What are the virtues required from being an Objectivist?

Retrieved from "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.php?title=Virtues&oldid=9256"


“The three cardinal values of the Objectivist ethics ... are: Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem, with their three corresponding virtues: Rationality, Productiveness, Pride.”
   ~ Ayn Rand



The virtues on which the primary values depend are rationality, productivity, and independence. The man who is successful in living is able to derive the values necessary for his life and to translate them into the virtues necessary to gain and keep them. Some skeptics might say that this is a "cold, unemotional, and rationalistic" way to go about life, but nothing can be further from the truth. The man who confidently acts to achieve the values necessary for his life knows that it is his life he is acting to further, and that it is his values that he is achieving. The emotional state of knowing that one is an effectual, capable, productive individual, who is master of his own destiny, is self-esteem. Self-esteem is the confidence one has in his own worth as a human being and his ability to achieve his values. When a man makes the achievement of his values a way of life, happiness is the state of consciousness that results. Thus, the rational, productive, and self-confident man knows the values of their life and takes pride in their achievements.

List of Objectivist Virtues

• Rationality - this is the cardinal virtue, which leads to all other virtues. Rationality means using reason (and rejecting emotions) to identify reality.

• Honesty is the refusal to fake reality.

• Integrity is consistency in the application of reason.

• Productivity means working to create one's values.

• Independence means being first-handed, or refusing to leave one's thinking to others.

• Pride is the pursuit of moral perfection. Pride is related to self-esteem - the belief that one is capable of gaining and keeping one's values--and that one deserves them.

• Justice is the principle of applying reason to the actions of other men, or giving other people what they deserve.

Androgynous and Feminine men are also on the Anti-males shit list.

Due to my writing about manhood on this blog some might think that maybe I have issues with gender-non-conforming men. The truth is I have no issues with gender-non-conformity at all and one does not need to be ruggedly masculine to be all man. There are non-conforming men out there that are just as great as the most masculine men. However, this does not mean that non-masculine or mixed men are off the shit list for those whom have issues with men.

Even if you are an Androgynous male you are still a male and you are still considered to have so-called Male Privilege. You will still be considered to be the enemy of the most screeching feminists and of the patriarchy theories behind all feminist philosophy. It is men as the enemy and the biological male as the oppressor not just masculinity. It is a collectivist war of women against men no matter how you express yourself. Anyone that questions the orthodoxy will be considered the heretic.

All heretics will get burnt at the steaks of social condemnation despite being more atypical in some regards. I say in some regards as Androgynous men are still men and still have at least a good deal of male traits. Even men that express in the most feminine way have a males brain and will have some very male typical things about them. It is the being biologically male and a man that feminists do not like. It is not just their calling card of "toxic masculinity." It is all males and any amount of mix of the masculine/feminine, even the more Androgynous mixes.

For most ideologically true feminists you would need to literally make yourself effete by castrating yourself to please them. They are not fans of any men from masculine straight to the most "flaming" gay it is all men. In fact, feminists of pure ideology have long sense believed that gayness was a form of Misogyny and outright women hatred. Which is completely insane and shows that no man is safe from the ideologically pure feminists scorned wrath. It is men against women; males against females and not masculine vs feminine that the ideology want to perpetuate. 

It is also a Straight and Heterosexual vs everyone else narrative that is pushed as well. It is not called heteronormative-if-masculine that is hated and called the enemy. It is heteronormativity altogether and essentially heterosexual attraction patterns of any sort; even if part of an actual bisexual possibility. Opposite sex pairings are considered oppressive and women supposedly do not really desire to be with men. The very idea of heterosexual attraction to the radical feminists is a social construction based in male domination and female submission. Showing a hell of a lot of projection on their part.

This is why even a bisexual attraction pattern is considered to be an enemy of the "Queer" community. A community that is filled to the brim with radical feminist Social Justice Warriors. Even a hit of a straight possibility is considered to be a traitor to the collective. It is sleeping with the enemy and not liked very much. When I say that men need to be proud of themselves as good men I do not mean just Butch or gender typical men, but, all men. When I say that males need to not feel shame I mean all good males not just a particular type of male.

Whether you are a Butch, hypermasculine, average masculine, nerd masculine, or Androgynous. Whether you are gender typical or gender atypical. All men need to be able to be able to feel pride in themselves. No men should feel they are bad because they have a cock and balls. Bad men are those individual men and not all other men as well. Being a man is not an original sin of determined evil or badness. Being a man is being a man. We should strive to be the best person we can be. Our expressions of doing so can and will be different between men. This is not a bad thing at all. It is what makes us, well us.

To the proponents of Anti-Male ideologies there is no Non-Toxic maleness and masculinity must die.

