Rocking Philosophy

What is Minarchy?

2012-03-02T07:18:00.002Z

In preparation for a video I’ll be uploading to Youtube about fixing the deficit I will go into greater detail here about how I propose to achieve this. The system I present at the end of my video is minarchy, otherwise known as minarchism, also called the nightwatchman state. It is a libertarian capitalist political philosophy that would minimise the role of government. The state’s role would be restricted to police, military and courts, and so would be responsible for guarding against aggression, theft and breach of contract. Usually the government would also theoretically be responsible for the executive and legislature, but what I will propose here will be somewhat different at the central state level. I will break down my interpretation of minarchy into seven key areas: economics, law, property rights, protection, infrastructure, government, as well as social security and education under one section. For the purposes of this blog a ‘jurisdiction’ is similar to a state in the USA, though could also theoretically represent large cities like London or Tokyo.

Economics

The economic system that I propose would be laissez-faire, or a free market. There would be absolutely no interference from government in the business world, and all parties would be free to agree contracts with one another when interacting, examples being rules of employment or business contracts between two parties. This is strongly driven by mutually beneficial interaction set out by classically liberal economists like Adam Smith, who’s invisible hand theory gained him great acclaim. The invisible hand is broken down into self-interest, competition, and supply and demand. The self-interest of the individual to attain goods and services drives the market to supply goods to the consumer. The more popular this is the more demand there would be, which would stimulate production, employment, and other factors required to keep a business going. The market of ideas would also encourage businesses to keep prices competitive as they go head-to-head for customers. This is the very model that many in the present business world detest, going out of their way to diminish it by lobbying politicians into shutting down competition. Lobbying would therefore be banned to stop this from occurring. Coupled with free market economics this would be the perfect encapsulation of Smith’s invisible hand model. The ability to coin money in this system would be part of the free market, where anyone would be able to provide a service of monetary exchange. Thus no one would have a monopoly on this service, as central banks do today.

Law

This would be driven by a strongly defined constitution that could not be amended or added to. It would be entirely focussed on the non-aggression principle, which states that the initiation of force and coercion is illegitimate. Force would only ever be acceptable when defending oneself or property. It is permissible to ask others to help you on your behalf, or to choose to help others, though any defence must not be excessive, like killing someone without having a life directly threatened in the moment. Contract law would be a very important part of this legal system. Contracts would be agreed upon in the same manner as they are today, with individuals and groups of individuals coming together to set out terms of agreement, be it for business, personal, or other forms of interaction. Legal representatives may be used in the usual manner as they are today, where each person would have the freedom to choose their own arbitrators in this process, like lawyers and accountants. The government would have no ability to interfere with this contractual process unless it is deemed coercive, like forcing someone to become an unpaid slave and claiming it is contractual. State courts would be available for disagreements, and people could choose which courts jurisdiction to use. Judges could be voted out of their position by the people in the same jurisdiction as the court if necessary, such as discovering corrupt practice. Private courts or conflict resolution companies could be used for minor contractual disagreements, like trade disputes and other less severe matters.

Property Rights

Property rights would be based on the value we create with our own labour, within the confines of contract law. If we agree to sell our labour to an employer it is fallacious to claim that we are being exploited, as Marx’s labour theory of value would suggest. The value we attain through our labour can manifest itself in a number of ways, like money or ingenuity. Contract law allows us to exist in a society that does not revert to aggression when deciding who is entitled to own something, like land or property. This therefore bypasses a high-risk direct confrontation, replacing it with mutually beneficial trade - a much safer way for people to interact. Intellectual rights would not be recognised in this system. Anyone could copy a product. It would be down to the product creator to stave off competitors through a continual process of promotion and development of reputation. Eventually it would be perfectly possible for a “brand” to be so critically acclaimed that people would trust what they offer when compared to others. This would stave off the legal wrangling of intellectual property rights for the most minor of instances, an example being the manner in which Apple behaves in the present system.

Protection

The police, military, courts, and prisons would still be a part of the state. All citizens would be entitled to organise their own security on their private property if they choose to do so however. There would be no central police or military establishment, which would be broken up into many local jurisdictions. People would be able to vote annually for the person they wish to become the chief of police and military general, and they would also be able to vote someone out of power at any time via a vote. By separating the police and military service in this manner it would become significantly more difficult for anyone to take control of these organisations for their own ends. In the event that war is necessary it would be required that each jurisdiction votes in agreement of such action.

Infrastructure

Roads and basic street facilities like traffic lights, pavements and street lighting would be provided by the state, though it would be possible for private industry to create roads, infrastructure and transportation facilities on private property without the intrusion of the state. As such they would be able to charge tolls and make a profit for the use of their transportation networks. More sophisticated transportation services like airports and rail links would not be a part of the state, and could be provided by the private industry if they choose to do so. All public infrastructure would be decided upon by a people’s vote at the local level. Multiple jurisdictions could create cross jurisdiction networks by working collectively.

Government

Central government would cease to exist as an everyday entity, with societal influence being transferred to the state, local and community level. If absolutely necessary unpaid jurisdiction representatives that are chosen through a vote could come together in times of crisis, like war or natural disaster, though no representative could agree to anything without passing a vote at the jurisdiction level first. All voting could theoretically occur through electronic networks to make it easier for everyone to come together in a short space of time. Debates over issues potentially being voted upon could also be held in this manner. The government would have no authority to expand its influence or power over the people past the role of courts, police and military. These would be funded via a flat tax of 10% on businesses and individuals. This would all be collected and used by local jurisdictions only. The government would have no ability to raise taxes and no authority to inflict stealth taxes upon businesses or people in any shape or form. Government debt would be banned and it would be impossible for this to occur without any government workers being severely punished for passing debts onto the people. Any debts that are incurred would automatically be defaulted on, since they would be illegitimate.

Social Security & Education

Social security like schools, hospitals and pension schemes would all be private, since the government’s role would be limited. As taxes would be extremely low it would be far easier for people to fund these services themselves. The vulnerable would be protected via charity institutions providing education, health, food and shelter. It would be advisable that these services be of basic to moderate standard so that the free-rider problem would not come into effect, where people see more benefit in using free services than ones paid for. However, since these decisions will be based on free market charity business models it would be up to them to decide how they operate.

Conclusion

Clearly this blog is a thought experiment, also demonstrating how a minarchistic libertarian society might look. To arrive at a point where such a society could exist I feel it would be advisable that it occurs through a gradual but decisive process of state reduction, preparing people for transformation. How this would occur is a topic in itself. Creating a low tax, no state debt environment however would almost certainly result in a huge growth in economic activity and job creation, stimulating the economy and possibly forcing other nations to follow suit to remain competitive. Minarchism might eventually lead to voluntaryism, where the state does not exist at all. I however feel that human progress would need to expand further beforehand. It might also be advisable to first allow people to grow accustomed to a minimalist state too.

A Swedish Radical Named Eopyk

2012-01-27T08:12:00.016Z

I feel I need to inform people about Eopyk, a particularly nasty Swedish radical who likes to harass MRAs, and anyone else that doesn’t fit the fascist mould of modern Sweden. Well over a year ago, and soon after I started making videos on Youtube, I found that Eopyk was prone to aggressive comment spamming. After watching my video “Feminism Revisited,” as well as part one of “Is the State Necessary?” I got to see this side of Eopyk for the first time, and from this point on Eopyk appeared to get a taste for returning to my channel week after week, using the same tactics, arguments, and logical fallacies, ad nauseum.

At first I tolerated it. My channel was very small and I really didn’t want to make any enemies. I brushed off accusations, like being a creationist who wants to brainwash his daughter. Apparently this is because I feel that keeping children out of daycare is best in the early years of development. I even deleted several comments because Eopyk apologised for certain behaviour, and I didn’t want Eopyk to get flak from others on my channel. But the behaviour continued. However, in contrast to the initial outbursts the comments became passively aggressive. Typically Eopyk’s comments are comprised of NAFALT (not all feminists are like that), epistemological solipsism, socialist dogma, and a particular favourite of Eopyk’s, feminist anthropology.

Like most feminists Eopyk feels that moderates are not responsible for the actions of radicals. What’s particularly amusing about this is that people like Eopyk refuse to acknowledge that radical feminists have amassed a lot of state influence, while so-called moderates make excuses for this. Here is an example:

"Really good. And thankfully today few people take Rox so damn seriously and the radfem influence has becomed lower since 2005. But great video at exposing radical feminism thanks for posting it. No other documary shows the true side of radical feminism as this one."

This comment can be found on ScentedNectar’s video upload of a disturbing Swedish documentary called “Sweden’s Gender War.” I’ve watched a large percentage, but it’s very difficult to watch in its entirety, especially in one sitting. The reason why I picked the above comment out from so many is because it epitomises the excuses Eopyk and other "moderates" make for the failure of feminism. In the case of Eopyk this is especially true when addressing Sweden as a hotbed of radical feminism.

Eva Lundgren is a Swedish professor who made claims regarding ritualistic murders in Sweden by Satanic groups. In the documentary a girl was forced to travel around Scandinavia while being coerced by radical feminists, claiming that Satanists wanted to kill her. These feminists were part of a women’s shelter called ROKS. Of course all the Satanists were men, and the poor girl was traumatised by the ordeal. To date no one has been charged for the incident, and Eva Lundgren, linked to the shelter, has been given no conviction, or even a reprimand. The truly worrying thing is that people like Eopyk will always be part of the injustice. They will continue to suppress the fact that radical lunatics like Eva Lundgren are still working in universities and other positions of authority. The critical skills of people like Eopyk are worn down by years of indoctrination, and in the case of Sweden, this is dominated by PC fascism, with radical feminism becoming ever more prevalent.

Just in case you think this is an isolated incident I will direct you to a channel by HammarnUT. Browse through the videos and see for yourself just how far Sweden has fallen into radicalism. When I pointed this channel out to Eopyk it resulted in a typical bout of aggressive ranting, and of course denial of any serious issues involving Swedish politics. According to Eopyk the person who made the video is a white nationalist of some sort, though don’t be surprised at this accusation. Eopyk likes to use PC shaming language all the time, and it seems almost instinctive. The first thing that Eopyk will do when put on the defence is call someone a racist, sexist, homophobic, or other similar accusations. Only the other day Eopyk accused a person uploading a video about “Nietzsche and the Nazis” of being Islamophobic. Admittedly there are some videos relating to Palestine on the channel, but this is completely independent to the video in question.

After many months of attempting to tolerate Eopyk I was eventually forced to resort to blocking. From here I found that Eopyk would respond to many of my comments on other channels, which wasn’t uncommon beforehand I might add. Familiar tactics of harassment were used, always determined to have the last word. I tried ignoring them but the comments became ever more persistent. I tried using facetious humour to take the steam out of the situation. I even tried warning Eopyk that I would report the behaviour to Youtube. But I eventually accepted that reporting was probably more hassle than it was worth. So I avoided making comments on channels where Eopyk would likely appear. Then Eopyk resorted to making videos about me. Here is the first, and here is the second. Clearly Eopyk suffers from serious verbal and mental diarrhoea, so responding to all the issues and accusations on videos and comments would take forever. Also remember that this has been going on for around a year, so there is simply too much to get through, and believe me, Eopyk never lets up. Needless to say however, I have addressed most of the fallacies that Eopyk resorts to indirectly, and will indirectly deal with others in the future.

After accepting that Eopyk is not going to go away I decided to try something new. The other day I played along in a comment exchange, getting Eopyk to pour everything out onto one thread. See Eopyk’s bigotry for yourself here. One claim is that sex is not primarily about reproduction, but pleasure and companionship. This completely bypasses the fact that sex is pleasurable so people keep doing it, therefore reproducing life in the process. This is the primary purpose of any living organism in the grand scheme of things, no matter how much the human ego might want to believe otherwise. Sometimes this sort of argument is designed to dismiss the belief that heterosexuality is a default phenomenon in nature, and is heavily driven by gender based feminist theory. Funny how Eopyk also believes companionship is primary, while monogamy is not a natural phenomenon. It is quite ridiculous when you consider that a relationship built over time is going to be stronger than a short-term one, especially when it comes to taking risks for one another in a survival setting. This point falls in line with the Darwinian module of reciprocal altruism, though as a rule people like Eopyk are very quick to dismiss evolutionary psychology. The explanation for this is simple; it puts a spanner in the works of the theory of "patriarchal oppression," put forward by feminists.

