Towards a Male Liberation based on a Man's own rational happiness.

There a few schools of thought in the Men's Movement and often times they are seemingly contradictory. One one hand you have the traditional conservative view of going back to traditionalism ALA the Leave It To Beaver 1950's. Of course, no such 1950's existed it was a fictional version of an ideal people had in Hollywood. On the other hand you have MGTOW that goes anywhere from just rejecting male/female relations to outright dehumanization of women. Both sides call the other traitors to the cause.

The MGTOW set thinks any man that deals with women and trusts any woman is a gender/sex traitor as women cannot be trusted with the way things are. Some go so far as to say due to female nature men will never be safe and it is to go back onto what they call the plantation to deal with women in anyway.

The trad-con set thinks that the other extreme is being a traitor as they are sacrificing the continuation of the species by not breeding. Their solution is to go back to traditionalism or their view of it and to have things as they think they were back in the 1950's. They call out MGTOW as being men that have given up and deride their choices they disagree with.

You also have the Return of Kings Neo-Masculinity crowd which is yet another whole kettle of fish on the fire. I contend that there is a major error with all of these views in that each one tried to prescribe what men do with their lives. Whether towards traditional families or away from women altogether. Or in the case of Neo-Masculinity towards a sort of odd combination of PUA and traditionalism. In truth the Men's Movement should instead be based around an individual man's own rational happiness. About men each and every individual man being an end to himself towards his own standards of value in life provided he does not ask others to sacrifice their happiness for them.

If a man wants a long term more traditional setup and the other person agrees let him have it. If the man wants to remain a bachelor and eligible so be it. If a man wants to go nowhere near women so be it. If a man wants to date casually so be it. I am not saying that all choices are good ones. I am simply saying that methodological individualism should be the guiding light of the Men's Movement. The movement should not become a collectivist movement like the feminist one. Nor should it become about becoming what women want which is just another form of otherism and self-sacrifice to a collective "women." It all starts with men being able to feel worthy as people without needing to feel like utilities used for the worlds benefit.

Men are human and not machines one needs to keep that in mind. Being a man should not be about being a walking wallet, a free bodyguard nor a baby batter dispensing machine. Men are human and men need to learn to be comfortable without being some perfect ideal man that might never exist. Men need to begin with understanding our human nature and why we can be so great. I am not saying human nature has no dark side it certainly does. However, men need to stop feeling they are toxic just for being men and liberate their minds from the constraints of the sexes are at war narrative. A narrative which is nothing more than collectivization around biological sex and a denial of individual personal identity as a man.

Atlas Shrugged (Audio Book Excerpt) | John Galt Speaking

Consent and Non-Consent/Freedom and Force is a Binary

Some people have commented in the past that I am too extreme or too far rightist. In the sense in which right means being for Capitalism VS Anti-Capitalism of some form. However, they are philosophically incorrect and not understanding of the essentials of right and left, of freedom and force or of consent and non-consent. You see force or breaking of consent is a binary and you either have consent/freedom or you have force/compulsion of the innocent. There is no such thing with this in mind as too in favor of Capitalism. There is no such thing as being too pro-Consent. There is no such thing as "extreme-right" or "Far-right" other than to separate yourself into being the pure form of rightism if needed. However, it is in the end an oxymoron as there is no degrees of Capitalism. There is no degrees of Consent Society and of freedom for the innocent. You either are free; to live, to think, to judge and then to act or you are not in which case you are a Surf.     

The options (Right or Left) are the binaries at the heart of all philosophy how mankind qua mankind should treat each other while living on Earth. It is a humane Ethical code put into practice in the political realm of the world and of philosophy. Anything that is not Right (On the Right) is Wrong/Evil and not correct or moral. Thus it is not I; the moral man with the fully coherent and fully rational moral code of conduct expanded to politics that needs to explain things. It is the immoral, the vile, the vicious and pernicious parasites that think government exists to cater to their entitled attitude that need to explain why they are not in the realm of politics either evil or wrong. Why is it right to force all other moral men and I's minds? What is your evidence for the need and moral backing of stopping our minds? Of squashing our very Human Spirits at the barrel of a gun? You do not get to control others because you grew up in a padded Snowflake friendly entitled world. 