Yet again a horrid event brings out all the male-haters and misandrists whom hate men as part of their principles. Every time there is one of these horrid events like a shooting you find both man-hating men and women coming out of the wood work to hate on manhood. They use deceptive practices like calling it toxic-masculinity, but, they mean men as some sort of sex based collective. You cannot say you are just going after some toxic-variant of masculinity without putting forth a non-toxic variety. Yet, I never see a non-toxic form of masculinity proposed by these articles.

Make no mistake it is not just masculinity, but, maleness and manhood itself that the most purist of the toxic masculinity folks are talking about. Case in point that several groups now have thrown gay men under the bus and have told them to sit at the back like pre-civil war Blacks. They want to push them out because gay or not they are men and have in their own words "gay male privilege." All of a sudden just having a Penis automatically means you are at the top of the social hierarchy.

I really do not like the hole people are digging for men these days. The hole digging though has been ongoing under the surface for a long time now. What do these people want from men exactly? Once again I have read article after article, but, none of them have put forth what a "positive" masculinity would be for a modern day man. The truth is what is called toxic masculinity is anything that might be deemed bad for anyone like being a crazed murderer or a predator. These are not "masculinity" as they are not something that derives in anyway from someone being a man or a male. They are if anything toxic humanity available to either of the sexes.

By misinterpreting toxic humanity and the dark side of our nature as male, manhood, manliness, and masculinity it makes it alright to dehumanize and then toss under the bus men of any group based on their sex and/or gender identity. It lets people whom themselves are listening to that darker part of human nature filled with envy, hate and bile to project their own hatred onto the entire of a collective called masculinity and deem it toxic. To push it onto a collective called male and men wish they than let bile flow on without slowing down.

They are using classic threat narrative which was used in the past by some of the most horrid people that existed. The anti-male narrative is very reminiscent of the way Wiemar Germany treated Jews prior to the coming to power of the Nazi's and the putting into action the Holocaust. By demonizing and dehumanizing an entire group of people it makes it ever easier to use immense amounts of violence on them. It makes it easier to force them into social isolation as well in which some amount will die by their own hand.

There is a serious lack of the positive towards men, maleness, manhood and masculinity. By defending masculinity and manhood I do not mean defending being a douche or an actual predator. I mean defending masculine traits in men as being something to be able to affirm and embrace. That does not mean either that non-masculine men, androgynous men or sex/gender atypical men are any less men or a value in life or lack worth. However, being masculine should not be something men are pressured out of being anymore than they should be pressured into being.

The truth is there is no negative in actual masculinity as defined in any dictionary anywhere. Nor anywhere in dictionaries in the past. Masculinity is defined as;

pertaining to or characteristic of a man or men: masculine attire. 2. having qualities traditionally ascribed to men, as strength and boldness.

So, what is wrong with anything in this masculinity? Do you see predatory anywhere in the definition of the term? Do you see abusive in the actual definition? Do you see mass shooting nutcase or sexual deviant? The truth is there is nothing wrong with masculinity. We do not need a new Positive form we need to properly define and defend what is really masculinity VS what the anti-male ideologies preach about it. Every single man that jumps in front of a bullet for someone they love is being masculine. It is a form of protecting the ones you love and protection is one of the many things at the core of classical masculinity. This does not mean women cannot and do not protect others, but, it is classically a masculine arch-type which a woman could also fall into.

Of course, I am for defending men and manhood no matter how one expresses oneself as a man. So, wherever you fall within the myriad of expressions you as a man should not be thrown under the bus. Nor should you be seen as a lesser as a person. The misandry of individuals and groups of individuals that hate men does not care how you express as long as you are unashamed of being a man while expressing it. They push a collectivized original sin based on being born biologically male without being guilty of that fact. They are not against just bad men having personal strength, but, any man having personal strength and self-love.

Men need just the opposite the ability to have self-love and proper self-esteem to be able to be able to realize their objective self-worth in this world. Men need to know they are worthy of pursuing and obtaining their values in life. Our current discourse totally throws under the bus any needs men have for a healthy psychology separate from being seen as disposable, a utility, a walking dildo or a free bodyguard. Manhood no matter what way you express yours being seen as a good thing needs to become a norm in society. This does not mean we will ever get rid of Gynocentricism as there is a good deal of human nature behind that force in us. However, looking at all people through a lens of methodological individualism with their own worth means we have a way of muting the affects somewhat.

Men are good, manhood is good, manliness is good, masculinity is good and manhood expressed in many variance of ways is good. Never be ashamed of being a man and being a male in this world. You have not done anything wrong by simply being born biologically male. Maleness is not toxic, the Y chromosome is not a poison chromosome, and being a man is not a curse. Men need to quit having an internal self hatred of themselves and embrace the fact they are whom they are. There is no reason to dehumanize yourself based on a narrative pushed by those whom want you hating yourself and wracked with guilt. Each man needs to learn to be rationally-self interested and not interested in haters.