I simply can’t end without dealing with Eopyk’s feminist anthropological bullshittery. Eopyk buys into the ludicrous idea that matriarchal society was destroyed by the patriarchy, usually mentioning Mesopotamia, Samaria, and other historical anomalies. Here is a great link refuting this nonsense. Eopyk should really refer to Occam’s razor. The fact that men dominated in history is clearly indicative of the fact that male competition was prevalent in human evolution, allowing the human race to flourish. Making outlandish claims about matriarachal suppression is typical of the revisionist tactics by feminists. Besides, you would think that if matriarchal societies were so prosperous they would have brushed off masculine culture and flourished. Clearly this didn’t happen. Instead, over 2000 years later we have feminist anthropologists digging around in the dirt for figurines and other evidence to prove that the patriarchy destroyed feminist communes. The evidence to prove this is questionable at best, and downright laughable at worst.

Eopyk constantly regurgitates relativist nonsense about the perception of reality, uses moral relativism to justify statism, and worships at the altar of Mesopotamian mysticism. Combined with economic socialism and an educational indoctrination by the Saudi Arabia of feminism Eopyk is a perfect candidate for a cultural marxist. The label will never be accepted, but since Eopyk likes to use PC shaming language at every turn I think it is well deserved. It would be a good idea to block Eopyk if you come across this person on your travels. I would also recommend making an online proclamation exposing this character if the harassment persists, because I can assure you that Eopyk will not go away quietly, and will tirelessly harass MRAs and others with leftist propaganda.

This is RockingMrE – over and out!

UPDATE (08/02/12): After over a week of silence (where I hoped that perhaps this was the end of the matter), Eopyk has decided to make a blog responding to this one. Dear God! It is a rant-and-a-half, using typical tactics of muddying the waters in a deluge of incoherency. Eopyk seems to feel that referring to ad homs from those belonging to the same ideological group constitutes an argument.

Among typical nonsense, Eopyk claims that HammarnUT compares gay people to beastiality (I've seen no evidence of this what-so-ever), as well as a hilarious attempt to use bonobos to suggest that some apes support Eopyk's biological (un)reality. Leftists have been using the bonobo propaganda piece for decades now, with no conclusive evidence to prove the alleged observations. Here is an article that exposes this agnotological lie.

Other than this I would like to add that it is fruitless addressing Eopyk on any level any longer. The main purpose of this blog was to try and get Eopyk to understand that this behaviour is harassment. It hasn't appeared to work. But the bright side is that if you let a fool talk long enough they will always show their true colours ;-)

UPDATE 2 (10/02/12): With all the evidence to prove that Eopyk is a Cultural Marxist I have missed the moneyshot. Eopyk identifies as a Cultural Materialist. Read Eopyk's channel description here. Just in case it is edited I'll paste the relevant extract below:

"A indivudual who wants more love,democracy,peace,creativity,free thinking. I am also a pre treatment Male to female transsexual and a agnostic atheist,naturalist, consequentialist,existentialist,secularist and yeah also an epicurian to an extent and a sex-positive feminist and a cultural materialist"

Cultural Materialism is directly affiliated with the Frankfurt School, and the Cultural Marxist's that started it. This is game, set and match with regards to Eopyk's cognitive dissonance, amygdala anxiety and muddying of the waters. Eopyk ticks every box that would define a Cultural Marxist, and a lying one at that, since Eopyk has literally attempted to deny that Cultural Marxism ever existed on many occasions.

Another one bites the dust!

Advice For a Young Man

2012-01-01T14:59:00.009Z

The other day I had this private message sent to me on Youtube:

I’m 14, soon to be 15, and I’m a guy. I just saw your video “A Tale of Male Disposability,” and it seems like a lot you went through in high school resembles a lot that I am going through now. I have been thinking about starting to lift weights for a long time now because I want to impress girls. Girls never notice me because I’m just like you described in your video; not athletic and I am also pretty awkward.

A few months ago one of my closest female friends (I really like her even though she never liked me that way) stopped talking to me, and she started hanging out with guys who treated her like shit. So finally I confronted her and she said "well these people make me happy, and you just have to accept that I have new friends now." I almost went into depression because of her. I like her so much but she didn't like me at all. The only time she was nice to me was when I bought stuff for her and she usually gave me hugs if I did buy her things. I still think about her everyday, and I don't know what to do.

Do you have any advice for me regarding what I should do about girls, and if I should start lifting weights so I can impress them? What do you think?

Other than a few edits with regards to grammar this is exactly how the message was written. It is also important to note that the young man indicated that English wasn’t his first language, so it is understandable that I would make a few editorial changes. I obviously asked him permission to include his message and my response in a video or blog, and he of course agreed. Here is my response to him:

Hi there, and thanks for your message.

The story you heard was based in some part on my experiences as a male growing up in the world, and also through registering the experiences of other men in the culture all around us - so it isn't actually about me. But in spite of this the message of the story still stands; men are disposable in society, and so are often invisible because human beings haven't evolved to care about the feelings of other males so easily.

What I recommend you do is try to forget about this girl because it sounds like she wants to pick and choose the guy she wants based on popularity, as well as what he can give her. It seems like she will only be interested in the male that serves her best. As a result I have doubts she is going to make a male happy if he isn't an alpha that can serve her in the way that men have always done in history.

You are going through that time of your life when your hormones are running wild, and at this point it is easy to fall head over heels for a girl, making it hard to forget about her. What's important though is that you understand the lessons you learn today about women will shape the way you behave tomorrow, even at this young age. If you learn that you should do anything a female wants to get her attention then the chances are you will never truly find happiness with a woman, because if you don't expect respect you wont get it. This is a cold, harsh reality of the world we live in.

But it's not all bad! If you learn these lessons young enough, and learn to appreciate that it's not always the cheerleader or the most popular and beautiful girl that can make you happy, you will gradually be able to build up a mutual respect with females, and I am confident that if you respect yourself enough you will find the right person.

Finally, I would like to address your question about weights. Personally I enjoy being in shape, and yes, there are females out there that find men in good shape attractive. But if you fall into the trap of doing things because you think this is what makes women find you attractive, then the chances are you will become a robot with little personality, which means you will most likely never know who you are, and never truly be happy with yourself. This means that you will not be the type of person who has true self-respect because all you will ever do is try to please others, especially when it comes to women, because so many males fall into this ditch. This is dangerous and I cannot advise against it enough. So, if you want to do weights because it makes you feel confident then this is a good start. Sure some females may like you as you get into shape, but if they don't like the person inside then they are not worth knowing.

I hope that this advice helps you.

Kind Regards,
RockingMrE.

The young man sent me a message back after he received this, thanking me and stating that he had a lot to think about. If anyone would like to send me a message, asking for advice regarding how to traverse the pitfalls of masculinity in a Feminist dominated Western world, I would be more than happy to help. I am happy to give advice to anyone, though the above message really reminded me of the adversity of being a male teenager in our culture – it is really hard getting sound support that isn’t influenced by female-centricity and male disposability. Until next time...

This is RockingMrE – over and out!

Scientific Realism (Response to Professor Anton)

2011-12-02T07:13:00.006Z

After watching my video “Attack of the Relativists” Professor Anton made a response:

His first point is that he didn’t like my video, going on to say that I reduced complex areas into various false dichotomies. I do however feel that the false dichotomy occurs with the suggestion that objective truth and relativism are linear terms. I have previously said that labels are required to objectively understand the world around us. As such umbrella terms allow us to correlate knowledge into areas of understanding. Throughout the video Anton continues to revert to this dualistic idea of my philosophical views by suggesting that the mere mention of an idea of objective or relative truth is simplistic. However, this is not a position I align with because objective knowledge is not a single entity within the world, but many different, and often completely separate, truths.

Fundamental to this is scientific realism. The natural world is an independent setting that exists outside of the mind of the observer. I am not suggesting, nor have I ever suggested, that this reality is a linear entity, and in my video I actually state that Plato’s divided line is a simplistic idea of the world by modern standards. Anton goes on in his video to use the word pluralism. This is a multifaceted label that has several meanings for different schools of thought, but in the context of the scientific method it stipulates that reality is made up of many explanations that come together to objectively explain the natural world – what I believe it. To suggest that I feel that objective and relative truth is a dualistic dichotomy is false because both fields have numerous subgroups, and reality itself is a plethora of objectively definable entities. Therefore I do not subscribe to what Anton suggests about my understanding of objective truth.

Anton goes on to use a similar example to the classic question of whether a tree falling in the woods would make a sound if you weren’t there. The answer to this is, of course, yes. Scientific realism tells us that this is the case given that reality is independent of observers. The example Anton himself gives is one based on a rainbow. He claims that if I believe that the rainbow exists independent of observers that “I am not based in science”. I agree with Anton that observing the rainbow is dependent on angle, though this is due to the nature of the electromagnetic spectrum, not some relative idea of what a rainbow is, based on angle. Anton then states that because there are a number of things, like moisture and the sun, that make up the composition of the rainbow, and that the observer has an integral part to play in the rainbow’s existence. This is untrue because the observer is only integral to “seeing” the rainbow – it is still there regardless of one’s observation of the rainbow. So like a tree falling in the woods when no one is around, the conditions to create a rainbow are independent, just like the sound a falling tree makes when it hits the ground. Why? Because the human senses are not required for actions to occur in an independent reality – they occur in spite of our presence and our observation. This is a critical basis for the natural world.

In light of what I just said I would hope that no one would strawman me by creating some sort of scenario where a person interacts with an object, stating that in this case the person is integral to a process. Just in case I will state that once the person physically interacts with an object (like picking it up or pushing it) the laws of physics state that the kinetic energy you put into this action directly affects the object. Anton’s rainbow example though is similar to suggesting that an observer watching a vase fall when another person pushes it is fundamental to the object moving. This is incorrect because the object will fall whether the observer watches it fall or not.

The next important issue that Anton brings up is my explanation about mathematics in my video. I don’t however feel that Anton fully dealt with what I was saying. I focus on Archimedes, not Leibniz or Newton, because I demonstrate that Archimedes made mathematical discoveries involving calculus long before they ever did. What’s more these discoveries were completely independent because Archimedes’ work was lost for over two thousand years, only recently being discovered. Therefore Archimedes was laying down the framework of calculus way before great minds like Newton and Leibniz ever did, and totally independently of their mathematical discoveries. How could this possibly happen if mathematics were mired by perspective? It couldn’t! What’s more, how could mathematics help us create rockets to the moon, or even catapults in the era of Archimedes, if mathematics weren’t objectively sound in a scientific sense? The truth is that mathematics proves itself because we reap the rewards of its success everyday through the likes of architecture and engineering, so mathematics is integral to the objective and successful process of the scientific method. Denying this is dubious at best.

Regarding Anton’s request for me to deal with justice and objective truth I’m not going to go into this here because I think it is a side issue (which I have addressed before in blogs and videos). Besides, I don’t address morals in my video above, though I am happy to talk about this again in the future. What I am going to do is talk about this:

This video is important because it really highlights a key point when dealing with the type of questions I am faced with on my channel by those opposed to scientific realism. On his video Anton puts some shapes on the screen and starts off with a few questions, asking viewers to describe what they see. By the end of the video Anton provides us with ambiguous questions to define the shapes, therefore suggesting that, due to the lack of clarity, that our concepts are limited. One example is Anton’s question “How many items are out of alignment?” Anton would need to expand upon the word item given that it is a category that would mislead people without adequate information. This sums up the difference between Anton and myself given that I argue that objective information is the key to conceptualisation.

Let’s use the shape of the world as an example. When people felt that the world was flat was it still round? Of course! In spite of our perception of the world as flat it made no difference to the fact that the world is round. This perfectly highlights the philosophy of scientific realism – reality exists outside of the perceptions of the observer, and can be uncovered with the correct approach. Over time information was presented to humanity that allowed people to transcend the perception of a flat world, and understand the world is round. Then we asked the question of why we can stay on a round earth, as opposed to hurtling into space, if a country is on the side of the planet or even right at the bottom, in the case of Antarctica. The answer is of course the force of gravity. Did gravity as a force exist before it was named and discovered? Of course! We also discovered that the planets revolve around the sun. Was this untrue before it was discovered? No! In the 20th Century people were able to observe the earth from space, but even before this people knew the earth was round through objective reasoning and empirical evidence.

Therefore using language as a prerequisite to restrict the fact that information can help us transcend the limits of human perception is a red herring. It has been proven incorrect time and again given that science proves itself through results. What I’ll end on is the point that Anton made regarding relativism and power. He directly addresses my point about right wing religious evangelism being a means to control objective truth. Religious people use relative ideas to create absolute truths, like God being unprovable, yet still the source of absolute truth – a logically inconsistent conclusion. But to also conclude that objective truth is impossible due to perspective, and therefore absolute truths are relative, is an absolute conclusion, and therefore logically inconsistent yet again (just in a different order to the religious example). Objective truth belongs to no one, whether we choose to act on the availability of knowledge or not. But once you go down the road of using esoteric arguments to suggest that nothing can be proven due to the limits of human understanding, then people can make you believe that up is down, and down is up, not unlike Winston being tortured over the question of 2+2 in 1984. Who decides the answer? Why the torturer!