I am not your Surf, I am not your Slave... I am a human being, a human mind and a living entity of your species. You have no right to make me your surf or your Slave. You have no right to demand my time or money be spent on what your values are at the expense of my own. I do not live for those whom demand sacrifices at every turn like I am a stuffed Turkey at your Thanksgiving. I am a man qua man and my freedom is Binary. As is all of yours. Freedom/Consent or Force/Non-Consent. It is a Binary; it is Right (Morally and Politically) or it is wrong (that which the Left politically represents and the Moderate Muddled compromise allows to poison the broth.) There is no other direction it is either Freedom/Consent or some level of evil, of wrongness of the vile thing known as force/non-consent in dealings with your neighbors. The Anti-Capitalism in any degree is the anti-mind, thus the anti-human and the anti-life. Moderates; those whom call me too extreme or too far-right are the ones that are wrong for they are in the end compromising with their own deaths. 

Proper and justly obtained Pride is a Virtue not a vice!

"Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man's values, it has to be earned -- that of any achievements open to you, the one that makes all others possible is the creation of your own character -- that your character, your actions, your desires, your emotions are the products of the premises held by your mind -- that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of the character that makes his life worth sustaining -- that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul -- that to live requires a sense of self-value, but man, who has to automatic values, has no automatic sense of self-esteem and must earn it by shaping his soul in the image of his moral idea, in the image of Man, the rational being he is born able to create, but must make by choice -- that the first precondition of self-esteem is that radiant selfishness of soul which desires the best in all things, in values of matter and spirit, a soul that seeks above all to achieve its own moral perfection, valuing nothing higher than itself -- and that the proof of an achieved self-esteem is your soul's shudder of contempt and rebellion against the role of a sacrificial animal, against the vile impertinence of any creed that proposes to immolate the irreplaceable value which is your consciousness, and then incomparable glory which is your existence to the blind evasions and the stagnant decay of others." [Ayn Rand, For The New Intellectual, p 130]

The Core Of Objectivism is reason and logic!

Sunny Lohmann presents a masterful explanation of Objectivists and Objectivism.

It is always nice to come across explanations of Objectivism and Objectivists that is easily understood by the average Joe or Janet. Often time describing Objectivism is left to Objectivist based intellectuals whom might use terms or phrases misunderstood by people. They will often put forth amazingly elegant, but, yet, hard to follow essays on the subject that will be not as acceptable to the general public. However, this article from 2013 by Sunny Lohmann explains things in such a cut and dried way no one can misunderstand it. (Well, unless you intentionally cut off knowledge.)

"Objectivists are, to put it simply, people who have studied Ayn Rand and her philosophy, Objectivism, to such a degree that they understand its essentials, have decided the philosophy is true, have attempted to live by it..."

"Objectivism is a closed and complete system of thought, so agreement is actually possible. It’s the same as a person saying, I’ve read and agree with the philosophy of Aristotle, except that it’s Ayn Rand we agree with. What it means to be an Objectivist is that you philosophically understand and accept that reason is your only means of knowledge, and you resolve to honestly use reason and logic to the best of your ability in and for your life. That’s pretty much it. Done. Normal, yet exceptional." 

She also takes on  misconceptions as well masterfully such as that Objectivism is too dogmatic or that it is too absolute. That one is somehow a snobbish Elitist for being an Objectivist.

Many Objectivists have studied works and thinkers from the entire history of human thought in depth and can compare and contrast the ideas of Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, Kant, Marx, Rand, and many others. How many of you can do that with your own philosophy? How many of you can even explain your own philosophy top to bottom? We have worked hard to explicitly identify our own philosophy and we’re proud of it. We think we are right and we’ve earned that. Good for us!

If you are walking around thinking you are wrong, then shame on you and go crack some books, preferably Ayn Rand books, because the greatest thing that Ayn Rand gave me, that Objectivism gave me, was total certainty that I am right about all the things that really matter – and the ability to prove it! 

She continues in this vein as she puts to rest also like a complete mistress of the digital pen that Objectivists are Cultists that blindly follow anything because Ms. Rand said it.

Since Objectivists regard being rational (objective) as the height of virtue, what you are witnessing is not blind following. What you are witnessing are men with CERTAINTY. We KNOW Ayn Rand was right because we have put it to a rigorous and extensive process of thought, backed up by, and I mean this literally, direct perceptual evidence. Therefore we tend to think our ideas are more obvious and commonsensical than they are. It is as though we can say, “See that rock over there? Therefore, Objectivism is totally correct.” WE understand each step to get from “rock” to “capitalism is the only moral social system,” but we’re probably not always great at recognizing that others don't and so we don't communicate as well as we might.

She points out as well that some people just have a second-handed cultist attitude about any philosophy they have and with life in general.