Each man out there needs to not base their worth on the outside worlds push towards self hatred. Instead, they need to realize how great they can be and to work to be it. This does not mean to be perfect as we are only walking 5th Apes and not supernatural. Be the best you you can be and not whom the world wants you to be as a man. Men can be and often are amazing people. Men are good and men need to realize this and act on the Angels Of our Better natures. Men are not toxic; they can be and very much are a force for good in this world. Masculinity is not toxic it just is; and it is beautiful and lovely just as it is.

Victim is not code word for female or feminine. Being a victim does not remove a man's balls.

Recently the #MeToo has blown up on Twitter following the exposing of Harvey Weinstein within Hollywood. During this time many men started trying to include their own stories of being victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment. Yet, as soon as these men came out as being at one time victims they were told they were not to talk because it was taking the light off of "the real victims women." That they were trying to take the wind out of the sales of the hashtag.

There was a serious lack of any empathy for victims that was not within their own sex/gender. A serious lack of any caring about the stories that men had to share. Men came out about being molested, raped, harassed and what are they told to sit down and shut up because the women are talking. Or even more shameful when it was looked over these men were told they knew what it was like to be a woman. Or told other men would now be their enemies because they were exposing feminine traits.

No, these men are not now "female typical." No, these men are not now feminine because some low life abused them and used them. In fact, a fair number of the people that came out talked about women as perpetrators and not other men. So, where is the "toxic masculinity" in these experiences? Surely, if you were to call it toxic anything surely it would be toxic femininity. It does not take having a vagina to be a victim in this world. Any human can be a victim and any other human could victimize as we are all human.

Victim is not a code word for females or feminine. The last time I checked male victims of sexual predation did not get their genitals cut off. Nor the last time I checked is there any sort of historical standard of only women or feminine people being victims. Men die all the time at the hands of both sexes. Men get abused and attacked by both sexes. Men get raped, molested and exploited as well not just women. Men of all shapes and sizes. From the most chiseled abs to the skinniest bro all of them can become victims at the hands of a vile piece of trash low life. 

There is an empathy gap here between men and women. Women like those seeming to pop up in this hashtag are actively helping to widen the gap between this empathy. Men whom are victims should not be met with women saying they matter more because they are women. There needs to be just as much acknowledgement of men being human and worthy of empathy as any woman that has been abused. In addition, men should not be seen as having their balls removed due to being a victim at some point. Men do not become more feminine due to being victims at some point. Male victims remain all man.

My happiness is primary and I need to keep my mind on that.

Tonight was a very nice night for me and my work went well. I never really had any sort of bad calls. I also had a lot of time alone with work as well. I was able to not be distracted from my goal of doing good work and doing it well. I was very happy with my performance and it made my night go well in turn.

After work I decided to order a pizza and also to listen to some movie reviews on YouTube. I had time alone without any real distraction after work too. So far I have enjoyed this Wednesday quite a bit and I am very happy tonight. Which is a good thing because my own happiness is of the utmost importance to me. It has to be because at the end of the day it is my face I will see in the mirror till the day I die.

I am very proud of the man I have grown up to be. I need to be happy with my decisions in general and enjoy my life. After all this is the only life I have and I will not have any other. after this one. We have bought one shot and that is it to live this one movie extravaganza called our life. My happiness must be the primary and nothing else. I will not let anyone or anything get in the way of consistent joy and happiness in life. I will not late any chaos around me consume me and remove my self from the equation. I am the primary in my own world. This is the way it has to be and the way it should be.

CT-GRI/BSRI Gender Role Test results: Masculine 100% and Feminine 44% making me Typically Masculine.

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.

The beauty of enlightened and positive self-interest AKA Proper Self-Love and Self-Esteem.

In the last couple of articles I have talked about positive attitude and how important it in our lives. Especially how it can be used to remove the toxins in various communities. One was on just about being positive in general and the other was about various movements. I contended that being positive was highly important. However, I do want to point out I was not meaning in the sort of delusional new Age way or as in never having a negative thought, nor to become your own thought police. 

It would be against what is best for an individual to be delusional about the world and think your life is great if there is nothing, but, horrors. Nor is it smart to be about to fall off of a mountain and keep driving thinking "positivity" will make you float to safety in the air like magic. So, one should not think I support the idea of the positive being able to do anything like a genie in a magic lamp. That does not mean that one should dwell in the negative either. 

Ultimately life is about the pursuit of our own personal self and his/her happiness. Which means what is really needed is a rational and positive self-interest. An enlightened self-interest which is based on proper self-love and self-esteem. I want to add in positive because people often assume self-interest or selfishness means running over others and being self-centered. To not care about others or the world outside yourself. Of course this is not what someone whom is following their rational (and positive) self-interest acts like nor thinks like. I would argue that in order to succeed in life one can never get to true happiness through irrational and negative means. 