This is RockingMrE – over and out!

Evolutionary Psychology and Feminism

2011-11-25T08:09:00.000Z

Feminists don’t take too kindly to being given a rational explanation for the alleged oppression of their sex. As a rule being told that the reason for something is down to a natural precondition does not fit into the narrative of woman as victim. It doesn’t matter what type of feminist you are; Sex+, Radical, Marxist, Cyber, et al – they all start from the inherently flawed foundation that women are owed something due to past oppression. Evolutionary psychology can tell us a lot about the inconsistencies of the feminist goliath that steamrollers all opposing views into submission. This field is controversial to some, not least because it blasts feminist theory into smithereens and forces leftists to look into the abyss of mendacity. The first video below is an interview with Gad Saad, evolutionary behavioral scientist at Concordia University, and author of the book “The Consuming Instinct: What Juicy Burgers, Ferraris, Pornography, and Gift Giving Reveal about Human Nature” (I love pretentious titles):

Saad’s book focuses on the consumer patterns of human beings, and how they relate to evolutionary psychology. He looks at cases of consumer habits and relates them to his field of research. The first criticism feminists have with evolutionary psychology Saad indirectly clears up early on, namely the idea that it is based on social constructs (isn’t that the criticism of everything with leftists?). However, this argument comes right out of the relativist handbook, and is as predictable as day turning to night. There are elements of human behaviour, and indeed aspects of the natural world, that transcend history and regions around the world, What’s more many of these patterns occur independently of one another, thus making it nigh on impossible to claim that certain things aren’t inherent or objectively true. One apt example is femininity and masculinity. It would be easy to strawman me at this point with ambiguous examples of social constructs, but the fact is that there are biologically male and female traits that are more common to each sex. That is not to say that other factors can’t affect this, but ignoring central tendencies is not only bad science, but also a pernicious tactic employed by those wishing to manipulate the facts.

In the video Saad describes the four key Darwinian modules, or “meta-drives”. These are survival, reproduction, kin selection, and reciprocal altruism. Saad explains that McDonalds burgers are driven by the survival module given that this food has been adapted to taste good to the human palette. What I would add is that survival can make us yearn for the easiest and most immediately gratifying source of food, sometimes to disastrous effect. However, humans have the ability to understand that taking the easy option is not always the best one (like fast food), while wild animals fed by picnickers are practically unable to turn down “easy food”, and come to conclusions like necessary self-reliance or only eating food that their digestive systems have adapted to tolerate. Saad then describes how Ferraris are driven by our reproductive drives given that they can serve exactly the same purpose as the tail of a peacock. Is anyone really going to argue against this given that it’s practically an unspoken taboo that women are often attracted to a display of power and wealth by men? This is because this openly exhibits the ability for a man to provide for a woman, and Saad discusses an experiment he carried out where the testosterone levels of men were measured when driving a beaten up Sedane and a Ferrari. Sure enough levels were higher with the Ferrari, and this is exactly the same principle as a peacock with the most colourful and elaborate feathers.

The consumer patterns of women can also be measured, though this would not be shocking to anyone living in the real world. Feminists rarely react well to anything that doesn’t fit gender neutrality, unless it plays to the male blame mentality. Typically feminists and their enablers argue that men pressurise women to look beautiful because the so-called patriarchy sees them as nothing more than sex objects. However women, like men, are strongly driven by their psychological programming. Over a thirty-five day menstrual cycle Saad conducted an experiment where he tracked the consumer behaviour of women. He found that during the luteal stage (non-fertile) women engaged in a lot more food based behaviour. During the fertile stage (ovulation) women engage in far more beautification, or sexual signalling. It is unsurprising that women are less inclined to concern themselves with sexual activity when their bodies are going through the non-fertile phase of their cycle. It is equally unsurprising that the increase in ooestrogn during ovulation has a powerful effect on the sexual desires of women, who are more inclined to sexually express their availability under this influence.

The interviewer asks Saad about the necessity to provide warnings and information on products and services, especially in our present culture of hyper-consciousness. It turns out that Saad doesn’t feel that these things correlate with the reality of human psychology, using smoking for young boys as an example given that they are far more inclined to stop smoking if they feel it can make them impotent, as opposed to harming their lungs. He does however go on to explain that advertisers are aware of the triggers for our innate desires, even if our culture of left-wing dogma tries hard to hide it. As we can see by the smoking example it is possible to use this information to our advantage with the right message. At the same time we should start to realise that, while feminism tries to blame everything on men, it is actually natural behaviour that has generated sex preferences and roles in history, like the example Saad uses involving romance novels, which are hugely popular with women in spite of what feminism tries to teach them about the evils of old-fashioned chivalry. Ironically feminism plays right into the hands of chivalry being blind to male suffering and hyper-conscious of women, and this is partly how feminism was able to attain such power. Every now and then, though not often, a woman understands this:

It fills me with hope to hear a woman talk about the plight of men without reverting to jargon about females’ drawing the shortest straw. To hear a woman (let alone a man) describe how men have always been the most disposable sex, putting the needs of women first for the survival of the species is an inspiration, not least because most women remotely sympathetic of men fall short of this practically every time. Evolutionary psychology is not “fatally deterministic”, as Saad describes, because we have the propensity to change our behaviours if we try, though feminism has done nothing new – it puts women first, almost to the point of juvenile unaccountability, and then has the audacity to attack the men who bent over backwards to help them – and all because men will do anything to keep women happy.

This is RockingMrE - over and out!

Bring Back the Gold Standard?

2011-11-18T08:12:00.002Z

Can it be done? Can we really bring back the gold standard? Many say that there simply isn’t enough gold in the world, or that the gold standard exacerbated the Great Depression. Is any of this true? I must admit that until I watched this I believed that it might be impractical to return to the gold standard myself (fast-forward to 22:22):

Yes, it does appear that the idea that we can never return to a gold standard is incorrect. James G.Rickards, the author of “Currency Wars,” stated on the Keiser Report that this can be done if you peg the price of gold high enough. It sounds so obvious doesn’t it? That’s because it is, and I must admit that it’s been on the edge of my mind as a solution too. If you peg the price of gold high enough then the issue of the ratio of gold to fiat currency can be resolved. James Rickards also makes an excellent point about the blunder in 1925 when returning to the gold standard after World War One. The price was pegged too low, which meant that the money supply had to be reduced by 50% in the UK alone. This made the UK fall into a depression 10 years before the rest of the world because shrinking the money supply by 50% had serious deflationary consequences. The anti-gold crowd have inaccurately cited this as a reason to reject the gold standard ever since.

Why do we need a gold standard, many may ask? At the moment fractional reserve banking allows people to pluck money out of thin air ad infinitum, and if Feminist economist Susan Feiner’s views on her blog “Deficits Are A girl’s Best Friend” are anything to go by there is no debt problem when all you need to do is tap in a few numbers on a keyboard, and then, chi-ching (!), you have more money in your account! I would add that it takes a person with the IQ of an orangutan to think such a thing given that if the money supply is too large you can get inflation, and if the money supply is too small then you can get deflation. Adding to the money supply to deal with debt is a fool’s game, and anyone who thinks that this is a solution to a debt problem, especially when their true agenda is the continuation of welfare and public services, can expect to see the world fall apart around them.

This issue is a delicate matter, and one not helped by the fact that fiat currency is a monopoly of the state that forces everyone to use it. The ones at the top (bankers, politicians, corporate elite et al) get access to new money as soon as it’s introduced, and so have the greatest buying power, while the rest of us have to suffer the consequences as our buying power erodes. Seeing as Ms Feiner seems to think that deficits and money printing aren’t a problem let’s have a laugh at her expense:

That’s it! Buy your own bonds, like a snake eating its tail. All the more laughable is the fact that Feiner suggests that because money isn’t physically created that this has some sort of negating effect on the dangers of adding to the money supply. Umm, no Ms Feiner – looks like your PhD isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on! Maybe most of her modules were in women’s studies – that would explain a lot. When will people realise that those who depend on the state for their paycheck have a vested interest in sustaining welfare and public services. Why would welfare recipients care about the harm that deficits do to an economy when they find themselves in this financial predicament? Think I’m being harsh? Well then I think this is unrealistic. As an alternative I would like to see an economy where the vast majority can go out to work, and where money earned is not constantly under inflationary pressure. So yes, the gold standard would help to solve this problem because governments could not simply print, print, and print some more.

The purchasing power of the dollar has seriously declined since the Nixon Shock, especially when compared to gold. There is one more thing to consider though before we go rushing head first into the gold standard, relating to the timeline of gold. In 1933 President Roosevelt banned the hoarding of gold by citizens under threat of up to 10 years in prison. People were forced to hand in their gold, getting $20.67 per ounce - the inter-war gold price. The government then pegged the price of gold $15 dollars higher and made a handsome profit. So by the time the gold standard was ended by Nixon in 1971 people were unable to make any direct profit from the ownership of gold in the US. This is important because there is no reason that this wouldn’t happen again, and there are those who believe it could. Perhaps this is what will happen when the dollar loses its world reserve currency status (which I believe will happen), and then whatever new world reserve currency is introduced will be backed by gold, raising the price of gold to as high as $7000 an ounce to compensate for the ratio of gold to fiat money.

There is no easy answer to the question of the gold standard being reintroduced. The gold standard would restrict government spending and help to reduce deficits. However, there’s always the mob to consider, and they will never let anything harm what they feel entitled to, even if people like me do want to see a sustainable economy where everyone has the opportunity to earn an honest living, as well as preserve savings. This wont stop people burning down the house though - it would take decades to change welfare conditioning, with or without a sizeable increase in jobs. I also seriously doubt the upper echelons of society would allow people to make a handsome profit from the price of gold being pegged higher if the gold standard returns – I think they would take that for themselves. Thus I’m afraid I won’t hold my breath.

People who are fiscally conservative have to start facing the notion that any solution to deficits has two problems. On one hand you have the typical power elite who always seek to primarily benefit. On the other hand you have the socialist agenda, which perpetuates the myth that government is there to give something to society. Neither are sustainable and both will bring down the house in the due process of time. All we can hope is that whatever rises form the ashes will address the mistakes of the past.

This is RockingMrE – over and out!

Stephen Pinker's Violent Delusion

2011-11-11T08:04:00.001Z

Stephen Pinker has made a name for himself of late by arguing that violence is on the decline in the modern world. His latest outing: “The Better Angels of Our Nature: The Decline of Violence in History and Its Causes” tries to demonstrate his theory via a dubious caricature of modernity that would have us believe we are living in a statist paradise.

I’ve addressed the idea of statism reducing violence previously in my video “Statism and War,” where I showed that statism has simply transformed itself from a more openly brutal feudal system into a neo-feudalistic society where modern serfs have more freedom, much like free range chickens. People are granted liberties on the same premise that chickens become happier and more productive when they are allowed to roam freely. Serfs are given access to credit, resulting in usury through principle plus interest, adding to the serf’s delusion of liberty and creating growth through a consumer driven economic model. Anyone who actually believes the ruling class simply gave up the stranglehold of feudalism without benefiting themselves first and foremost is trapped in a mental snare. Enlightening the serf is a Herculean task given that they have grown used to imprisonment - institutionalised by their incarceration like a prisoner spending years behind bars. Releasing a prisoner from a cage can be a terrifying, just as Plato describes in the Allegory of the Cave. While this story has numerous metaphors regarding our perceptions of reality it also shows us that those who have tasted truth are a threat to those who feel free in their ignorance. Plato describes how the ignorant may even try to kill those who attempt to lead them from the cave towards the light, so it’s hardly surprising that many will take any positive aspects of modern life and attribute it to the state. Now for Pinker’s stinker:

He starts his interview by stating he used 100 graphs and data sets to demonstrate how violence has declined. It wouldn’t matter if he showed 1000 examples because it still doesn’t justify his conclusions. Why? Because of what Pinker then goes on to discuss: his reasons. Pinker’s first reason is the outsourcing of the justice system to government. While a “disinterested third party” can help to reduce vendettas and blood feuds this is done at the barrel of a gun when the government is involved. The primary reason people obey the state is because it has the most power, so this is not a voluntaryistic process of pacification – quite the opposite. If Pinker feels that a third party resolution system is important in generating peace then there is no reason why he should not agree with dispute resolution organisations to replace government, and there are many already in operation around the world.

Pinker employs a naturalistic fallacy typical of statists, who regularly assume that human beings are inherently brutal. Humans are unique in a natural sense given that they are able to question their actions and realise that living by the sword is a quick way to die by it. Cooperation is always going to be the logical way to resolve any dispute because violence breeds more violence, while the state’s ever present gun in the room only perpetuates a culture of “might is right”. Pinker also fails to note that raising children in this type of society is akin to growing up in an abusive household, where evidence clearly shows this has a terrible effect on development, and passes on to the next generation like a cancer. So let’s put the guns away and start creating a world of mutual interaction, as opposed to bowing to the one with the most firepower.

