I am the CEO of my life and so are you for yours.

Gad Saad & Yaron Brook on evolutionary psychology, Altruism, State of academia & more!

On November 1, 2018, Yaron and Gad Saad sat down to discuss Donald Trump, birthright citizenship, immigration, idea pathogens, evolutionary psychology, objectivism (Ayn Rand), altruism, consilience, and interdisciplinary pursuits.

Follow Gad Saad on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLH7...), Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Dr.Gad.Saad, and Twitter: https://twitter.com/GadSaad (@GadSaad)
______________________________________

Like what you hear? Become a Patreon member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this! https://www.patreon.com/YaronBrookShow or support the show direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow.

Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/user/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook).

Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.

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.

Men need to be able to love themselves and live a life which nurtures the self not live a projection of what others want.

A lot of times when you look up information related to the manosphere you end up with a bunch of sites talking about what women want in men. You will find sites talking about Game and things like that. You will also find sites talking about masculine traits through the eyes of what women find attractive. Usually tossed in there somewhere will be talk about alphas, betas and omegas. Not usually do you see sites talking about manhood and what it means or not for the man himself.

The only website on masculinity that I ever really found that was based on manhood from the view of the man is Allan J. Frantzen's website. He is the man whom came up with the term being a GYB man or a Grab Your Balls man. Which I found to be a very refreshing site to find and it also called out calling men effeminate or emasculated without having their testicles removed. In fact, it was finding his website that helped light the spark of an idea for my own website you are finding yourself reading right now. I figured maybe I should do my own blog about manhood and maleness that looked at things from a different view point than Game players or attraction gurus.

My personal mindset has been from the very beginning that manhood is not based on "otherism." It is not based on what women or other men define as manhood, but, instead by manhood itself. That ones sense of worth as a man should not come from an external source, but, instead from ones own view of themselves as worthy. That a mans worth exists in a world where no women or other men even exists. That men have their own value as people regardless of whether they slay the ladies or turn them all off like vinegar. That men need to put their own well-being first and foremost which means to put the needs for women's and other men's attention as last.

In fact, the theme of so many sites dominated only by what women want means men are constantly living for women and not themselves. Even if said sites are right about what they say women want they are about women and not best practices for men. There is no emphasis on the best and most healthy or whole way for a man to live. There is no emphasis on the mental, physical or emotional needs of men. It is all about the desires of women so much for being sites for men. Masculinity becomes no more than another word for what women want and not about a man at his core. In essence manhood is no longer about being at peace with your core as a man. Instead it becomes placating for the chance to spread your seed.

Masculinity is not just what women want it is much more than that. Men should be able to embrace whom they are no matter how it affects women's attention to them. Nor their fellow man's. At the end of the day it is not the woman nor other men that they see in the mirror before bed and as they rise. It is themselves that a man sees and it is themselves they need the most to have reverence for. It is the self they need to love, to nurture the most and the self they need to honor. The self they need to see as their target of loves arrow. Not in some narcissistic sense, but, in a very much rational sense. If you cannot love yourself whom can you love. 

The Objectivist Ethics ; not what you might think they are.

Morality is the recognition of the fact that as mortal beings with a rational, volitional consciousness, we need to adopt and practice certain principles in order to live.

Living beings clearly act to achieve particular values by particular means. Their actions are aimed at specific ends " namely, their survival and reproduction. But the question of purpose does not arise for them either because their actions are automatic, determined by instinct. They cannot choose, as men do, to live by one means or another, to be carnivores or herbivores, to live or die. Unlike non-living entities, they have various values, such as food, reproduction, and shelter, but they have no means to choose which values to achieve or which course of action to take to achieve them beyond their immediate environment.

Like all living organisms, man can be distinguished from non-living matter by the fact that in order to remain alive, he must act to attain the values needed for his survival (such as food, water, shelter, clothes.) For animals, which operate entirely on the perceptual level, this guidance comes automatically through their facility of instinct. Man does not have any automatic means of attaining the values needed for his life. He may have urges (hunger, thirst, etc) but he has no automatic means of fulfilling them. Unlike animals, human beings lack any kind of innate ideas or instinct - we learn our values and ideas from your experience of reality. We are the creators of our own mental nature - but we have no power over our metaphysical nature - we can refuse to recognize that we need food to live - but that does not change the fact that we are mortal beings who need food to live.