The irrational is in fact negative because it is not something that is good for the self. It is not good to have you be able to follow your pursuit of happiness. You need to follow positive and rational self-interest to have positive outcomes. Positive self-interest or positive/enlightened selfishness is at the core of all ability to pursue ones happiness/joy and bliss in life. Ones bliss, joy and happiness being followed is the true meaning of life. It is human flourishing that is at the core of human existence on this Earth and in The Universe. 

We all need to become comfortable with being selfish and following that bliss in life. We need to pursue it with positive, rational self-love and self-esteem. A positive and rational self-interest. An enlightened and mindful selfishness that nurtures the self, but, not at the expense of others. Instead in a world in which we are all engaged in peaceful and free value laden relations with other people through win-win mutual-ism. In which I am not sacrificing to other and others are not asking of sacrifice of my bliss to them. Sacrifice is parasitic, whereas enlightened self-interest and selfishness is a beautiful mutually beneficial world for all. 

It is in fact at its very bedrock a positive Universe filled with people engaging in value enriching associations. In which we all are harmonious with our neighbors, friends, family (provided they do not ask for sacrificing your wills), strangers when appropriate and overall the very nature of the positive itself. We need to stop asking other people covertly or direectly to sacrifice their bliss for us and also stop sacrificing our bliss to them. We need to nurture ourselves in love, compassion, gratitude and joy. We need to nurture our minds in reason and knowledge. We need to live for those wonderful human values that all of us have and can strive for when left free from the parasites of the toxic. 

The negativity within the MHRM is the same that is in the Social Justic Movement and GBLT.

I have been listening to HoneyBadgerRadio for sometime now and most of the time it is fine. However, sometimes I come across something that makes me uneasy in some of their commentary and something I have seen elsewhere. That is a string of negativity within the MHRM (Men's Human Rights Movement.) Not the sort of women hating stuff feminists blame it for though. Instead a self-negativity and victim complex similar to the feminist movement, SJWS and GBLT people.

All of these groups are made up of people with a self-loathing and victim complex. People whom think the entire world is out to get them and they are powerless. That somehow there is some Universal Satan stopping them from getting things done. This self-loathing causes an insecure outrage and an external hate towards others or systems they do not understand. They are filled with people that always talk about how "the man" is keeping them down like old hippies. Both these types of Men's Right activist and anti-MRAS are just as toxic. Not all MRA's, but, only certain ones.

For men for example with depression being told that somehow there is a Universal Feminist Agenda that will stop them from being free is going to cause them to be worse. That is a toxic message and men are being told they are somehow weak against the World. Which is not true. Men are strong, triumphant, courageous, masterful, and are at their best when living from a place of Pure Value Driven Masculine Positive energy. I fear Jack Donavan had a point when he warned the MHRM if not taken the right way could make men as in learned helplessness as feminism does for women.

It does no good to have men go out into the world with a view that the Universe is Malevolent and out to get them at every turn just for being men. That is hates masculinity and men. Or any men for that matter no matter what your expression. By having men think such in such a toxic way with garbage in you are going to get garbage out. Negativity is never good at all! Even if in the name of a good cause. One should not be filing men with the idea the world views them as evil or that the world outside is evil and they are the one good thing. We should be approaching MHRM causes with a positive approach. With an approach of the Universe does not hate you for it determined you to be a man!

I am not getting all New Age here. Nature evolved men to have male brains and existence is not against men. Nature wants men to be themselves and to express themselves their way. In all places; from bedroom to boardroom. Positive masculine energy driven like a fusion engine by The Universe and existence is from that Universe, from that existence and not hated on the level of our species. Men need to be shown how to tap into their inner man of value in any situation. All of us men can be men of value; unless you are seriously nuts. Men should be told about how to express themselves authentically and powerfully. How to be a powerful storm of masculine prowess and value laden strength.

None of what I said above requires a "higher power," non-material or any sort of second-handed view. None of it requires abandoning reason or rationality. None of it is emotionalism or requires the belief in things based on Faith. I am an atheist there is no supernatural and no god. However, that does not mean one does not need to be really serious about airing on the Optimist side and Positive Attitude, or The Benevolent Universe. The opposite leads to panic, fear and irrationality itself. Benevolence is important to the Universe and existence. Mindsets are in an integral way the basis for self-regulation in all aspects of life.

I am not a victim as a man whom is not in the middle of being a victim. Whomever is an individual man whom is being victimized is, but, they are not me. We need to both treat male victims as much more serious and stop the empathy gap, yes! We also need to stop telling men because THEY can BE Victims they are thus A Victim of an entire system that hates them. Or that the Universe just because it has major Gynocentric elements is against men or hates men. Men do not need their own "Patriarchy Theory" to be serious about male suffering and the imbalances in society. Sorry, SOME MRA's, but, Gynocentrism is part of human nature. It is not imposed on nature it is inside our nature.