Pinker then goes on to give his second reason for the decline of violence, ironically reinforcing my point about mutual interaction being the most logical system of human existence. He refers to commerce and “positive sum exchange” as opposed to “zero sum plunder”, describing how it’s become cheaper to buy something than to steal it, and how both sides benefit from this exchange. Much like Thomas Hobbes before him Pinker tries very hard throughout the video to suggest that the state is the reason for this, sounding a lot like Hobbes and his “state of nature” theory. In his enthusiasm Pinker falls foul to his own logic. To claim that nature is inherently brutal in a sort of “zero sum plunder” is delusional given that nature is a process of desperate and brutal survival only when there is a scarcity of goods and a lack of mutually beneficial interaction. I’ve shown many times in the past that there is no reason we would still need the state to mutually interact via a free market, and modern technology has dramatically improved our ability to avoid the turmoil of nature, like growing food on areas of land that would have proved impossible in the past:

I could also add that superstition doesn’t help the human propensity to avoid violence either. If a dude wearing a robe tells you that the man in the sky wants you to kill someone in His name then most likely you will do it if you lack the information or critical skills to understand why this is irrational. Which leads me onto my belief that our huge steps in modern understanding of the natural world have helped us to realise that the sky will not fall if we don’t “kill the brown people.” In Pinker’s credit however he does go on to talk about the benefits of enlightenment through reason and logic, though once again tries to fit this into his cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy affiliated with statist liberalism

Pinker goes on to discuss deadly ideologies, and how people don’t change their minds despite the evidence showing that something doesn’t work. He also has the gall to take a pot hot at Libertarianism, which says a lot about his character and further demonstrates his inability to see that statism is no longer a necessary ideology due to the evolution of human progress. What’s more Pinker glosses over the death toll of the 20th century: over 260 million democides and 160 million war deaths and genocides. Like Mao and the Great Leap Forward, which Pinker ironically mentions, this exemplifies what statists ignore about objective suffering caused by collectivism. To top it off Pinker also completely ignores the fact that nuclear arms are the major reason states no longer send so many people to war, except of course if you happen to be a country that doesn’t have any atomic bombs, like those in the Middle East. This is perfectly demonstrated by the 21st Century Middle Eastern wars. To conclude I would ask Pinker not to assume when next writing a book that everyone is looking at the shadows on the cave wall.

This is RockingMrE – over and out!

The Overpopulation Myth

2011-11-04T08:15:00.001Z

There are 7 billion people living on planet Earth, at least there will be by March 2012. There are many people that think this is a big problem, and that population control is the answer. Many of these people (typically leftists), also feel that there is no doubt that global warming is man-made, that Capitalism is evil (despite lifting huge amounts of people out of poverty), and also claim with conviction that they are humanists (yes I know, it bugs the hell out of me too). Oh, and apparently a tree has more value as a life than a foetus to the environmentalist/humanist crowd. Don’t get me wrong, I’m pro-abortion, but I’ve actually heard pro-abortionists suggest that late term abortions are morally acceptable. How ironic given that a foetus is no more sentient a life than a tree until it reaches the second trimester – a bit of consistency would be nice, though I have no doubt a relative argument would be the leftist’s reply, which of course means that anything goes, as long as it’s being said by those leftists agree with.

At the moment the media is all over the idea of overpopulation, pushing it into the psyche of the public without even a second thought for the counter evidence. If this sounds familiar it’s because it’s exactly the same tactic as the issue of global warming, and when you put all of this together you would surely conclude that it’s no wonder people are cautious of evolution on the religious right. How would anyone be able to distinguish between science fact or fiction given that there are so many that use confirmation bias to further their agendas? The modern idea of overpopulation comes from Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus, a man that hypothesised that since food production increased incrementally, while population increased exponentially, there would cause a crisis the future. Time and again the armageddon of overcrowding has been foretold and, much like the biblical end of days, has been rescheduled to a later date when it amounts to nothing. This video is a great introduction into the history of overpopulation:

This sort of hysteria leads to what all people of influence seek - power! Money flows into organisations like the UNFPA via the United Nations, politicians get more control via the state to curb the problem, while ideologues get to bang their drums in a self-righteous crusade to “save the world”. Thanks to alternative media though, now it seems that people are able to examine the full picture, but it still takes an inquisitive mind to seek out the information because, unlike your TV, the information is not beamed into your living room via the BBC. So what about this 7 billion figure - is it a big deal? Is it even real given that, once your eyes are opened to one myth perpetuated by the mainstream media, you find yourself questioning everything? Well, while the world is hitting 7 billion, this is only part of the story:

Let me add something at this point: Anyone who is going to state that the two videos are by the Population Research Institute, started by Paul Marx (a Catholic priest), should examine the evidence first. I would also add that Malthusianism, the root of this overpopulation hysteria is a product of a man of the cloth too. Back to the 7 billion figure. The world will hit 7 billion, as the UN predicts. However, we need to consider that the population of the Earth is not increasing exponentially, and is actually increasing at a gradually lower rate. For example, the population of the Earth hit one billion in 1804. Then by 1927 this doubled to 2 billion. Incidentally this coincides with the progress of the industrial era in the 19th Century, and was the most economically free Western era (particularly the US), often known as Laissez-farez. Lifespan has always been a leading indicator of quality of life too, and this increase can be demonstrated from the 19th Century onwards. By 1960 the population had only grown by half to 3 billion, and by 1975 this increased by a third, hitting 4 billion, followed by a fourth, and a fifth. The video then goes on to show that the global fertility rate has been decreasing in the last 40 years. For more information regarding why this is the case let’s take a look at this:

The global total fertility rate necessary to maintain the population of the world is 2.1, which roughly translates to one child per person, or two children per woman given that men can’t directly have children. Of course, not every woman will have children, and there will always be other factors weighing on population, like infant mortality rates or natural disasters. In less economically developed regions lifespan is shorter due to things like famine, disease, or war, which counteracts the higher birth rates in third world countries. As the quality of life in a region of the world increases so does the ability for women to live safely. Women then enter the workplace as opposed to taking on the more traditional role of nurturer, also statistically having fewer children. This explanation perfectly encapsulates why Feminists are so disingenuous given that they regularly make claims of patriarchal oppression. In reality Western women would struggle to live the lives they do without the safety, comfort, and innovations of the developed world. Meanwhile men evolved to endure the harsh conditions of hostile environments like mines and the prairies when hunting for food, which is why they have always taken a more active role in the forefront of society.

The growth rate failing to keep up with the mortality rate causes economic problems like shrinking social security, and also leads to immigration policy to keep tax revenues and population steady. Sadly this often leads to hostility towards immigrants, though speaking as an anarchistic individual I see these issues as a problem caused by the closed borders of tax farms, otherwise known as states. Back to the myth of overpopulation: the UN’s current data shows that the population of the world will peak at around 8 billion in 2045. From here it will start to decrease, and by the end of the century we’ll be losing 1 billion people every 20 years, meaning that in 75 years we’ll actually be back to 7 billion! Isn’t it amazing what you don’t learn by watching TV?

This is RockingMrE – over and out!

Corporations As People?

2011-10-28T08:48:00.003+01:00

I’m annoyed at myself! I’ve talked about corporate corruption on several occasions over the year I’ve been on blogging and videomaking, and not once have I brought up the point that corporations are granted special privileges based on the claim of personhood. The reason why I’m annoyed is because the amount of times that corporations are brought up by anti-free marketeers is too numerous to count. This leads to circular reasoning within argumentation, where governments are removed from the free market only for corporations to rise up as the new tyrants. This is fallacious because corporations are a product of the state, and thus would naturally be removed along with the state itself. The reason for this is completely obvious given that corporations are not people, and it is a strawman to claim otherwise. Corporate personhood is simply a ruse for corrupt businessmen to escape punishment for immoral business acts like corporate crime. The list of criminality is long, and here are a couple of examples:

“General Motors, Standard Oil of California and Firestone Tire and Rubber, were convicted of purposely destroying eco-friendly inner-city rail transit systems in more than 100 US cities. The companies were each fined $5,000 and one executive was fined a dollar.”

“In July 2003 Xerox reported certain ‘improper’ payments totalling $700,000 from their Indian subsidiary to government officials.”

Corporate personhood has been very effective for amassing wealth since it was first introduced as far back as 1819. Naturally it is not really corporations that have amassed the power, but the ruling class – like politicians, oligarchs, or the corporate elite. The argument for corporations as people is what is called legal fiction, which is a term describing how a legal rule can be exploited in a manner that it wasn’t intended for, and in the case of corporate personhood this is done by extending the fourteenth amendment to a corporation. Thanks to this rule individuals are able to break laws and psychotically exploit society, facing no punishment due to the legal barrier the corporation provides – only the corporation can be held accountable for its business practices, as opposed to the individuals that make the decisions in the company.

This leads to further fallaciousness, by anti-free marketeers, regarding what would happen without the state to regulate the market - and so the perpetual cycle of the state “helping” the citizen through regulation continues. But in truth it is the state that primarily uses the corporation for its own ends – for it is a useful tool to control the masses while funnelling wealth and revenue to the ruling class.

Like the corporation the state is also legal fiction given that it fully absorbs us into legal and social processes, literally creating a strawman version of our identity from the second we are born. This identity is no more real than the tooth fairy, and by repeatedly accounting for this via our signature, appearance in court, or by generally acknowledging our subservience to the state, we are dragged further into this illusion, like being walked through a hall of mirrors:

Why on earth would we do this? As though the answer is not obvious! The state holds all the power through the police, courts, military, and all other forms of coercion, and thus if we do not obey we are assaulted. We basically have no choice but to obey if we wish to escape punishment, though this makes the authority of the state no more legitimate. Corporations and states are fictional ideas – they are not real! They have no basis in objective reality, and they are only empowered by us. Corporations and states are not born – they are not a product of Mother Nature. So how could they exist without fiction? The answer is they can’t! So for all those who keep talking about corporations taking over the world in a free market, or gaining a monopoly without the state, or any other similar manner of nonsense, they need to start critically analysing exactly why the corporation has so much power to exploit us – and yes, it is the state that is the source.

Despite how, by any stretch of the imagination, it is abundantly clear that corporations are not people, this doesn’t stop politicians saying otherwise, like Mitt Romney:

Romney claims that corporations paying taxes makes them people. Really? Does the fact that houses are liable for state or council taxes make them people too? Of course not, because people pay the taxes that the state requires for owning a house. Likewise, directors and shareholders own a corporation, and thus pay taxes required by the state for the corporation’s existence. It makes me despair that anyone has to go through the effort of exposing such logical inconsistency, but sadly this is where statism has led us.

In spite of this explanation I’m sure there are still those who would argue how corporations would dominate a free market, or that the corporation is responsible for exploiting the economy – but they are nothing to do with a the free market, and thus cannot exist without the state or legal fiction! Corporation destroy choice, leading to the monopoly that suppresses free market forces. A good reputation, which would be highly prized in a free market, is also unnecessary to uphold when the state protects the corporation, especially when the public lacks consumer choice or legal standing. All of this is thanks to statism, which is an inherently monopolistic concept. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and this is why the very idea of a state existing to restrict power and monopoly is ludicrous. How on earth could giving so much power to one entity restrict power or create choice? - The state is the epitome of power and monopoly! There is no force with a bigger monopoly than the state - period, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to wake up.

This is RockingMrE – over and out!

Leftists Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-14T08:26:00.004+01:00

We’ve reached a turning point in the present socioeconomic crisis. Dark times are looming ahead and, while I previously have said that things will get much worse, leftists are also waking up to this. As usual there is a left-right paradigm split, the right directing their protests against the FED, though this divide worries me. The occupy Wall Street protests however are showing that the left is determined to blame this whole collapse on Capitalism. While at the protests Michael Moore said “end Capitalism” when asked about ending the US Federal Reserve:

There was a time when I thought Michael Moore had some worthwhile things to say. I’ve read a few of his books, and he was one of the first people to wake me up to the injustices involving corporate welfare. But I now realise that, like leftists in general, I’ve been misinformed by a Socialist media circus. As I educate myself by hearing other argument via alternative media, the last bastion of pure information, I now know that Capitalism is not the problem here – statism is. It is the state that endorses a system where lobbying can persist, allowing the corporate elite, and indeed elites of all kinds, to bribe the government to their whim. When leftists like Michael Moore sprout rhetoric they only attack the corporate “pilot fish” swimming around the statist “shark”, picking at the parasites while they gain protection in a mutually beneficial relationship. Pilot fish are no threat however, having no ability to harm anyone, though they may harass you when swimming in droves. Swim too close to the fish, or try to swat the fish away, and you risk swimming too close to the shark - then snap! The shark will eat you up while the pilot fish continue swimming happily around its source of food and protection.