As a conceptual being, his survival depends on correctly using reason to identify and attain the values necessary for his life. As a volitional being, his thinking is neither automatic nor infallible, but is an active process that requires a constant focus on correctly identifying the facts of reality and applying them to achieve the values needed for his well-being. Unlike the automatic function of animal instinct, man must choose to think, " and his thoughts will determine his actions, his values, his emotions, and his character. The primary choice of every individual " to think or not" corresponds to his primary alternative " to live or not. His own life is the primary moral value of each individual" whether he chooses to accept it or not.

Rational self-interest, or egoism is therefore the proper morality each man must adopt if he wishes to live " the application of his reason to achieve the values needed for his survival. A man may choose not to think or to reject his life, but to the extent he does so, he chooses to act towards his death. Egoism is not a virtue by itself - simply knowing that one should act selfishly provides no guide to action. One must use reason to derive virtues, which are specific principles for practicing rationality in all areas of one's life.

Objectivism, however, does not list "selfishness" among its official virtues. The "values" officially recognized by Objectivism are "reason," "purpose," and "self-esteem," and the "virtues" by which these are achieved are said to be "rationality", "productiveness," and "pride."

Objectivism rejects as immoral any action taken for some other ultimate purpose. In particular it rejects as immoral any variant of what it calls "altruism" — by which it means, essentially, any ethical doctrine according to which a human being must justify his or her existence by service to others. According to Objectivism, every ethical or moral action has the agent as its primary beneficiary.

Objectivism especially opposes any ethical demand for sacrifice. Objectivism uses this term in a special sense: a "sacrifice", according to its Objectivist definition, is the giving up of a greater value for a lesser one. (In other worlds of discourse, for example baseball and chess, the term is used to mean the giving up of a lesser or shorter-term value for the sake of a greater or longer-term one. Objectivism does not regard such an exchange as a genuine "sacrifice.")

Not all superficially self-interested actions count as moral, however. Objectivism espouses an ethic of genuine self-interest — that is, of choices and actions that genuinely do promote one's life qua human being, not merely those that we think or hope may do so. The Objectivist ethic can be called one of "rational self-interest" (rational egoism) on the grounds that human beings must discover, through reason, what genuinely is of value to them.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.php?title=Ethics&oldid=9287"

What is Objectivism? The basics of the philosophy in the simplest terms.

Objectivism is the name chosen by Ayn Rand for her philosophy. Some essentials of Objectivism are that reality is real (i.e., Existence exists), and that we are conscious of reality (Consciousness is conscious).

From this, Objectivism propounds that knowledge is objective: it is not simply revealed or "obvious", nor is it whimsically subjective. Knowledge is the result of a consciousness gaining understanding of reality.

The better we understand reality, the better we can deal with it. Ayn Rand described Objectivism as a philosophy for living on earth -- by which she meant that it was a philosophy grounded in reality with the purpose of enabling its adherents to better deal with reality. A common thread running through all of Objectivism is the sanctity of the individual, rational human being. In Rand's own words:

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

Ayn Rand rejected the idea that men who pursue their own interests must end up in conflict with one another. Objectivism holds individual rights to be the mechanism by which men can pursue their individual interests without being in conflict with one another.

Objectivism is a closed system -- it consists of the philosophical writings of Ayn Rand (which she finished for publication) and those philosophical writings of other people which she specifically approved (for example the articles in the Objectivist Newsletter).

There are philosophical truths which were not incorporated into Objectivism. You should not assume without proof that everything in Objectivism is true.

In fact, to assume without proof that everything Ayn Rand said is true, contradicts Objectivist Epistemology.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.php?title=What_is_Objectivism&oldid=9366"

The Flourishing Man Pilot Broadcast | What is Masculinity and does it even matter?

In the Pilot episode of The Flourishing Man I tackle the question, what is masculinity? Tracing its origins in grammar to what it means in essence in nature. We will discuss why it matters that a positive and good definition of masculinity exist for people that fall within this definition. Touch on the importance of male role models for young boys and men. Why we need to rescue if you will masculinity from both sides the Barbarism is good movement as well as the Radical Feminist movement.

Sexual Disorientation is a very real phenomenon and it should not be dismissed as a Myth.