That does not mean men should now or should have ever been seen as walking utilities, wallets or dildos, or baby fluid makers for women either. Admitting something is in nature and is not imposed on people and thus not part of some Illuminati like Conspiracy against males is not to say being degraded is good. However, to be mad at it or the Universe for existence view on men is just nothing, but, toxic shit. It is garbage in and produces garbage results like people whining instead of fighting for their own life and their love of it. The world needs Positive Strong Men and this is not doing them any good. The world needs them because men need it for themselves.

This world can be harsh and only a Positive Approach to life can give the proper results. Masculinity is positive by nature as are most men. Deep inside all men can be a positive light for good! Any that are too forgone and evil were made evil. I firmly believe evil men are made evil and evil women are too. Something happened it is an output of being given a horrible input. This comes from someone whom also believes that Biological Determinism is true as well as existence of free will. So, I am not saying that no one just might have bad genes or something. However, most men and women whom are evil are made that way. This is a benevolent universe and perhaps that "belief" is this atheists "faith," or "spirituality." minus any supernatural bullshit or after life crap. 

 

Howard Roark's Defense in Court from "The Fountainhead."

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!

Being a man of value and valuing yourself. The importance of the self in a happy life.

In this day and age the term selfishness is used for a lot of things attached to the negative things in our experience. Selfishness is considered the same thing as self centered and not caring about anyone else. It is coined to be another word for greedy or being an asshole. It is coined as the driving force for all the evils of the world. The driving force behind depressions and recessions. The driving force behind being a dick and walking over others. Not a one person seems to use it as just another word for self-interest and being a rational animal. That strives to have pleasure and not pain in life.

However, the very meaning behind the word selfishness is just that very striving force. It means that you live first and foremost for striving for your own personal happiness in life. That you in fact nurture oneself and look after yourself as a primary driver. What is so wrong with such a thing? We all need to do this at different times in our life; even if one tries to run from thinking one is "being selfish." However, most of us run from living our entire life in this mode. Why though?

Why do we run so much from "being selfish?" If one is not being a dick or a cunt about it why does one need to or why should one run from "being selfish?" I think it is time to take back the term selfish from the dicks and cunts. One needs to grab the proper definition of selfish back and celebrate reasonable, rational and enlightened selfishness as a basis for a virtuous life of value. I am selfish when I work on myself; my mental state and work on showing how great of a man I am. I am selfish when I am just myself around others and do not give a fuck what they think.

I am selfish when I am trading value for value with my neighbors, friends, co workers, family and sexual partner or partners. I am selfish when I work to make the money to live instead of not caring about myself, not caring about the self not even trying to work. I am selfish when I am feeding my intellect with the brain food; nurturing the mind to be the most well fed mind it can be. As opposed to letting it collapse like unused slop by not feeding it information. Letting it become airhead and dumb to the world. I am selfish when I accept my hetero-flexible nature and not selflessly pretending to be something I am not.

I am being selfish when I smile because I am happy instead of letting the world crush me. I am selfish when I am thinking I deserve to have the right to be happy. I am selfish when I fall in love with someone and they love me in return. I am selfish when I refuse to let anyone mislabel me for something I am not for any reason whatsoever. When I am selfish as you can see I am hardly harming others nor am I self-centered or thinking I am a man alone on an island. Yet, I am selfish in all of these things and not ashamed to say I am a selfish man and I not going to be put into some sort of guilt trip.

What I wish for is that every man would allow themselves to be a little more selfish. Nurture the self; what is the best actions for you. In the long term after much thought and rational inquiry. Much searching, much internal self-reflection and figuring out what you need/want in life. Then acting to gain what that is. Doing what makes you happy provided you are not sacrificing others to yourself. Anymore than you should sacrifice yourself to them for their whims and wishes. I am not saying for people to be dicks or cunts. I am saying to live a life based on a principle of trading values for values.

Being a man of value means knowing your own value. Knowing it objectively as a truth and not a subjective might be sort of thing. You cannot be a man of value which is trading value for value. If you do not know deep inside; on a personal level within your own mind your own value. That you are of value and you are a value as a person. You then from there can go from seeing the value in yourself to aiming to achieve your external values you wish to seek. Whether it is platonic, romantic, material or purely libido driven lustful drives. All values must begin with self-value or in the end no external values can be worth it for you will never be truly happy until you are happy with yourself.

Being a man of value is a very, very selfish thing. Not all men of value realize this or even will acknowledge this is the case. Often people will mistake benevolence for pure altruism. When it is not pure altruism and it is a form of benevolence instead. The man of value again begins with reason, purpose and self-esteem. With having a personal pride, but, not a narcissism. Being a person of value in general is very selfish. Whether you are a man or a woman. Selfishness; real nurturing and loving the self, the ego and doing what is best for you. Doing what is pursuing your own happiness; provided you are not initiating coercion or harm against others or their property. Also, provided you are not guilting others into self-sacrifice for you.