We may also get a bad rap for this because SOME people have brought their dogmatic mentalities to the application of philosophy, including a philosophy that says you MUST think for yourself and be independent-minded (Objectivism), which is kinda the opposite of blind following. If you ever hear an Objectivist say to you, “It’s true because Ayn Rand said it’s true," you are dealing with one of these types. Back away while making loud noises, and if they still come at you, drop to the floor and play dead.

Her final nail in the coffin of the Objectivist hate-factory is the idea that Objectivism or Objectivists hate charity.

This is by far the number-one most misunderstood thing about Objectivists and Objectivism.

If Objectivists are against charity, why is their preeminent organization, The Ayn Rand Institute, a non profit, which functions on, you guessed it, charitable contributions?

Objectivists are not against charity, compassion, generosity or any of those things. What we are against is the idea that your virtue, whether or not you are a good person, rests on ANY of those activities. Can you be a good person on a deserted island? Yes......

Charity etc. is only “bad” in our book if it is a sacrifice of a greater value to a lesser value. We are against human sacrifice (goats are okay). If your wife needs a kidney and you can give her your kidney to save her, but instead you give it to your neighbor, that’s sacrificing your wife to your neighbor. That’s bad. If you want to write a novel and your day job means you can only write on Sundays and you take Sundays to go feed the homeless instead, that’s sacrificing your productive purpose, your long term happiness, to a stranger’s full belly. That’s bad.

Taking care of YOUR life and YOUR values in a rational fashion, since reason is your means of survival, is what it means to be a good person, according to Objectivism.

With that said, if you want to have positive relationships with other people in life, you should probably be compassionate and generous toward your loved ones—to those whom YOU VALUE—and that comes quite naturally for most people. If not, you might be a psychopath, and so probably not an Objectivist"

This is an amazingly well written article about Objectivism and Objectivists. I find it helps put to rest in an understandable way much of the misconceptions and outright lies spread about the philosophy of Objectivism. My hats off to Sunny for doing such a wonderful job presenting the philosophy for what it is and not what people want to make of it. Bravo, Bravo, Bravo!

ENCORE--- This point cannot be made enough... Benevolence VS Altruism

Ayn Rand In Her Own Words

The roots of what made Ayn Rand who she was, and why it's so important to understand the background before judging the outcome.

Being Selfish : The Virtue of Selfishness | Dr. Yaron Brook | Full Length HD

Dr. Yaron Brook (M.B.A., University of Texas at Austin; Ph.D., Finance, University of Texas at Austin) is the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and a leading advocate of Rand's ideas. A former finance professor, he speaks internationally on such topics as the causes of the financial crisis, the morality of capitalism, and ending the growth of the state. Yaron is a columnist at Forbes.com, and his articles have been featured in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Investor's Business Daily, and many other publications. A frequent guest on a variety of national television programs, he is co-author of Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea and contributing author of Winning the Unwinnable War: America's Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism. His newest book, Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand's Ideas Can End Big Government, co-authored with Don Watkins is now available. To follow Yaron and see his most current activities, please check out Yaron Brook and Don Watkin's blog Laissez-Faire: The Uncompromised Case for Capitalism. Born and raised in Israel, Yaron served as a first sergeant in Israeli military intelligence and earned a BSc in civil engineering from Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, Israel. Yaron admits to being a socialist until the age of 16--then he read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Despite his best efforts to poke holes in Rand's arguments, he couldn't, and went on to become a student of Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. In the late 1980s, Yaron and his wife started thinking about where in the world they would want to live their lives and raise a family. Where could they find the greatest amount of freedom and the greatest amount of opportunity? The answer was clear, so in 1987 they emigrated to the United States. He would go on to become an American citizen in 2003. Yaron received his MBA and PhD in finance from the University of Texas at Austin. For seven years he was an award-winning finance professor at Santa Clara University, and in 1998 he cofounded a financial advisory firm, BH Equity Research, of which he is presently managing director and chairman. While in America, Yaron continued studying Ayn Rand's philosophy. In the mid-1990s, he joined the Ayn Rand Institute's new educational program, the Objectivist Graduate Center. It was in the OGC (now expanded into the Objectivist Academic Center) that Yaron deepened his knowledge of Objectivism.

It was also during this time that Yaron launched Lyceum International, an organization that for many years ran conferences on Objectivism. In 2000 Yaron left teaching to become the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and go-to source for laissez-faire policy. Yaron's field of speciaties include Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand), capitalism, finance, business ethics, venture capital, economics and foreign policy.

Yaron Answers: How Would A Government Gain Revenue Without Taxes?

Yaron Brook answers a question from Justin: "How would a government gain revenue without taxes?" www.laissezfaireblog.com

Yaron Answers: What's The Difference Between Altruism And Benevolence?