I am a survivor of male rape multiple times by the same man and I am also a survivor of years of sexual disorientation. I wanted to once again although in a much more condensed form tell my story as an example of the very real phenomenon known as sexual disorientation from rape. Most people have probably never heard of the term, but, it is known in the literature related to male survivors of male rape. It is when a man whom was a victim of another man starts living as a homosexual or bisexual from assumptions around their victimization.

This is not the same as saying rape or molestation is the cause of homosexuality or bisexuality in the LGBT community. It is saying it is not uncommon for boys and men to make connections in their brain over their reactions during their rape. If the boy or man happens to get erect or even orgasm during his rape his brain codes it as being something he must have somehow enjoyed. Thus he must actually be gay or bisexual and this "incident" or "incidents" is actually showing him who he is. He will from here either think he might be gay or bi, but, hide this idea. Or he will come out as gay or bisexual to others around him.

However, what he is experiencing is not a realization of his sexual orientation, but, instead he is experiencing sexual disorientation due to his rape. Usually at an age in which development is happening in the boy or young man. Although any rape where the man becomes erect or orgasms during their assault the disorientation could get a hold of the survivor. This is what happened to me I was just turning 19 when I was raped, not once, but, for an entire week night after night alone and cold as they say in British Columbia. I had no friends, no family, I was alone and he was all I knew at the time in the Province. I essentially was this other 18 year old's Prisoner. 

However, I had orgasm and maintained erect when he gave me Oral whether I wanted the incidents to begin or continue or not. When I told him that I did not want to have him have Anal sex with me and I did not want to swallow his seed he made me do it. He forced his manhood into my mouth by putting it in despite the fact that I did not want to. He kept thrusting into me despite my telling him I did not want to. This kept up for an entire week. However, that week also contained constant erections when he put his mouth on me, and orgasms as well. In the confusion of my experiences and possibly for my own maintaining of sanity my brain wired the orgasms into my brain as the sign I was bisexual or gay either one.

So, one week of horrific, but, confusing incidents made me convinced I was bisexual and I came out as such as soon as I made my escape from him and returned to PEI where I was safe and sound. Since I convinced myself I was bisexual I acted and behaved as if I was. I would search for LGBT events and I would start going to them first as bisexual, then gay, then bisexual again back and forth over the years. However, as I got older my attraction quote un quote to men slowly faded away as I found myself getting up there in years. It was natural and it just happened over time. During this time I slowly began to come to terms with what happened when I was in BC. That I was neither bi nor gay I was and am straight. The victimizer raped me before I even had a single date, kiss, let alone sex with a woman. So,  I had taken my reaction to my rape as a sign I was gay or bi.

This is a very real phenomenon and it is not just a myth. Yes, it is a myth that a young boy or a man being raped can make you gay. That any and every boy that is sexually harmed will end up living as something other than heterosexual. However, it is not a myth that being sexually abused or raped as a boy or man can make you act out or behave in a gay or bisexual manor. Sexual disorientation will make a person act and behave just as if homosexuality or bisexuality is their nature. Yet, the reasons for this behavior is different entirely in their reasoning than someone whom just happens to grow up to be homosexual or bisexual.

Dr. Joe Kort is a Ph.D. whom has worked with male survivors of rape and other sexual misconducts for sometime, years in fact. He knows all too well that this is not a Myth and writes the following in an article on Sexual disorientation at Psychology Today.

In my psychotherapy practice, I’ve been addressing the many-faceted issue of straight men who have gay sex—how easy it may be to conclude that such men are gay or bisexual and simply in denial of their true sexual orientation, but that this may not be the case. What we find, instead, is that memories about the abuse from another male can become eroticized for a man, which then compels him to seek out same-sex encounters or porn. This does not mean that he is gay or bisexual, though he may have enduring fantasies about gay sex.

Childhood or other sexual abuse of boys or men, perpetrated by another male, may lead a man to again and again seek out sexual encounters with men in an unconscious effort to resolve the guilt and shame he feels around the original encounter.

A boy/or man who has become traumatized from such an event usually becomes quite adept in at compartmentalization—so much so that he may even “forget”.... I encounter more of these situations in my office than you might imagine. I have found that the first step is to see the man who has been abused in individual therapy, working through his grief and his anger at the loss of innocent sexual development, helping him understand how his own sexuality was eclipsed by the sexuality of the perpetrator, leaving him sexually disoriented. He knows that he is straight, but continues to try to unconsciously resolve the tension between his fantasies and his sexual identity by seeking out these gay sexual encounters.