Leftists are right to blame the lobbying system and corporate welfare, but from here on in the cognitive dissonance sets in. They are unable to see that the state is the true threat, the entity with all the lawmaking powers, courts and judges, weapons, police and military, prisons, and all the mechanisms to commit illegitimate force on anyone it sees fit. Corporations have no direct ability to commit force whatsoever. State enforcers arrest citizens who simply want to be free of this control, and the state sends armies to parts of the world where the corporate world will benefit, filtering money via corporatism to the ruling class, like a giant vacuum cleaner. It is for this reason corporations pay homage to the state, pandering like gentry in the court of a king. If people don’t begin to realise that the state cannot give them what they seek without using force, then the spiral of perpetual violence, being passed down from generation to generation, propagandising people into believe that the “use of force is wrong but…” there will be no end to this roundabout of statist “boom and bust”, be it through the economic cycle, the violence that plays out in wars, theft of productivity, or the destruction of individual liberty.

After Moore makes his remarks in the video above, Peter Schiff, well known for his prediction of the 2008 banking crisis and a proponent of the Austrian School of Economics, commented on Michael Moore’s end Capitalism remark, stating that:

“We should socialise those profits [his movies] and give it to the common man, because Michael Moore is sitting on a pretty good fortune he’s made through Capitalism”

And yes Mr Schiff, Moore is a hypocrite. This next video shows us how two-faced he is too:

While proclaiming in the midst of the protesters to end Capitalism, in his interview on CNN he tries to downplay the fact that Capitalism and the principles of free market choice are what have made him a very wealthy man, also attempting to weasel out of the suggestion that what he has achieved is a form of Capitalism. Not only is this behaviour hypocritical, but Moore also contradicts his end Capitalism remark amidst the protesters at Wall Street. He also talks about how the old principles of Capitalism that made the US prosperous are not what we have today, referencing Smith’s “Invisible Hand”, and talking about how someone who invents something worthwhile has the right to make a lot of money, while employees also make money working for this person. This clearly shows that Moore knows full well what Capitalism is, and I am convinced he realises that free market principles not only work, but thrive, and that wealth does filter through the economy when it is left to operate via competition and innovation. I can only conclude that Moore is one of two things – a reactionary that wishes to make money from controversy, or a very dangerous liar who aims to incite the rabble into supporting leftist Socialist dogma.

Michael Moore shows us that the left will do anything to get their way, to subvert the principles of free market Capitalism that have been bastardised by the intervention of statism. Anti-trust laws and regulations of all forms have prevented true competition from ensuing, and leftists simply cannot and will not see that these Crony Capitalists hate competition because it is impossible for them to subjugate if this is in effect. Like leftists, Crony Capitalists show us that they do not respect Smith’s invisible hand either, and actually seek to destroy market competition in favour of a planned economy – an agenda that leaves the floodgates wide open for cronyism. John D.Rockerfeller famously said that “competition is a sin”, and yet his lineage dominates the oligarchal circle to this day – another hypocritical perspective. The Rockerfellers are just one example of the crony mindset and agenda that stifles the free market via state bribery.

Times ahead are going to be hard. Every time free market proponents explain to people how this is not responsible for the mess we are in they are met with lies, deceit, conjecture, abuse, and every form of ad hominem and logical fallacy imaginable. Many simply do not care whether Capitalism actually works, and will not disconnect this from the true problem – the state, for the only thing leftists truly want is to implement socialism, regardless of truth or practicality. While many leftists know we have never had a free market, they also know deep down that Socialism has never worked because it places power in the hands of too few – as statism always has.

This is RockingMrE – over and out!

The Feminist Agenda

2011-10-07T08:28:00.003+01:00

Many disputes occur when the agenda of Feminism is brought up. Does Feminism have an agenda? What does it aim to achieve? Has it achieved those goals? Does it still have a way to go? The main argument that most pro-Feminists will agree with is that Feminism was about equality. It aimed to correct the perceived oppression that men have directed at women in history. The theory is that men have conspired directly, or indirectly (depending on which “brand” of Feminism you align with) to keep women down, thus meaning that women have failed to reach their full potential, also meaning that men created a patriarchal society that only benefited them.

What complete and utter bull! For starters men have had more than their fair share of “oppression” to deal with in history, not least the burden of being a provider for women and children, working in jobs that women wouldn’t dream of doing, even now that they are “emancipated.” Men always have, and still do, the most arduous jobs that women wouldn’t touch with a barge pole. Women don’t work in mines, on oil rigs, fight on the front line, work as meat packers, trash collectors, and all the unclean, unsafe jobs that result in over 90% of on-the-job fatalities being men. Men have always sacrificed their happiness so that women could be protected and provided for, while women took a husband that was deemed of worthy stock to look after a woman. While women were historically expected to look after the family and the home, they were rewarded by marrying up the social ladder, never having to worry about financial strains or social responsibility. This phenomenon is known as hypergamy, and according to evolutionary psychologists this is a result of the female inclination to seek better genes and greater resources for themselves and their children.

When Feminism began to manifest itself in the latter part of the 19th century it immediately sought to change the dynamic of hypergamy by giving women rights equal to that of men. What feminists and liberals repeatedly ignore is that the “rights” that men previously had in so-called “patriarchal societies” always came with great responsibility. In the past a woman was not responsible for her husband’s debts, and this pattern of financial unaccountability coincided with her inability to earn any money. It was the husband who was expected to handle money, and any debts were in his name. Previously women did not go to jail for financial reasons, while men were expected to look after women in the same manner as a father looking after a daughter. Is this ideal? No. But it is false to claim that men always had the upper hand in this scenario. There was a lot of pressure that came with men being responsible to the state for a family.

The same pattern can be seen in the Middle East, and it is often women that are perceived as primarily oppressed in this region. Women have far less rights compared to men, but then, once again, men are expected to look after women in the same manner as children. The word of a woman is worth half that of a man in Sharia courts. This is not unlike children in West courts given that they are minors, and not fully responsible for their actions in the eyes of the law. Women are treated harshly for adultery, being stoned to death, and many Middle Eastern women are also harshly punished if they don’t wear burqas in public. What liberals and human rights campaigners regularly gloss over however is that men are also stoned to death for adultery. Some may then argue that women are buried up to their necks when they are stoned, for example in Iran, while men are buried up to their waists, able to escape death if they can dig themselves free – but do you like the odds in this situation? Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? When we really examine the culture in the Middle East it is not directly sex based, but draconian and despotic rules that are drawn from statism and religion. If you want to fix this then you have to challenge this system, not demonise men as the sole oppressors.

But this is exactly what happened in the West. Wherever Feminism goes it is driven by the empowerment of the state and a hateful ideology that paints men as oppressive. One major goal of the state has always been the economy, and below we can hear ex-Minister for Women Harriet Harman state that women in the workplace “brings the widest pool of workers to employers":

Feminists and liberals struggle with any suggestion that the government has its own agenda in helping Feminism, though it is clear that the flooding of women into the workplace helped drive down wages. This is not the only reason wages have failed to keep up with inflation since the 70’s, but it is common sense to realise that dramatically increasing the workforce is going to create an advantage to the employer. In jobs women prefer to work in, such as offices and schools, it is harder to earn a higher wage when compared to outdoor jobs that women do not statistically want to partake in. Feminists and leftists fail to understand this, and wish to use affirmative action to destroy the productivity of the business world via an agenda akin to Marx’s “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

We have reached a crossroad in this gender war. It is clear that Feminism has no intention of creating a world where people are rewarded based on ability, and instead wish to create an unsustinable model of society where all are identical, denying any link to reality such as sex based differences, or practicality in a free market economy. What’s worse is that Feminism has shown itself to be a hateful disease that infects women wherever it goes. As Feminism spills over to the East it is easy to see in real-time just how the Feminist agenda creates a culture of hatred:

Men beaten off women's train in India by CNN_International

In India men are hit by women for boarding ladies’ train carriages, even during crowded and chaotic rush hours - this reminds me of a certain situation involving black people on buses! As if that’s not enough a law is being proposed in India for the government to pay women to beat their husbands! This is a new low, but alas there are many that have fallen prey to the state exploiting any cause to coerce the masses. Combine this with a brainwashed group that actually buys into a biased view of history, and it’s clear that the Feminist agenda is not about equality.

This is RockingMrE – over and out!

Defining Objective Morality

2011-09-30T08:33:00.001+01:00

There are people on the left of the political paradigm that spend much of their time arguing that morality is subjective. This couldn’t be further from the truth. A favourite argument by those trying to put this point across involves the existential belief of perspectivism, first defined by Friedrich Neitzsche. This philosophy states that there is no true objective knowledge, for all knowledge is based on certain perspectives. Supporters of existentialism, relativism, or postmodernism, are typically attracted to such ideas on the premise that it allows people to define their own existence. This is a very romantic notion, and not one that I totally disagree with, though in reality this not only becomes impractical without objective truth, but it is also prone to logical fallacies suggesting that absolute knowledge is impossible. Relativists often suggest that there is no way to attain true objective knowledge, and thus it is basically pointless or naïve to try. This is a fallacious position because the search for objective truth is not about “knowing everything”, but rather the expansion of knowledge, making the search for objective truth invigorating given that this builds upon understanding with each new discovery.

Similar contradictions are used when relativists make moral arguments. Morals are cited as dependent on culture, religion, race, or any number of factors. These same people will then claim that they still uphold basic natural laws, such as laws against killing or theft, though the sheer inconsistencies enveloped in this relativistic school of thought carries no weight when truly scrutinised. I believe that many of its supporters know this deep down, and so rely on ad hominems, conjecture, and misdirection. Here is an example:

One of the many strawman arguments in this video is:

"An ought cannot come from an is; a value cannot come from a fact. Rather an ought can only come from an if, e.g. ‘if I want to lose weight I ought to lose weight.’ Thus all values come from if clauses, which are always subjective, never objective."

This is known as an amphibology fallacy, which relies heavily on pseudo-semantics to deconstruct an argument - in this case, Rand’s objectivism. Being dragged into this form of abstract argumentation is typically a red herring, and is easy to pull apart once put into context. Once relativists actually commit to an argument their case unravels. I can demonstrate this in relation to the dieting example by stating that:

"The fact is that in order to lose weight a person reasonably ought to diet and exercise. Thus the objective reality regarding losing weight is that exercise and healthy eating are what makes this possible."

This exhibits no category errors, and clearly shows that ought can coincide with objective goals. However, I am honest enough to admit that this sort of esoteric language is merely a form of mental masturbation, and has no place in a practical discussion about morals or rationality. In the case of defining objective morality this requires something that works in a real world setting, as opposed to the solipsism that consumes the mindset of the relatively inclined. Anything that is repeatedly broken down or attacked by relativistic philosophy is prone to abuse by the likes of religion, or consequential fallacies such as the greater good. This is a threat to individual liberty because it is too easy to implement and argue for clauses providing exceptions to individual rights. The philosophy that combats this is the non-aggression principle:

This cartoon helps to demonstrate how the non-aggression principle states that the initiation of coercion with force, threats, or lies is illegitimate. This is the basis for any moral framework, and anyone that doesn’t believe this has a fundamental lack of respect for individual liberty. Under this guiding principle we all have an equal right to liberty, and we also have the right to defend ourselves against the use of force by using self-defence. This must be relative to the force being used against us – so using an axe to chop off the head of someone who punched you in the face is excessive. Furthermore any form of collective coercion is also illegitimate, so it is unacceptable to force someone to pay taxes, obey society for an alleged greater good, or sacrifice individualism for a collective. There is simply no justification for taking something from someone to give to someone else - an immoral act in the name of a moral one is still illegitimate. Thus taking away the rights of men to better serve women, as Feminism always does, is a violation of the non-aggression principle - the non-aggression principle is non-negotiable!

Many leftists will protest loudly against such ideas, and here lies the key to exposing the totalitarian roots to what this group upholds. Leftists will spend much time claiming to stand for individualism, though in reality they only stand for forced collectivism as they reshape society. Marx’s “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, and its various incarnations, is the subconscious and openly spoken mantra for the left, but what this groups fails to understand is that the state possesses nothing more than what it takes from individuals. Thus it is only by using coercion that the state can have something to give. It is intellectually and morally dishonest to claim that the state does anything more than this, though there are those that argue the state is what provides us with the landscape to live our lives. Naturally this is false given that statists often refuse to accept that voluntary collectivism regularly occurs in nature, and that the state abuses the socioeconomic setting so that it can retain power, and ultimately filter wealth up to the inevitable ruling class – the conclusion of any structure that uses coercion to keep itself alive, for this ultimately infects every facet of human life. Social inequality is also used as an excuse to claim that without the state life as we know it would end, while the same group restricts the free market based on incorrect assertions about the free trade – the very mechanism that eliminates social inequality. I have repeatedly disproven all these ideas, though I will concede that the only threat to freedom is statism itself, for statists could never stand for a world without conditioning humanity to depend on forced collectivism.