Yaron Brook answers a question from Robert: "What's the difference between altruism and benevolence?" www.laissezfaireblog.com

Introduction To Objectivism with Leonard Peikoff

In this video, philosopher Leonard Peikoff presents the essentials of Ayn Rand’s philosophy to a group of students, then answers their questions. Peikoff, who was Rand’s friend and associate for three decades, is the author of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. This presentation, recorded in San Francisco in 1995 by the Ayn Rand Institute, features a 42-minute lecture followed by a 33-minute Q&A session.

Ayn Rand: Philosophy, Objectivism, Self Interest (full interview with Yaron Brook from The Rubin Report)

Yaron Brook (President, Ayn Rand Institute) joins Dave Rubin, discussing Ayn Rand's overall philosophy, objectivism, social safety nets, capitalism, human nature and more.

George H. Smith helps clarify Altruism VS Benevolence and good will or helping others

Is Selfishness a Virtue? A Debate With Yaron Brook and Gene Epstein.

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

The role of Biology is right in your faces. A rejoinder to anyone that thinks we are a "Blank Slate" (even Objectivists and the MRM).

It gets very frustrating to see the role of biology in human behavior being eschewed for nonsense when the evidence is present right before your very eyes. You see this blank slate argument coming from every side of the coin. From the feminist on the left to the Objectivists on the right. I want to point out that all animals have natures something that Objectivism itself points out. I also want to point out that all animals have a biological disposition. The idea that we are separate from nature in this way is silly at best and ludicrous at worst. It is unscientific to claim that biology and evolution ends at the neck and does not extend into the brain and human mind. 

From the left you have the people that want a new Marxist man and also the feminist types. They both want to use social engineering to alter human nature due to not believing that humans have one. This is a sickening view that totally devalues human life and makes me want to vomit to be honest. Men should be able to break with masculinity because "testosterone don't do nothing." There is no biology to men being men. To men being masculine and tending to be certain ways with others and themselves. It is all nurture and nature plays no part in men being whom and what they are. It is sick and twisted to be sure. 

However, how are SOME Right Objectivists any better when they believe that free will is so absolute that we have no innate tendencies? We have no innate functions, emotions, views, predilections for this or that. That evolution does indeed stop at the neck and there is no innateness to the human. That we are all a blank slate if you will and have no human nature. Despite Objectivism saying we have one and must live by that nature. That man is qua man and cannot be anything, but, man qua man. Which means that if there is even a little bit of biology to anything it must be acknowledged and worked with in this framework. 

Evolution is real and biology is real it can be seen/studied/understood. How can it be that our biology not be a factor in the midst of our lives and choices? Of course it is and it is in the center of everything from mate selection to why we love Fast and fatty foods. The idea that we have no innateness is insane. The idea that we do not have evolved traits which helped to make our species survive and thus still survive even if buried deep is insane. I say to THESE Objectivists you are acting like cultists denying reality as opposed to letting reality be the final arbiter which is part of Objectivism itself. 

I have as much of an issue with those MRA's whom deny evolutionary reasons for various things they like to blame on other things like society. For example; it is not society that deems men to be in the most dangerous of jobs it is the biological differences between the sexes. Women could not and cannot still often times work some of the most deadliest jobs as well as men. Why? Do to their nature mainly pregnancy worries, but, also the differences in strength. The average "feminine" women and the average "masculine" man are just different in many regards to upper body strength it cannot be denied. So, jobs where lifting for example takes place will be mostly men. Construction will be mostly men and so forth. 

You will never get women taking over all the dangerous jobs; sorry, but, this is one of those Nature being a Tyrant things we will never escape. Most women just have different preferences than men. Which means that MRA's whom preach that everything is some Gynocentric Societal Construction are just as inane and loony as the feminists that preach about some Patriarchal Societal Construction against women. I have said it before and will say it again Gender Roles are the domain of nature the Tyrant and not absolute free willed choice. Unless you rewire women and men's natures we will never have "egalitarianism." The idea is against the very biology that makes our species survive and is an affront to Nature.    

All we can do is protect all individuals right to pursue their own happiness irregardless of if it is determined or absolutely free. By doing this one can act from nature, nurture or both and be safe in acting. Be safe in being whom and what they are. Be safe in being left alone instead of being a sacrifice to their neighbors needs and desires. This is what is required; the fire for the engine does not matter, but, to have a just society the engine needs to be able to run like clockwork. The fuel for that engine is irrelevant as long as it is not forced from others and is done via rational and voluntary means. The FACT that biology is a driver of many of our human actions does not alter what is moral or practical it all remains the same.