Nurturing the self is good; whether you want to use selfishness as the name for that or not. Just call it rational-self interest without the word if you wish. However, nurturing the self needs to be embraced by us all. Not because I am some dogmatist, but, because this world is going crazy from sacrificing to each other. People are forgetting it all begins with nurturing, accepting, embracing and loving oneself first. From there comes everything else. It all starts with realizing "perfect" is an illusion and so we are all perfect just as we are. Provided we are a good person and we are not being a dick or a cunt. Not all people are good people. Judgement is important and so is morals. However, perfection outside of being a good person is an illusion. Embracing selfishness or enlightened self-interest is the answer and break from running that illusionary race to be "perfect."

Retaliatory Force/Aggression/Violence is a moral good. Why I am not the Peacenick I was in my youth.

When I was younger I thought violence by its very existence was a bad thing. I thought we would should or could all hold hands and sing lovely songs to each other with anyone of any view. When I was young I thought that the Military and the Police were all horrid people using violence against "innocent people who ain't done nothing wrong." When I was younger I thought that all aggression was wrong and I thought that to use aggression ever was evil and vile. That is not my view now. I have grown discernment and also grew a brain.

One of the things that I have seen be labelled "toxic masculinity" is violence and aggression. Well, this will tackle the naive idea that violence is evil or a moral horror head on. Not just when it comes to men, but, also humans in general. I think it is naive to not distinguish moral from immoral violence. Due to the fact that violence coming from anyone or any group can be either the most vile evil or the most tremendous good. It depends on the context of the violence and aggression. For example; someone breaks into my home and my family is inside. I take my hand gun and shoot the intruder before he can harm any actual innocent people.

The above example is violent, it might be even lead to the shot persons death if a serious enough wound. However, it is a heroic act and not to be vilified. I have saved innocent lives by removing the predatory force going after them. In this instance not only is violence an option, but, it is the best option to swiftly take out the predator and save my innocent family from harm. At one time I would have called even that a vile and horrid thing. I would not take into context whom shot and what for. However, that is a crucial thing that needs to be taken into account.

I now see violence for what it is. Measured violence with the appropriate amount of aggressive force as a form of self-defense is not only an option it is often the best and most noble/moral option in situations where other options are not an option. A man whom is violent and aggressive with a thug is a person to be admired and not a person to be shamed as being toxic. He is a person of high value indeed he is the true definition of a hero. To defend yourself and others using violence is noble because the person whom tried to attack the innocent is a savage. Initiatory Force/Aggression/Violence/Coercion is evil absolutely. However, retaliatory and defensive violence is an absolute good.

Morals are not Greys, but, black and white. Is it moral? Yes or no? There is no maybe, it is either immoral or moral. I am not talking about "will you fuck the neighbor tonight?" I mean, actual moral questions, is it OK to rape, steal, pilfer, murder, assault, harass and so on? The answer had better be NO or sign yourself up for fucking prison and get out of "civilization!" Is it OK to destroy your life? You can, but. it is still not morally acceptable to me. This is why defensive violence needs to be seen to a man or woman of a true moral code as virtuous and an absolute good.

We are animals and we will always have the possibility of being violent. This is why one needs to morally define when that is right or wrong,. good or evil. We are not some noble savages that are not filled with the possibility of aggression and violence. We are animals and like all animals we can be peaceful or brutal, but, what is the target. We need to as a civilization make sure those more brutal instincts are targeted towards those whom wish to harm other innocents and their property. By doing so we help to raise to the forefront of our Angel's of Our Better into the picture.

We need to eliminate immediate threats and predators in our mists. This is not saying we have a rule of men by men, but, far from it. It is very obvious I am not talking about being anti-rule of law or anti-innocent until proven guilty. Far from it a rule of law helps work out and determine in a lot of ways what is defensive and what is initiatory. Law codes are needed for a civilized society even Murray Rothbard an Anarcho-Capitalist talked about the need for an objective law code minus any States.

However, if someone can be proven to be defending themselves violence and aggression is a very noble thing. Can be a virtue and a tactical necessity for life to continue to exists in this species. People whom deride masculinity as being violent and thus toxic need to ask themselves one question. What would you do if someone tried to attack your family? Your friends? Your wife or husband? Would you just stand around doing nothing watching them violate them? Or would you want to stop their suffering by killing the savage that attacked them. My answer would be you attack my wife/husband/kids/house prepare to leave in a body bag!

Yes, you will end up shot if I were able to get a hand gun or even stone cold dead. You will not leave unharmed. Is that brutal? Is that aggressive? Damn fucking straight it is! I should be brutal about it! So should you! If you have the means to stop someone else from being attacked and you do nothing to stop them; even just calling 911, you are helping continue their being a victim. You are part of the problem and not part of the solution. Get out of the way with your naive little peacenick views and let those whom will step in step in to help such people.