         A man returning from encounters that don’t match his core sexual identity may struggle for hours or days (or years) over such questions as “Am I gay or bi?” when, in fact, he is neither. Nor is he a “sex addict.” Rather, he is compelled to return to the scene of the sexual crime, becoming the little boy/victim trying to figure out why it happened:

• Was it something about me that made him pick me?

• Did I want it?

• Was there something I did or said to get him to do this to me?

• Did this make me gay or bisexual, and am I suppressing it?

Sexual abuse might impact his erotic interests, but this is not the same as orientation.
Bringing the compulsion out of the shadows can help put the man in conscious control instead of under the unconscious control of the compulsion. This is not to say that the fantasies will then go away. They are early imprints that have become eroticized, and will likely be with him for life. The goal is to take mastery of the behavior so that you’re not acting out anymore against your own will.
The next step in therapy is to get the client into a men’s sexual abuse group. I often find that men who have experienced childhood sexual abuse have been silent about it throughout their life. Being able to openly talk about with other men helps reduce the shame, which is huge. Victims of childhood sexual abuse will typically carry the shame of the perpetrator, as well as their own. Getting out from behind the veil of secrecy is necessary if one is to successfully shed this shame.

A person whom is acting out of disorientation can and often does change over time. Some of them have their same sex thoughts gone or some remain with the eroticized thoughts. The goal of the therapy for such a person does not require that they drop said thoughts. Only that they understand why they have them and deal with them in a way that is not harmful to themselves or others. The change can come far before the person even goes for help. Or it can happen while the individual is in therapy for their issues. However, it is the dealing with the Trauma and knowing the truth about your own identity/your own past that is president and not the change as such.

In my case the reorientation to what was before being disoriented happened before I ever sought help with my issues as such. In this way the two things were not related the change and the therapy. This is far different from Reparative Therapy designed with the intention of changing orientation. If the change happens in therapy it is not due to the therapist having any intention of changing the clients orientation. In fact, it is a recovery of the true self and a working on removing the eroticized imprints of the rape/abuse which is the total opposite of the idea of Ex-Gay Therapies.   

And finally, in most instances some parts of the eroticization of the abuse remain. In other words, something that was introduced to him during the abuse has now become part of his sexual fantasies and preferences. Many therapists believe that if the male survivor continues to eroticize anything that came from the abuse they are unhealed.

This is wrong.

From a sexual-health perspective, even after healing from trauma one goes from trauma reenactment to trauma play. The origin of the fantasy might come from abuse, but now it is about play and mastery. I help clients learn to enjoy these fantasies, and eliminate the shame around them. This doesn’t mean they must act them out behaviorally, but they might want to, and that Is fine. However, most choose to keep them as fantasies.

In conclusion sexual disorientation is very real. Sexual abuse and rape of men can and often does effect their view of their sexual identity, even if their orientation itself was what came before the assault. This does not mean that every single man or boy that is abused will act out in a bisexual or homosexual way after abuse from a male. It just means it is one of many outcomes to horrific events that should never have happened in the first place. Especially if it happened at a time of personal sexual development. 

      
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/understanding-the-erotic-code/201708/sexual-disorientation-male-sexual-abuse-survivors

http://www.malesurvivor.org/index.php

https://communitysoulwork.org/2017/11/17/sexual-disorientation-and-sexual-abuse/

https://goodmenproject.com/sex-relationships/sexual-disorientation-of-male-sexual-abuse-survivors-lbkr/

Trinity of Liberty Q&A by Craig Biddle

Arron Moreno AKA Alpha M. on the Modern Alpha Male

Alpha Male is it worth reclaiming or is it dead and buried? A 2nd anniversary discussion

One of my first posts 2 years ago was on the term Alpha and if it was real. Was there any substance to the Alpha Male at all and if so should it be embraced or be looked at with indifference. I also went onto talk about different peoples interpretations of what an Alpha Male was. I explained how there was different interpretations. Some are more credible than others and some are just bunk. From there I went onto link to some videos which made the Alpha out to seem not like a douche, but, just a cool and confident dude.