This is RockingMrE – over and out!

Collective Coercion

2011-09-23T08:11:00.003+01:00

Collectivists often cite arguments that play on fear and guilt. I have reached a point where I don’t buy this angle any longer, and here I will explain why. I regularly state that human beings are naturally altruistic, and this is clearly apparent in nature too:

The reason why I keep repeating that nature is altruistic is because much collective philosophy comes back to a justification of preventing exploitation in the world. This leads to coercion, even if it is simply an appeal to the inner desire of humans to be charitable. As I also keep repeating it is a fallacy to state that humans are not cooperative in a setting where survival is easy. Quite the contrary, it is when human beings struggle that they do terrible things. All of these points are taken advantage of by statism – put people under pressure while blaming another party and they will fight for the collective. Tell people that they need to be charitable and united against inequality and they will obey, especially when they realise that this beneficial on an individual basis - people will lay down their lives and give their hard earned money to inflate and protect the collective.

Take World War Two. Many feel that this was about Nazism taking over Europe. While this was a major factor the West was also suffering immensely due to the Great Depression. It could quite easily be argued that countries needed a distraction at home to avoid any unrest, not unlike the sort of unrest we are experiencing in the world today. Countries also needed to make the Germans pay up when Hitler went against the Treaty of Versailles and stopped reparations. World War Two also served as a perfect catalyst to reset the world stage. Well over 62 million died during this event, and of course a smaller population meant a reduction in resource pressure. The Germans themselves went along with all sorts of terrible orders by the Nazi’s, including mass genocide of whole sections of society, such as Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals. Why could make anyone do such things? The answer lies in groupthink mentality. States do not fight wars without citing a collective goal. Many Nazi’s would have believed in the ideology that Hitler elevated, though of course those Germans who did not were snuffed out like anybody else that did not agree with them.

When we put all of this together we get different shades of the same spectrum. Human beings are vulnerable to collective coercion, and thus we do not always think rationally when making group decisions. Furthermore if we are raised to be subservient to authority then people are far less likely to question what they are told. This is clearly shown in studies like the Milgram Experiment, where only a small percentage of those tested did not repeatedly electrocute a person hidden from view. Of course the whole experiment was staged, though 65% of those tested administered the highest dosage to the actor when they got questions wrong – 450 volts! The Prussian education model has also served to solidify the negative impact of human subservience to authority, where children are taught to obey, and rarely taught anything outside of a system that produces workers for the benefit of the economy.

Put this together and there is no true justification for the collective, for any justification is exploitable by tyranny. Furthermore it is false to claim that people need to be forced to obey a collective for the greater good, as though voluntary collectivism is not possible, just like in nature. We do not need to be forced to conform to any ideal, and this why Anarcho-Capitalists and Minarchists support the free-market – because it is self-regulating when left to its own devices. This means that no one has the upper hand, and no one controls the landscape. Only statism can ruin this, and this is why I feel that if we create a Minarchy this will simply result in statism growing larger again over time - like a parasite feeding off its host, convincing them that it needs it to survive.

Of course there are always those that will struggle to work in a free market and Anarchistic world, like the disabled or mentally challenged, and ollectivists use this to defend the state and a safety net:

With regards to this video I would first say that it is important to understand that you cannot run a business without giving jobs to those who are best suited for the role. That is why affirmative action helps no one in the long run. As long as people have the same opportunities when applying for a position then the market will do the rest. Any business that does not adhere to this will fail without state cronyism to prop it up. Even the mighty “too big to fail” banks suffered this fate – without the state they would not be here today. In fact without the state they would not have been too big to fail in the first place, leading back to the fact that a truly free market is a self-regulating entity that takes no prisoners when dealing with the exploitative.

This explanation also addresses the arguments in this video involving charitable communities being exploited by those who are less charitable. As I have already stated humans are naturally altruistic, so there is no need for any forced collectivism. A market where everyone can compete on an even playing field will counter any attempts by others to tip the balance. That is why monopolies cannot work without the state – it takes a “big gun” like the state to subdue the masses, and it also takes a lot of time to breed subjugation into the masses via state education.

Thus charity truly is the best alternative in dealing with those who are unfortunate enough to have no one to turn to in times of hardship. But the best safety net in society always has and always will be that link more solid than anything when functioning properly – the family. Family looks after children. Children grow up and look after old relatives. Family looks after relatives who are ill, disabled, or have an accident, and without family there is no foundation for community. This leads us to the ironic conclusion that when collectivists subjugate the family they harm communities. This is why I believe that charity truly begins at home.

This is RockingMrE – over and out!

Biological Truth

2011-09-16T08:58:00.003+01:00

If ever anyone wishes to expose the bigotry of Feminism there is nothing quite like discussing the biological differences between men and women. This usually involves Feminists getting very angry at the suggestion that men and women have inherent advantages when compared to one another. When presented with scientific evidence Feminists will respond in a number of ways that indicate how hard it is to digest any information that breaks down gender neutrality. Some responses I’ve encountered include the suggestion that evolutionary differences between men and women have now altered over the last few hundred years, as though modern innovations have changed the millions of years it requires for life to evolve. It is impossible for the 10,000 years of human civilisation to be enough time for men and women to fundamentally change biologically, let alone the 100 years of the 20th Century where women gained the opportunity to expand their roles in society.

The other typical response from a Feminist involves the line about “not all women being like that,” or how there are plenty of women that could beat up a man, obviously relating to the fact that men are the larger and stronger sex as a rule. Of course there are women that are larger than some men, but only a bigot of some shape or form would attempt to argue that statistically men don’t have an advantage over women when it comes to physicality. Feminists will obviously use this to their advantage when dealing with areas like domestic violence, as though a woman could never use an object or a weapon to gain the upper hand, or get a man to unwittingly ingest a substance that incapacitates or kills them. Furthermore the societal impression of a man defending himself against a woman makes it very difficult for him to so much as raise a hand against a woman in self defence if he does not want to face the consequences of innate human chivalry giving special privileges to women, especially in our female-centric Western culture.

In the last few decades there have been breakthroughs that have allowed the scientific community to conduct research highlighting the differences between men and women. One book that I have read that is excellent for anyone that wants to learn about this is “Why Men Don’t Listen and Women Can’t Read Maps," written by Alan and Barbara Pease, a married couple from Australia. They use references that bring together the likes of Dawkins and Darwin, and two of my earliest videos “Men Vs Women” and “Boys Vs Girls” specifically deal with the research cited in this book. In 2005 there was a BBC series called “Secrets of the Sexes” that also dealt specifically with the type of research that scientists have been undertaking in this area:

In the above video the effect of testosterone on the human body is discussed. Believe it or not Professor John Manning of Lancashire University carried out research showing that the size of the ring finger relative to the index finger can indicate the amount of testosterone that we have been exposed to in the womb – the larger the ring finger, the more testosterone. The explanation for this is that the genes that trigger testosterone production in the womb also trigger finger growth. The more testosterone we are exposed to the more athletic we are, and the more prone we are to higher feats of endurance and strength, though this also has a direct link to our visual/spatial abilities. Remarkably Professor Manning staked his reputation on a 5000m race between six men, where he stated that the winning order of the participants would be relate to their ring finger size. The order he predicted corresponded with the final order thusly; first, second, fourth, third, fifth, sixth – outstandingly accurate, almost depressingly so – yes, the size of your ring finger would indicate whether you are naturally athletic or not.

Professor Manning then goes on to take a group of five women and five men, lining them up based on the size of their ring fingers. The results were that all the women were on one end of the scale, while all the men were on the other end – with one exception – a woman who worked as a flight test engineer, named Grace. The programme states that in visual/spatial tasks men on average score 40% higher than women, and in the tests given to this group of ten men and women the results mirrored this trend, with the exception of Grace:

In the final part of the programme the group are given the task of changing a nappy on a baby. All the women become excited when they see the baby, and they all do very well, with the exception of Grace, who doesn’t appear to take to the task. The men also deal with the task very clinically, completing it without bonding with the child. However, one of the men with a higher level of testosterone actively goes out of his way to compensate for his acute awareness that he struggles with bonding. This makes him very emotional when interviewed, and he talks about his gradual bonding with his own son over the years. Many use this perceived weakness of men involving children to make women primary custodians of children upon divorce. This falsehood is gradually being eroded by growing evidence showing men are amply capable caregivers, also essential in the development of children.

In every test there are exceptions to the typical rules about men and women, though this is the key – they are exceptions. Men are statistically more athletic and better at visual/spatial tasks, while women are statistically better at language and emotional skills. The fact that there is growing research that shows how hormones influence us, directly associated with sex, is removing the false perceptions of Postmodernism regarding social constructs. That is not to say that our environment doesn’t influence us, but the idea that this has a large effect when compared to biology is now being broken down in the same manner that Rationalism tore down Theology after the enlightenment. But as human beings we are capable of developing our skillset if we apply ourselves, though naturally there are some limitations to what each of us can achieve. This is not a value statement – it simply is. This is what leftist philosophers struggle to understand. If one compiles enough data in this field there will always be men and women who break the mould, but it is the overall results that truly define the conclusions.

This type of information is not taken well by leftists, but I have stopped believing that those consumed by the likes of Marxian ideology actually care about anything objective, and this is what makes this group so ignorant. They are too caught up in their false theories they wish to perpetuate, instead of building a picture that can help us better understand life. They are dangerous people, and they wont go down without trying to destroy reason and logic.

This is RockingMrE – over and out!

Women on Duty

2011-09-02T07:27:00.000+01:00

Women serving in the emergency services or the military is arguably the biggest example of how women are not required to uphold the responsibility that comes with being treated equally to men. Women serving the military are not required to fight in the front line. Quite the contrary, they are not allowed in many instances. What this results in is women being protected in dangerous jobs. Youtuber Karen Alloy mentions her experience in the military working on water cooler maintenance in a video:

In site of this when women are killed they regularly make headlines. Why is this? For starters it’s easy to argue that the human race is wired to feel more compassion towards women than men due to the evolution of male protector of females. This is easy to see when male deaths far outweigh those of women, like soldier deaths in Iraq, but still women make headlines, almost in a fashion that would make people feel the opposite were true. 2.5% of casualties in Iraq were female. Of that figure none were in the front line, and of the 110 female deaths there were 4298 male ones! Every life lost is a tragedy, but as Marilyn Manson said; “the death of one is a tragedy, the death of a million is just a statistic”. This quote says it all about our attitudes to female death. None of this stops people with their own agenda pushing female promotions in equal measure to males, despite taking less risk. It is far from fair that women should be able to gain the highest promotions in the military without serving on the front line. It is also foolish to expect women to have enough experience in combat tactics without being involved in fighting. Furthermore, if a woman’s life is too precious to put in the line of danger, then so is a man’s. If we started valuing the lives of men to a fraction of the extent we value women’s I honestly feel that we would see a dramatic decline in global conflicts.

To create a truly gender equalitarian society it is important that women can meet the same standards men, such as those for the fire service. In fact this is essential if we are to continue having services that are effective. Firemen are expected to lift as much as 180 pounds, climb ladders with people over their shoulders, and use power tools to break down doors. Thus so should women. A woman would have to be very committed to exercise to achieve such things. Women are of course weaker than men as a rule, and even smaller men usually have physical advantages to women, brought on by the hormone testosterone. There is nothing about this biological reality that should offend anyone, especially if women have equal opportunities to enrol for the fire service. As long as they can pass the same tests as men, fulfil the same role as men, and not be protected or kept away from danger, they have earned the right to do a job.

Youtuber Christy0misty made a video in which she very openly talked about her experiences of advantages for women in the military. She found that women were not only permitted to ignore certain fitness standards that were already lower than men, but that other women felt that this was not only acceptable, but also something they were entitled to:

This entitlement is the most harmful thing that can possibly happen to a society that is genuinely concerned about equal opportunities. Many people will not accept that equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome. Due to our entitlement culture many women find it hard to resist how easy it for them to perpetuate a victim mentality. This results in cases like the 51 year-old policewoman who failed a riot test where she was required to complete a course in less than two minutes and forty-five seconds in full riot gear. According to judge Hilary Slater she was sent away from the test humiliated, thus awarded £30,000 in compensation. Judge Slater said: “The tribunal concludes that the claimant was put at the disadvantage suffered by women and persons of her age group in that she failed the test and was not able to complete the training.” She did however pass the test a few months later by the finishing time being raised to three minutes, though it is claimed that a colleaugue said “She’s got no f***ing chance”. Whether this is true or not is anyone’s guess, especially since it is not uncommon for women to lie to gain an advantage in cases of gender discrimination. One thing is clear though; her actions show a complete lack of integrity and honour. She was also at the front of the starting line when she retook the test, where she also gained an advantage by being the first one to start. As if all this privilege is not enough the Association of Chief Police Officers is reviewing its lawfulness of 13 specialist operational roles, to see if they are discriminatory against women.