If you see evil happening and you do not stop it. You are letting evil continue and not fighting it. True evil; not bible belt shit. Good people need to be willing to fight or evil wins. This is a truism and it is accurate. We are animals and the good people need to be animals in defense of the innocent. Sometimes' that requires bullets, knives, pepper spray or even your own fists. This is why Police when they are doing their proper job are a moral good. Military when doing it's proper job is an absolute good. Why prisons are good! It is also why personal self-defense and retaliatory violence is an absolute good.

This is something I disagree with "community" and "Pride" on big time. They are all peacenicks whom are anti-gun, anti-self defense and ant-military, anti-war at all times. Whereas I think there is Just Wars, I think the Canadian Military when doing its proper job is a moral good. I think that most Police officers are not evil scum. Some using excessive force is not all. In fact, I am glad they are willing to shoot to kill if they need to to save innocent lives. I think that guns are good in the right hands and that criminals never listen to gun regulations, and thus "gun control" is useless. (All the major Shootings have been in Gun Free Zones.)
I fully support the view of the "Pink Pistols" that armed gays do not get bashed.

I think that aggression, violence in the right hands keeps it from being in the wrong hands. Or at least keeps the wrong hands at bay. Most of the time those hands are male and it is men that do this fighting. For various reasons; most being the biological differences between the sexes. If masculinity has aggression and violence built into it we should all be thankful it does because it means it is a built in protection system against the savage and predatory animals; in our species and without. We should all be admiring this trait that the Tyranny of Mother Nature has embodied in males of the Animal Kingdom, including our own species.

This does not mean one goes around picking fights or being a bully douche. It means that when the going gets tough the strong and courageous protectors; historically men get brutal in times of need. I see no problem with with at all. I think if the peacenicks got their way we would be in a less peaceful world and not a more peaceful one. In order to be acting in the Angel's of Our Better nature we need mechanisms to fight the Devils of our Worst nature in the guise of the savages. If you are sweet, but, also willing to protect those whom matter with extreme force if need be pat yourself on the back. You are not a douche you are a hero!

Yes, I do cry sometimes and yes I do have immense emotions deep inside me. I refuse to call that a "feminine" side.

Sometimes people can be so layered just like an onion and be a mystery to the world. Other times people can show themselves and be not mysterious at all. Other times still one can show themselves only to be deemed something they are not by those whom wish to put us in boxes. Boxes that come from a flawed misunderstanding of human natures.

I have had myself in times of severe emotion cry, and cry again. I have had myself start crying over the death of video game characters from more modern games with realistic Full Motion content. Specifically; the 1000 Words scene from Final Fantasy X-2 is especially emotional to me. As well as the Aerith/Aeris death scene in Final Fantasy 7. I have had also emotional moments of being sad out of nowhere in the past.

My being a man does not equal a lack of emotions in anyway. Far from it I can be so emotional when it is appropriate. The truth is I can be an amazingly big ball of feelings and emotions. I can be both tough and strong, but, also a ball of feels when it is appropriate to be so. It is simply that is it not always appropriate to be a feels flowing over like emotional spaghetti. There is a time for rational discourse and also a time for emotional rain-showers. Each thing has their own time and place.

Some people have said in the past it is because I am Bi that I can be so emotional. It is because I have a "gay side," or "feminine side." That it is because I have a womanly side of my mind that I can get so emotional at times; even if I do not show it always openly. Or sometimes I do show it openly even when not appropriate, but, try my best not too. It is said by some it is because I have this "fem" side to me that I am like this at times. It has also been said the reason I love so deep for my partners is also "fem."

This in that case would mean Straight Males are not able of having immense love for their partners? That straight males never have immense emotions and feel deeply in general? That straight males never weep? Never have intense feelings? Never sob? Cannot empathize with anyone anytime? Or only "fem" straights can feel these things? Total and absolute bullshit I say! Total bullshit! There is nothing inherently "fem" in feeling and emotions. Nor about being sad enough to sometimes cry openly.

Masculine men have been feeling emotions and feelings ever since our species came into existence. It is just we do not always present it the same. Or show it the same way. I would argue even crying out loud and not hiding it is also not inherently "fem." I mean why does strength/toughness have to mean lacking empathy, lacking emotions and lacking heart? Men do not accuse other men of being this way at all. It is mostly ironically women that have said these things to me.

I have had mainly women call me "fem" for having moments of intense feeling. I have never been called less than a man by other men. Women label the things which are more tender as somehow "feminine." Why? Let alone being "gay." Me being human does not make me feminine. All men are human we are not machines. All men feel and all men care deeply for things in life. Why? We are human we are not some separate species. We are a different gender/sex and we are not a different species of animals.

Why does one being sometimes emotional liken them to the opposite sex/gender? That makes no sense. Emotions and feelings are human traits we all share and not sexed/gendered ones. Even Autistic people whom are considered to have no emotions at all; totally unable to empathize with anything feel a ton. This group is one of the most "masculine, and "male" typical groups around and yet they feel. Hell, they even cry!