That was almost two years ago now and I have not really talked about it much since that time. However, I did make a couple of posts about Alpha maleness that I was finding within myself at the time. I talked about the Prom Pride event that I attended with a great rush of what I called at the time Alpha Male confidence. I talked about how nice the night was and so forth. I also wrote another article as well reflecting on the idea that to be Alpha was to put on an act. In that same article I said it was the exact opposite and that I know because I was an Alpha Male. That as an Alpha I always was myself confidently wherever I went and that confidence was the alpha trait itself.

I have not used the term alpha male in an article to describe me since that time. I also only mentioned it once since then in my article critiquing PUA Mystery and his VH1 show. The term alpha really does depend on context and it could be a good or bad term. It could mean a douche or it could just mean a confident, assertive and aiming for the best male/female. It is a term used by PUA types and it is also a term used by people like Arron Moreno of Alpha M. productions. It is also used my motivational speakers and dating coaches as well. There are lots of people that use it and do not mean what some think it means.

The question is about the state of the word as a whole. Is it worth saving it by embracing it and reclaiming it? Or should it be buried and dead on arrival? I already talked about whether macho and machismo could be reclaimed or rescued as just meaning male pride not douches. Can Alpha Male be similarly rescued from the bunk versions and the douche dynamics? Just like macho and machismo requires context in order to be deemed acceptable to rescue, so, does the term alpha irregardless of which gender is being alpha.

If by Alpha Male you mean a member of the male sex/gender simply confidently being their best selves it is a term that could be quite useful. For example; I was on the top of the world with esteem and self love as I walked down the street in a total Alpha mood on cloud nine. It can or could be quite useful for internally labeling your condition at the time. It would be useful also for self-motivation. For example; I am going to the gym to Alpha out (AKA get the best work out possible). Or in matters of body language as a way to differentiate confident and give no fucks language over shrugged shoulders.

If you are not using it to reference douche behavior I see no problem with men or women considering themselves or embracing the label of being their own Alpha in their own life. Not in the sense of walking over others. However, in the sense of being The King or Queen of their own Castle and Kingdom within. Not in a sense of being better than other people, but, in a sense of owning their own objective value as a person. I think there is a place for the word in our vocabulary where it does not mean being a bastard nor a bitch. That does not mean Non-Alpha should be seen as not good either. Beta is too often used as a term to mean a man that is not worthy of human compassion without worth.

I think the terms Alpha Male and Female are useful and do serve a purpose. Even if it is just as a term for a man or woman at their personal best. I think Arron Moreno and others are on the forefront of an Alpha which is not douche based. I welcome the New Alpha Revolution in the masculinity and manliness sphere. All hail the new doucheless Alpha Males you have my deepest respect and good on you. I guess the question you might be wondering is would I qualify for being in that same camp?
The answer would be I can be. I can be in that camp, but, I admit I have been going through some shit the last few months. We are all only human and no one can be in Beast mode all the time to try to be would be inhumane to yourself.

When I am at my best and give no fucks I would be considered one of the newer, good guy Alphas with a gentle side. I have been Alpha a lot in the past, but, just not lately. I have been way too hard on myself over little things and my social anxiety has come back a little. I will work at it though I will get my Mojo back over time. I will get back to that give no fucks kindly King of my Kingdom Chris again. I will beast out once more someday. I will be my own Alpha and be the best me I can be once more. I will relearn that self-love I held so dear. I will be The Alpha Male of my own life and be the man in control of me and my own destiny.       

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.

Shattering the veil of ignorance: Taking on the misunderstandings and downright falsehoods about Objectivism

Usually even the mere mention of Objectivism leads to scorn and a crazy hatred that is something so negative a believer in Woo Woo fluff would say would bring ruin. Most people whom hear the term think of some sort of secular Cult built around unquestionable ideas of one woman; that woman being Ayn Rand. They think to be an Objectivist; thus agreeing with her on philosophy and its proceeding politics means that you worship the ground she walked on. That you are a dogmatic and unthinking kool-aid drinker. That you are in fact a Randroid. 

However, to say that is to not understand Objectivism VS Ayn Rand worship. It is to misunderstand the difference between agreeing with a philosophical world view and agreeing with the personal opinions of the philosopher. It is to misunderstand the difference between agreeing with the overall world view presented and to agree unquestioning that the outcome of that philosophy is X, Y or Z. One of the biggest misunderstandings about Objectivism is that it promotes a dog-eat-dog world of chaos. 