Given there was a serious case of nationwide rioting this past summer this is not going to help the UK police in the present economic climate. But more to the point, this case strongly shows that not only do many women expect special favours, and will successfully sue if they do not get them, but most tragically of all there is someone who missed out on a job who could have fairly met the standards of the riot test. What is also tragic is that this destroys the efforts of the sincere to create a truly egalitarian society, and people are waking up to the fact that this sense of female entitlement is doing no favours for the reputation of women in the workplace. If people think this adolescent victim based equality is a just way to shape society then I will have no part in it.

Gender difference is anathema to promoters of political correctness, especially with regards to Feminist gender theory. This is one of the saddest things forming after the civil rights movement of the 60’s. The differences between men and women are no longer celebrated by society as a whole. Instead these differences are suppressed, as though they are oppressive. The fact that men and women are different is one of the most wonderful things about being human. Biological differences between the sexes are part of what makes life unique, and women also have their own inherent advantages. Denying this is foolish and futile to say the least, but this doesn’t stop people trying. Postmodernism is at the heart of this attempt to fallaciously break down gender, but it is important that those who value scientific truth speak out.

This is RockingMrE – over and out!

Preparing for the Worst

2011-08-26T07:56:00.000+01:00

Western economies are struggling compared to emerging markets. China’s growth has been around 5-15% for the past 30 years, spurred on by manufacturers moving production into this part of the world. The credit crisis that truly started in 2008 has yet to show signs of abating, and if anything this is going to get worse before it gets better. August has been a terrible month for several reasons, one of which has been the increased likelihood of a double-dip recession across the Western world. Over 4 trillion has been wiped off the value of stocks since the start of August, sending tremors through the world as investors run for cover. But the UK has had its own problem, with unprecedented riots across the country. Here is my video addressing the background:

Unrest across the world is heightened by a global economy that is struggling to keep up with hyperinflation, as central banks flood the world with money. This has seriously raising the cost of living, the UK being the most affected among the G7 nations. Two rounds of quantitative easing by the world’s biggest central bank, the US Federal Reserve, has done little to benefit the man in the street. Thanks to the “too big to fail” structure of the banking system people we were left under ransom in 2008 if we did not give public money to the financial institutions that caused the financial collapse - give money to the banks or be unable to withdraw what you’ve deposited due to a fractional reserve system, meaning there isn’t even enough physical money in circulation. Yes that’s right, thanks to fractional reserve currency there isn’t enough money for everyone to withdraw what they’ve deposited. So when governments started guaranteeing deposits in financial institutions and bailing out banks the truth of the matter is they had no choice, not if they wanted the façade to keep going a little longer.

What’s more is that there isn’t a large enough bailout fund to save Italy, let alone Spain. The US has also had its credit rating downgraded by S&P in the month of August. Meanwhile the US has struggled to raise the debt ceiling to a sustainable level and make cutbacks that will make any difference to its balance sheet. It’s clear that inflating away the debt is the solution that the FED is taking, though what choice is there now that bankers have been bailed out instead of prosecuted for causing financial terrorism. Seizing the assets of corrupt financial institutions, to ease the pain of true victims in a financial collapse, would have been a far better alternative for the people, though now there is the added pressure of devalued fiat currencies to contend with.

It’s a grim picture. But what can people do to protect themselves? Let’s start with investments. The stock market is a major risk. It is extremely volatile, and not one for the feint-hearted. I feel it’s only a matter of time before the market has a crash like one we’ve never seen, though I also feel there will be attempts to buy time through further stimulus. Thus another round of quantitative easing is inevitable, and by the time you read this it may have already begun. Bernanke’s speech on the 26th August will signify some sort of major move in the market, and unlike others I believe it will be up from here as we move into Spring. The market has fallen to the floor in a very short space of time, and I think Wall Street will be desperate to have an excuse to become bullish with such cheap shares compared to profit to earnings ratio right now. Come September, when trading volume picks up, I think there is a good chance that investors will gradually become bullish, though this cannot happen without a sense of short to medium term protection of national debts by central banks like the FED and ECB.

But there is one investment that is only going one way as long as national debts are so out of control and fiat currencies are being devalued – gold. This has risen to new highs in the month of August of over $1900 an ounce, and the buying activity on silver is also picking up. Silver has yet to break out above the $50 mark, but when it does I wouldn’t be surprised to see it hit around $75 an ounce. I feel that people are looking to buy silver now that gold is getting so expensive, and Indian wedding season from September should also help the price of gold go higher. So I would buy on any pullbacks and hold on for the long term, using other pullbacks as an opportunity to buy and sell, locking in profits and averaging down.

But when the FED does finally admit to further stimulus it will not be positive for those who cannot afford to invest any significant sum of money, as food prices are going to go higher yet again. But all is not lost. Even if people buy food in advance this will be an inflation hedge. Stock up on easy to preserve dry foods like pasta and rice, and also purchase canned food. When the price of food goes up this will help towards hedging against the cost of inflation. Depending on how bad you think things will get there are many things you can do to protect yourself against social turmoil. Preppers are the ultimate group of people for preparing for the worst, and a favourite Youtuber of mine called DEMCAD has plenty of good advice:

There are many people who refuse to accept that life is not going to get easier from here, whatever the outcome. The statist society we live in has been looted by what can only truly be defined as criminals, masquerading within the political and financial class. There is no outcome available that will not cause upheaval. All we can hope is that some sort of order can be retained, though politicians and financial terrorists have only had their interests at heart. The UK riots have shown that what we are facing in the future is very real, extremely serious, and that the UK is going to be arguably the most difficult place to live in the West as matters escalate. If people refuse to accept that there are tough times ahead then it is their choice. But these same people mock those that want to be prepared. Nonetheless it is still important to rise above this, for every bird that flies against the wind will always face the most resistance.

This is RockingMrE – over and out!

Libertarian Christians & Marxist Atheists

2011-08-19T07:35:00.008+01:00

I’ve made it clear in the past that I do not identify with the left-right paradigm, and what I’ve begun to realise is that this puts me in conflict with both sides of this divide. Recently I made a video outlining that though I am not an anti-theist, and believe in freedom of religion, Christians do not need an organised church to practice their beliefs. This attracted the attention of a Youtube user named Thunderbolt94, who can only truly be described as a Catholic Fundamentalist:

This is not the first time Catholics have come forward to attack my arguments against the church, and in fact it has always been Catholics that have done so when making video responses to my views about religion. In my video I argued that the bible presents no solid evidence for the creation of a church in Jesus’ name, and every biblical verse used to justify this is mired in subjectivity. Jesus was a man of the people, and he preached in the open air, not in religious buildings. This put him in direct conflict with institutional (or organised) religion, and led to his crucifixion.

Those wishing for a smaller state dominate the right of the political spectrum, basing their social values on religion. If we examine the Tea Party in the US we can easily notice this. The Tea Party is fiscally conservative, which means that it believes the government should be much smaller, and that taxes and public debt should be significantly reduced. As someone who believes that the state should be marginalised I agree with all of these policies. However, socially the Tea Party is also very Conservative, with many of its supporters being Christian. This means that Tea Partiers often hold views such as anti-abortion, Creationism, and the union of church and state. I support none of these things.

But there is another reason I feel drawn towards the right of the political spectrum. Unless society becomes a place where men are granted the same type of flexibility that women now have, the so-called gender equality that we are faced with in the West is a false ideal that only benefits women. Until women stop expecting the advantage in every scenario then it is unfair that men should be stuck as provider and protector, which is what they have always been. There are only two viable alternatives to this; women either start compromising, or they return to their old gender role, which is exactly where men still are. Either way, what we presently have is not a success for both genders, and is the reason why I find myself driven towards more Conservative family values. But I also wish to see a move away from religious family ideals, and a genuine compromise of the sexes, which is very controversial on both sides of the political divide, and another bone of contention that I am faced with from two fronts.

Two-parent families are far more stable for society, and this is where I often myself in conflict with the political left. Liberals have pushed for a social experiment over the past 50 years, one involving the erosion of the nuclear family. Liberals seem far more interested in homosexual marriage, or in policies that give advantages to women, than they are in noticing that the family has struggled ever since the civil rights movement of the 60’s. International divorce stats prove that this is a serious issue in the West, and in Sweden, the most politically correct area of the world, the divorce rates are higher than the US and UK. While it is reasonable and fair to advocate for gay marriage and adoption, liberal philosophy has seriously harmed the role of fathers in society, and the effects of this are now becoming apparent as social unrest grows in the UK.

The political left’s answers to society regularly come down to Marxist solutions of fiscal liberalism, or authoritarian political correctness. This is where I simply cannot abide the left, and though this side of the spectrum perceives itself as socially emancipating, it always makes the mistake of taking rights away from the individual in favour of the collective, which of course, can be abused by the ruling class. Certain boundaries are healthy, and though giving adults the freedom to live the life they choose without harming others is noble, it is essential children are raised in stable environments where they are guided within two-parent families (and wherever possible by both biological parents). This does not involve raising children within a framework denying the reality of human evolution, or expecting children to behave like adults before they are ready, be it through sexual education or any other regard. Childhood is a precious part of human development, and to deny children of this is not helpful to a well-rounded upbringing.

Furthermore, the fallacy that Liberals make time and time again is their attempts to elevate the state as a safety net. If we look back through history it is clear that the true societal safety net has always been the family. Lose this and you are truly in trouble – as can be seen when studying the UK riots. Not only is the family a fiscally free and sustainable alternative, but biological bonds are stronger than any grand social collective, despite what liberals tend to believe. This is why I support what first wave Feminism stood for, because women should still retain the security of the familial safety net even after males like fathers and husbands die. This is largely what first-wave Feminism advocated, as opposed to the female privilege of the state as substitute husband today.

The other issue that comes up time and time again when debating with Liberals is the validity of Cultural Marxism:

To say that this is frustrating is an understatement. Liberals are unprepared to accept that Cultural Marxism is a dominant part of the new left that was adopted after the 60’s, and that the Cultural Studies driving liberal postmodernism is based on Cultural Marxism originating from the Frankfurt School. This is exactly the same type of cognitive dissonance that one is faced with when debating with fundamentalist Christians. Liberals regularly employ subjectivity when trying to discredit a position, claiming they are not Cultural Marxists, that Cultural Marxism has nothing to do with Marx's version of Marxism, or other arguments to break down objective truth. I’ve come to the conclusion that this is a tactic employed to divert attention from the true reality - that the left is rife with critical theory, a school of thought that has one goal – to dismantle society and reshape it, while using fabricated theories and data as evidence. This is all that matters to me, and this is what I fight against. I care not what you call yourself, but I do care what you stand for.

My philosophical stance has put me in direct confrontation with what I can ultimately define as Collective Relativists – people who depend on relative philosophy to enforce collective tyranny. Some are the Marxist Atheist variety, while others are Christian Libertarians. But I have chosen a third option, which moves away from the left-right paradigm - a society free of statism, as well as organised religion. I have begun to notice collective relativists on either end of the political divide hating me more than they hate one another, which is why I am becoming public enemy number one to this group, that will happily unite when fighting objective individualism – but who ever said that the right choice was the easy one?

This is RockingMrE – over and out!

Female Privilege

2011-08-12T07:40:00.006+01:00

I am unable to keep up with the sheer volume of misandristic issues that regularly occur within Western society. The density of these cases would mean that my Youtube channel and blog would be dedicated to this if I attempted to do so, and there are simply too many other matters I would like to address. But here I wish to talk about the rampant female privilege in today's world, and how we have reached a point in Western society where not only are women given special allowances, but they also mock the system that has given them the very freedom they could have never had without the sacrifice of men. Let’s start with this:

This video presents the recent case where a man had his penis cut off by his wife, who then threw it in the waste disposal. When asked why she did this she said it was because her husband wanted a divorce. As if this wasn’t enough a group of women on a daytime female-centric chat show then laughed and joked about the situation. Sharon Osborne was among the women, and particularly insensitive in her mockery. But what’s more is that the end of the above video shows the apology aired after complaints, though once again, Sharon Osborne’s attitude was less than compassionate, and the consequences of the women involved was far less than that of any man if the roles were reversed. The example used by several people on Youtube involves turning the situation around to men laughing at a woman who had her breast cut off in a similar manner. What would be the consequences of men laughing at this?