One can also point to how the male tear-duct works and matures. Just because the tears are not running down a mans face does not mean they do not feel the same as a woman with waterworks on full free flowing. Hell, even if a man is crying at the same rate as a woman does that mean he is less than a man? I do not think so. Different men are different and not all men are the same. We are all individuals at the end of the day and we are not a collectivist hive mind.

My sometimes in some situations balling or weeping. Or being depressed or just plain feeling deeply. This has nothing to do with me being "feminine." Or me having a "fem side." I counter to love deeply and to feel is as masculine as fighting for those that you love is. Men have always been people that feel that is to be human. To have emotions is to be human. We are highly evolved 5th apes and we are not machines. We are human beings and men have always been human even if they have been treated like utilities or parasitical threats towards women.

Women might; and some women do label these traits "feminine." This is not because they are it is because they cannot stand seeing this side of masculinity. This side of men. They want men to remain the utilities to "society," and White Knights to others with vaginas. To put down their own feelings, needs and wants as humans to live for some collective "women." A collective of  "for women," which does not exist as there is no collective "women." Only individual women and some are cunts whom deserve men to not do anything for them. Others are good people for which helping them is simple benevolence and good will.

If men; even the most Macho man is capable of this domain of feelings. Of emotions and even crying. If it is not dominated by women then we do need to think about men and their rights. We do need to think of men and their needs in our cities, Countries and world. Not because one needs to be sending out the Feels to be human. However, due to us for so long considering it a trait of those whom are capable of being hurt to also be tossing that hurt out in waterworks. This needs to stop! Even if men NEVER felt like women! We are human! We have needs, wants and desires! We are not utilities nor walking wallets.

I mean it; even if men were not able to empathize. Even if men were not emotional at all ever! We are still human! Women are only one half of this species and to single them out for having needs, for being human is cruel, unusual and vile. It is to not see men as human; literally to see them as an other that can be targeted for anything or can lack anything. To say they do not need a support system sometimes like any other human being. To say we are not human! Well; fuck that men's rights ARE human rights you man-hating cunts. Having the ability to feel and to process that in your own way is not "feminine." It is human and men have always been this. Masculinity does not equal not being human!

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.

No matter if the glass is half full or half empty you can keep refilling it. Embracing a Benevolent Universe calms the nerves!

There is a well known saying about glasses and how full or empty they are. However, this is way to simple for our real lives. No one can be up all the time and no one should need to be. We are all only human after all and we all have bad days. As well as bad moods at times it is normal.

What we should all be reminded of is those bad times are temporary and that all glasses can be refilled by the drinker. As the drinker of the waters called life we are always able to pour more into our glass at anytime. Continuously refillable by us the drinker that is drinking it in.

It is always within us as the drinker to change the amount of water in our glass. There is no limit to how often we can get back up from bad moods and bad times. There is no limit to how much we can pour back in at any given time. As the drinker we are in control and through will power as the Rational Animal we can do cognitive work to make our mindset more based on growth. Based on a positive life is a journey mindset.

It is never to late to embrace the universe as being benevolent and not our enemy. That any sane rational person is not wanting your life to suck. We can learn to trust people that we are able to learn to trust and not need to worry about being hurt. Sometimes being hurt a lot makes one feel like they cannot trust, but, we can always learn to trust again. Not everyone is out to get us.

Among Rational and integrated beings there is no conflicts of interest and there is no malevolence. This is not to say there is no evil in this world we are surrounded in it. Yet, to see life in a paranoid mist which says that everyone is out to get you is no better than trusting everyone is. When I say a benevolent Universe I am not talking about some New Thought/New Age "The Secret," stuff. I mean a rational idea of benevolence.

I do not think that your thinking something makes the Universe give it to you. Nor do I believe that if I love something enough the Universe will hand it to me on a silver platter. Yet, one should believe that one can act to obtain their values and obtain them without a universe out to get them. That one is able to trade value for value and to get the good stuff in life. Not nessecarely material things, but, the good thing general. 

That one can act to and gain their values in life is key to not being deterred from acting to obtain said value. For if one is unstable due to fear and unable to act nothing can get done. Things do not just materialize into existence from the ether like Mana from a Garden of Eden. We need to think first and then act to obtain/keep the things we value in life. Whatever those maybe for any particular person. We need in that sense a benevolent view of the universe as not being our enemy.

When combining this with a proper mindset/attitude if you will wonders can happen. Not as miracles from some Universe that grants wishes like as if a genie. No, but, from our own actions based on our rational thinking and feeling what we want. Then going for what we want in the most proper way to be able to obtain those values long term. The universe is not out to get you quit thinking it is.

If you treat manhood like the devil you will make it the devil. If you treat it like the majesty of nature it is, you will get men fit to admire!