At the core of Objectivism is indeed the virtue of selfishness in fact it is all about following your own personal and rational selt-interest. VS living a life based on otherism where others determine your life and journey over your own self. However, there is no reason for rational self-interest for selfishness to lead to chaos. Far from it chaos does not let us achieve our goals to keep and maintain our values in life. One needs some sense of stability to be able to know how to keep and maintain said values. The chaos of people crushing each other to get ahead is antithetical to being able to live a rational life. 

Thus one of the biggest hard-ons against Objectivism is on its face dead wrong and not correct. Let us take charity for one. Charity itself is not persay a virtue, but, it can be virtuous to be charitable to causes you really do care about. If you have a cause you are rationally passionate about and it is not self-destructive to give to it that is selfish. Charity in order to be moral must be based on a context in which you are not destructive of your own wellbeing. Some people find it amazing to give to others because of the cause being something they love. In addition one can get great joy and happiness from helping others and being benevolent. 

Just because a philosophy has selfishness at its core does not mean it preaches "me, me, me." Another example is people providing protection and provision to others. If someone has a loved one in their life; be that a lover, friends, family or even fellow community members of good character one is unrelated to. If someone is giving to them in the form of protecting them or providing for them it is not selfless unless it is self-destructive. Protection and provision spurned on by how important of a value someone or something is to you in a non-destructive way it is selfish to take up such a role. 

The truth is most people would not want pure altruism to take hold in a society. It would lead to said societies complete and utter destruction. Even something such as national security is based on people selfishly protecting that which one cares deeply about. Ones ability to be free and thrive in a safe, stable and of course most importantly liberty based society. So, soldiers volunteering to be in an all volunteer army because they have thought, thought, thought and rationally want to protect the nation and its allies are being as selfish as can be they are not selfless altruists at all. 

It is not selfish to let your child starve either. Or to look at the poor as scum beneath your feet. It is very selfish to help a poor person that genuinely wants to be on their own two feet. That genuinely wants to not be poor and to have their own job. Whom generally wants to have a good life and be a productive person in their own life. People that have thought about peoples characters and decided out of benevolence to help the downtrodden and the disabled/disordered are also being selfish provided they are not being self-destructive. Feeding your child is selfish because you are maintaining your genes in the pool of our species. Only a pure altruist would let their child starve. 

Now let us return to the criticism of Objectivism as being some sort of Ayn Rand circle-jerk cult. To be deadly honest some people whom call themselves Objectvists can be jerks, can be Randroid like worshipers and can be cult-like dogmatists. However, that is not Objectivism that causes this these people would act like this with philosophy and the philosophers no matter which one they chose. These folks just have that sort of temperament and no matter what they were they would act like this. If they dropped Objectivism for say Christianity they would become the fundamentalists. This is an individual issue that should be taken up with those individuals and any groups which share their unthinking narrative view. 

For example; Ayn Rand thought homosexuality was immoral. However, 99% of all people whom are Objectivists disagree with this stance vehemently. Ayn Rand denied evolution had a role to play in human psychology. This too a good deal of Objectivists disagree with. She thought that your sense of life determined whom you wanted to bang. This too most Objectivists would disagree with as well. She was herself anti-porn and this is not true of Objectivists everywhere. She had many personal opinions she came to on any number of matters. However, agreeing with her philosophically does not indicate you agree with any of her opinions she nor any other Objectivist "claims" comes from agreeing with the philosophy.  

I am an Objectivist and I will not deny this nor have I ever denied this on this here blog. However, I also disagree not only as vehemently with Ayn Rand as many other Objectivists with thinking brains, but, often times I disagree even more with her than my fellow Objectivists do. Topic after topic that would take up paragraphs I disagree and find evidence based on our current knowledge is black and white against Ayn Rands personal "outcomes" of her philosophy. However, philosophically Ayn Rand was absolutely correct on the proper world view for a free and prosperous life. I agree with her philosophy completely. I not only know it, I understand it concretely and put it to use in my life all the time. 

Defending my Manhood and Grabbing My Balls

What is in a word? What is in a definition? What is in a name? These things often comes to mind when contemplating being in-tune with oneself to reconnect with yourself.

I am first and foremost me, but, who am I? I am Christopher Matthew Murphy that is whom I am. However, Who is Christopher? What is in a name yet again comes to be the question.

He is 30 years young and very tall. He is a good man and sometimes maybe too good for his own good. He has had many mini adventures over the years and faced hardships. He has had to deal with run ins with drug abusive ex's and being the protector of people that could have been his own downfall.

