through unleashing the more wet-ware instincts on a massive scale without the rational mindset to go with them. That in a sense altruism which is core to collectivism has taken something which is beautiful in the right context; protection of others not at expense to self, but, because those saved are a high value.. Having replaced it with not protecting, but, complete self-sacrifice and suicide to "save everyone, but, the self that is a man because my being is to be sacrifice itself." 

The MHRM needs to address collectivism, but, to do that it needs to address the core tenants of that philosophy called altruism. Not the tit for tat and win/win benevolent reciprocity and mutualist aspect of our human instincts, but, complete and utter self-sacrifice. The idea that win/lose is noble, but, win/win is bad because a win/win feeds the self its "spiritual fuel" as Ayn Rand would say. The MHRM if it is serious about the rights and liberty, hell, liberation of men needs to stand up against the altruist-collectivist origin of the movements it is against. It needs to be a beacon of individualism and let manhood be all about that.

From Bottom To The Top it is from Left to Right

I was given a video by a friend and fellow Objectivist dedicated to saying that the political spectrum essentially goes bottom to top. It was interesting to see that in the view of the creators it was authoritarians on the bottom and freedom at the top. The spectrum or compass does indeed go from tyranny on one end to freedom on the other. For only force or non-consent or coercion has degrees while freedom is a stable state of a specific social system. You have two options the moral social system which we call Capitalism. Or a system of levels of immorality attempted to be mixed with the moral. On the pure and far opposite end you have full on immorality with not even a shred of morality or justice left namely pure authoritarianism. It is individual rights on end and degrees of statism as you verge from it.

I disagree with the video when it claims that rightism is not an accurate way of describing that which they call the top. The right refers to the political element of the enshrining of individual rights and to the social system known as Capitalism. Capitalism is the actual name of the freedom it places at the top VS the Leftist authoritarianism it places at the bottom. Anti-Capitalism in some degree is what the Left stands for. The so-called moderates or centrists are not centered at all and in fact are unstable mixtures of the moral with the immoral. A combustible and deadly mixture of food and arsenic poisoning. A muddled and unprincipled, very much pragmatic mixture between a little bit of support for the Right social system and the wrong or evil one.

Contrary to what the video claims right vs left is absolutely the differences that matter. The right which is Capitalism; pure, true, unbridled and lassiez-faire Capitalism vs The left anti-Capitalists and the moderate muddled middle half anti-capitalists. This does not mean one could not use bottom and top as other symbols of individual rights vs statism. However, I think that even if one sees this is an alternative spectrum that does not invalidate or change the fact that what it calls the top is simply Right it is rightism irregardless of if the label is being changed. There is a right VS left that does matter and there being an alternative label does not change the content being the same. It is like saying I am straight or heterosexual. Deciding to use one label does not mean that it is not simply an interchanging of different references of the same essential. One does not remove the other.

If you define as top on the bottom to top spectrum it would be wrong to not define the essentials of and defend the right on a right vs left compass or spectrum. Capitalism is the social system of the right vs all the other compromises of the moderates and the authoritarianism of the left. The right means individual rights, individualism and the legal recognition of the mind/independent thought. The moderate middle compromises with the anti-mind and the left is the completely anti-mind and thus anti-life. Freedom is right VS varying levels of compromise with unjust force and authority up to the level of actual tyranny. The right belongs to the morally right, to the justly right and the socially right. To the only moral and truly humane social system. Capitalism equals rightism and rightism equals Capitalism.