He provides for himself and also assists others he deems in need of his provision as well. Usually in the form of helping those he loves when they need it. This is not provision given to just anyone, anywhere and any when. This is a provision to those whom respects him back and for whom he feels intense bonds. He also is courageous having faced many of his fears in life to gain immense confidence in the end.

He is a fighter for those he loves. He is willing to do anything that is not sacrificing his own life for those whom he loves. He wants all of those whom he loves to be safe, secure and able to live their bliss. He wants them to have an amazing life, but, not at the expense of his own amazing life. He wants for nothing more than to know those he loves are always healthy and happy in life. Yet, he is not willing to sacrifice his own happiness and health for their sake. He wants them to get what they want, but, not if it ever means destroying what he himself holds dear. He wants people both to have a thick skin, but, also is willing to be the shelter in a storm. With the hopes that those others would shelter him too when the weather was unbearably rough in life.

He is a lover to those whom are worthy of his loving, tender and passionate embrace. He is not a prude nor easy. When he sees how valuable and worthy you are he will be quick to show it. In many different ways depending on your ties to him.

He is not unemotional, but, he is his emotions master not his emotions the master of him. He feels loss and he has great depths of grief when bad things happen. However, do not expect him to break down unless he trusts you entirely with all his mind and soul. Even then he will never show it in public and only in private. He is not one to bawling in a crowd, but, is not afraid to cry to himself or with close people he loves. He is not afraid to be vulnerable and even need help at times. However, he remains strong at all times in the face of all of the adversity of life. Stoicism is an underrated beautiful form of emotional mastery that too many people seek to destroy in men.

He refuses to be less than human, but, also refuses to act like a weak victim of life. He insists on seeing he is human and able to be a victim, but, refuses to play the victim in life no he is a survivor of anything he faces. He does not deny when he is a victim, but, simply refuses to personalize life itself as a slight against his person. The universe and existence is not against him and he keeps this at heart at all times and in his head.

He refuses to be a Eunuch because life can be tough. However, refuses also to bury himself for the sake of that same tough world. He both refuses to not have his balls and also does not put up with people not accepting humanity in those balls.

He refuses to be seen as anything other than the man he is, but, also refuses to be painted into a corner or with a broad brush because of being that man. He is all man and refuses to be painted as anything other than that. Liking a certain color or watching a certain form of entertainment, listening to a certain song does not castrate him of his manhood. He both refuses to not be accepted as all man, but, also refuses to be expected to not do this or that because of being a man as well.

He refuses to have anyone else attempt to remove his man-card for silly reasons. He refuses to not be seen for the beautiful work of masculine art he is to the world and in this existence. He is confident even when his body is panicking. He is strong even when his brain wants to make him be cowardly and weak. He thrives and strives through all odds in his way even if it is a roaring fire itself almost consuming him in death. Nothing will be able to stop him from living his life his way following his own souls call to action. He might not always protect, provide and procreate in traditional ways, but, he does it often. The 3 Ps of manliness exude from him in different ways every day.

He is not a maybe, a kinda of man. He is all man. He is not some non-binary or gender-queer snowflake. He is all man his own man. His own way and not the way everyone necessarily
expects him to be. However, he is all man. He is not a mixture between masculine virtue and something else. He is masculine virtue through and through. He is a good man, no, a great man. He is a grab your balls man for 2017. He is neither ball-ess nor a douche.

Most important of all he is just himself and does not fake things to be seen as more of a man. Yes, he has pink framed glasses, but, no that is not meterosexual or "queer." Yes, he does have the entire "Fifty Shades Trilogy," but, that is not "feminine." Yes, he does own the entire first Season of "Melrose Place." However, it is not like he has watched it in years (literally) and even if he did that does not remove his man-card. Yes, he has a Pink tie, but, that is not unmanly.

He is not "effete," but, simply is his own man. Unless you took a knife to his genitals you cannot make him less of a man. Unless you drained him of his testosterone you would not make him less manly and less of a work of masculine beauty. He is all man and is masculine. He is a great man and no one can tell him differently and one day one lucky woman will get to see how great he really will be to that one lucky ever loving woman.

He loves himself, I love myself and you will never take that from me. I own my own man-world and I grab my balls. My balls are all mine and no one else is going anywhere with them over my dead body. Cheers world!