As the video above demonstrates it is obvious that women know that the privilege they have attained in society allows them to laugh in the faces of men, and face little to no resistance by society. Obviously men do have to take responsibility for the fact that chivalry has taken away their ability to act against this type of injustice because they are basically programmed to be protectors and providers of women, thus sacrificing themselves for their loved ones. Women on the other hand have been programmed to get men to provide for them, and of course their young. But as Feminism has transformed society it appears that women are often incapable of seeing that they are still attempting to get anyone and anything that will bow to their whims to provide for them, be it the state or men. Seeing as men are often still incapable of thinking of anyone but the women they have evolved to protect this shows how women’s liberation has not set men free from their traditional gender role, despite what Feminists may say.

A case that demonstrates how men are ignored by society is that of Thomas Ball, who burnt himself to death outside a courthouse after he was forced to endlessly fight against his ex-wife to see his children. Little press attention was given to this story, despite the drastic manner in which Ball ended his life, sending a letter to a local newspaper beforehand. But the media seemed more interested in the fact that Ball hit his daughter after she repeatedly refused to listen to him, this being the catalyst for a whole series of events leading to his suicide by self-immolation. Ball ended up at risk of jail time for being unable to pay for child support amounting to $3000. A criminal record would have certainly led to great difficulty in his struggle to find employment, especially within the backdrop of a shrinking economy. This all eventually became too much for him to bear, his final desperate act being an attempt to show how much the family courts ignore men.

Female privilege is also easy to see when we refer to the drama surrounding Rebecca Watson, an Atheist blogger, Youtuber, and podcast presenter. While being on the panel alongside Richard Dawkins at an Atheist convention in Ireland, she felt it was important to bring up alleged sexism within the Atheist community. The video below demonstrates how her complaints were basically based around e-mails she’d received:

As if this wasn’t enough she then made a complaint about a man in an elevator with her at 4am on the evening of the convention. Shockingly he asked if she would like to come for a coffee in his room, also asking her not to take it the wrong way, and saying that he found her interesting. Rebecca moaned about this on Youtube, and even Richard Dawkins felt the need to point out how petty she was being with a comment left on one of her online posts. I have to ask whether it would have made any difference how this man would have approached Watson. If he had done it in public, like the hotel foyer, then I imagine she would have still felt “objectified”. I also suspect that Watson was around other people all night, and that to avoid the embarrassment of being turned down in public the man in question took the opportunity to proposition her in the privacy of the elevator. But instead of critics considering the culture of women having the sexual advantage, where men still have to do much of the work when attaining female attention, many suggested that the man was creepy and sexist. Well Watson, maybe you should try being a man some time. It’s not easy propositioning women, unless you develop a really thick skin for rejection that is. Maybe women should ask themselves if they truly are sexually liberated if they can’t brush off casual advances, or whether the truth is that women are sexually privileged in deciding which propositions are acceptable, while expecting men to read women’s minds. But then again, I think this comes down to women holding all the cards, as usual.

Another example of female privilege is the case where an RAF soldier was only awarded 16k for losing his hand, while a female RAF employee was awarded 484k for a typing injury. This perfectly exemplifies the disposability of men alongside women in our culture, and how women attain privilege thanks to the mindset of female victimhood, instead of true female empowerment and responsibility. There was another case where a man was forced to pay child support to a woman who used his sperm in an IVF clinic after they separated. This amounted to 100k despite the fact that the clinic was tricked into using the man’s sperm without his consent. But still the court ruled in the woman’s favour, forcing the man to pay towards the son and daughter he knew nothing about.

It truly is an uphill struggle to open the eyes of chivalrous men and privileged women. Many will use the same old arguments about self-actualisation, and that men need to organise themselves. But for those of us who do try to “self-actualise” we are faced with the political correct vice of character assassinations and a legal system that is against us every step of the way. An attempt to shut down AVfM Radio, which thankfully failed, also shows how the opinions of men are not only denied in the mainstream media, but in any sphere where women have the power to play the victim card. This is certainly not what occurs in a system that elevates true gender equality, let alone freedom of speech. But as long as there is breath in my lungs I will help to create a world where men and women are held equally responsible for their actions.

This is RockingMrE – over and out!

Misandry Rising

2011-07-29T07:34:00.007+01:00

The Norway attacks have sparked serious tensions between the left and right of Youtube, and unfortunately men’s rights activists have been directly accused of spreading the type of far right ideology that was present in the manifesto of Anders Breivik. Bernard Chapin was the first to inform me of a hateful article against MRA’s in his video:

The article is an inflammatory accusation against MRA’s claiming that they mirror Breivik’s views because he felt that Cultural Marxism is detrimental to Western society. But Breivik’s philosophical views align with a number of things, not least an association with Masonic lodges, a belief that multiculturalism is harming Western society, and a very close link to Neo-Nazism.

Before the accusations really start flying it’s important to fully understand the background of Scandinavia, a region of the world that would have everyone believe it is a model of civility. Scandinavia’s past is steeped in Nazism, though later it abandoned its largely Christian right wing politics by swinging to the left. During World War Two Scandinavia had a strange relationship with Germany, with Sweden claiming neutrality, though continuing to supply them with iron, while Denmark supplied them with butter and herrings. Finland was actually an ally of Germany, while Norway had its own fascist government after Germany invaded in 1940. All four Scandinavian countries provided large numbers of volunteers for the 5th SS Panzer (Viking) Division, which was particularly feared. The characteristic blonde hair and blue eyes often associated with Scandinavians was welcomed by Nazis due to the Aryan stereotype that Hitler elevated, and Nazism is still alive and well in the growing Neo-Nazi culture of this region today. It is not unusual for Neo-Nazi violence to occur in Scandinavia, and it appears that this movement is growing.

From as early as 1934 sterilisation was conducted in Sweden. Sweden sterilised as many as 62,000 people until it ended its program in 1975, more than any other European country, including Nazi Germany. Finland also sterilised more people per capita than any other Nordic country and Sweden’s programme targeted the mentally ill and deviant. While sterilisation was allegedly voluntary some 30,000 to 62,000 were sterilised under some form of pressure or coercion. As was common with other eugenics based “cleansing” it was deemed that mental and physical health was linked to race or ethnicity, but Sweden denied that it conducted its eugenics program on these grounds. Regardless, this is another factor that shows just how deep Scandinavia’s Nazi similarities actually go, despite the fact that this region of the world tries very hard to hide this.

Another important factor to note is that Hitler’s rise to power was on the back of National Socialism, and this also relates to the common link of Scandinavia and Socialist politics. People often assume that Hitler was not linked to Socialism because he was a far-right white extremist, but authoritarian governments regularly use socialist programmes and corporatism to attain power, turning the increased influence of the state against its citizens. Scandinavia mirrors this, with a highly centralised government and strong socialist programmes that tax the citizen heavily, redistributing people’s earnings based on welfare schemes like childcare. Corporations are lightly taxed, and in return keep people in line on behalf of the state.

Many claim that Scandinavia is one of the least corrupt places on Earth. But anyone who digs a little deeper will realise how untrue this is, and just how intrusive the Scandinavian states are on people’s lives. The whole Julian Assange debacle has publicly revealed how Sweden’s legal system is not easy to challenge, while Sweden is accused of attempting to unfairly trial Assange via Radical Feminist rape laws that allows a woman to accuse a man of rape if he has unprotected sex with her. Sweden’s social services have been regularly accused of taking children from parents unjustly, and it is clear that Sweden makes a lot of profit via this system. My video here addresses this problem:

Today Scandinavia has tried to turn its back on its Nazi past while latching onto a new extreme – Cultural Marxism. It appears that Scandinavians can do nothing without unquestioningly flipping from one far side of the political spectrum to the other, and this would indicate why it finds itself in growing conflict with the ideology it was linked to for decades - Nazism. The monolithic culture of Scandinavia is the most logical reason for Scandinavians being so inclined to blindly follow authority, and it appears they have fallen pray to this yet again. You can guarantee that if there is a new pioneering programme, based on the flimsy evidence of critical theory, that Scandinavians will be in the thick of it, like the recent gender neutral school case. Feminism is dominant in this region of the world, with women’s studies and gender theory taken extremely seriously. Immigration has also aggravated Neo-Nazism, and the left-right paradigm is becoming ever more volatile.

It seems leftists have, and no doubt will continue, to use the awful Norwegian disaster as an excuse to pin blame on men’s rights activists, without actually studying the background of Scandinavia. No doubt more cries of denial regarding the existence of Cultural Marxism will ensue. But Cultural Marxism is very real, and certainly has its own agenda, as can be seen by the melting pot of unrest that has been caused by Scandinavia’s relationship with the extreme left and right. One other thing to note is that the accusations of Evangelical Christianity in the MRA is completely unfounded given that many are Atheists, and major MRA’s Paul Elam and Johntheother are good examples of this. I myself am also an Atheist. So this link to Breivik is just more unfounded mud slinging. But for those of you who think men’s rights support and statist opposition is going to go away thanks to these typical PC tactics, then be warned, for I have plenty of compelling research to use for upcoming material, spurred on by bigots living in a bubble of accusatory denial.

This is RockingMrE – over and out!

Theism

2011-07-22T07:19:00.000+01:00

When people think of the term “theism” they often refer to those who believe in god. But god is an idea, a force that people put their faith in. Yes, religious people do this when they put their faith in god, and as an Atheist it is not something that I can do given that I feel that objective reality does not support it. However, statists hold the same unshakable faith in the power of the state that theists do with god, raising it to a level of benevolence in an identical manner.

That is why I have adopted the little known term “state-theist” to describe those who will not accept that the state is merely an idea, a concept that has no objective power over reality. Any power it has is given to it by those who sacrifice themselves to this entity. Historically religious-theists have persecuted those that have not blindly accepted the authority of god, and this is one reason why many people are cautious of the church. But if you do not accept the authority of the state, and wish to opt out of its illegitimate rule to tax and restrict your liberty, then the state will use force to punish you and make you live under its tyranny.

The state is a mechanism of control, which promises us everything and truly gives us nothing. While it promises us social security, protection, economic stability, none of those things are guaranteed, and it is foolish to expect the state to provide these things for us. The ponzi-scheme of the state is a gamble that we risk our livelihoods on, and if we do not get what we are promised, then we often lose it all. Even democracy is a concept that allows the minority to vote away the liberty of the majority, and if you do not accept the state’s will to impose this upon you then you have no alternative. The state constantly holds a metaphorical gun to your head, threatening to pull the trigger if you do not tow the line.

In my recent video I explain that even the liberty that you are granted in the modern world is part of a grand design to generate economic growth for the benefit of the ruling class:

The ruling class are the same as the priests of theism. People put their faith in their ability to spread truth, and to guide us through life. But they have no answers, and their scriptures are full of contradictions and ambiguity. The more layers that are added to this illusion, the harder it is to break it down, though being an Atheist I did it with religion, and I have done it with the state. So if you have already rejected either premise then use the same principle to shake off the remaining lie. Objectivity is the key to achieving this, and while religious-theists depend on subjectivity on a spiritual level, state-theists depend on subjectivity when justifying the state.

While there are times in life when there cannot be one answer, leading to subjective conclusions, it has to be accepted that objective truth is the most powerful force we possess. Objectivity tells us we are born free. The rights we have as individuals are not granted to us. They are not ours to take, and we have no right to sell them away to the collective, which then grows to engulf all around it, whether or not we choose to bow down to it. The state and religion have no authority over us. We are not theirs to command, and we are not here to sacrifice our liberty for others. While we have responsibilities to those we bring into this world out of no choice but our own, we have no responsibility to love anyone but those who have earned it. It is impossible to truly love in any other manner, and nature has taught us that altruism is a non-existent concept that always leads to giving and receiving, as Richard Dawkins explained in “The Selfish Gene”. Love is a selfish idea that serves the individual first and foremost, but without it the world would wither and die. So it is a necessary selfishness and a finite emotion that is impossible to endlessly and unconditionally give. When we love someone they fill us with joy, and they become important to our happiness, and those who do not experience love can become hardened and bitter, spreading their dysfunctionality outwards onto the world.

It is impossible to love everyone equally, and this is an idea perpetuated by religion and statism. It leads to a society where each person is expendable under collectivism, and this is what leaders depend upon when they take advantage of human self-sacrifice. “Love thy neighbour” is a false philosophy, for we cannot love whom we do not even know.

Thus it is easy to see why religion and the state depend on collectivism to undermine our individual right to pursue happiness. We are expected to detonate upon the command of authority – to accept austerity, the loss of liberty, the call to arms, the inequality of a manipulated market, and a whole stream of injustices. We are puppets to those that pull the strings of statism and religious scripture, and we are reduced to children when under their control. Humanity has become but a baby unable to fend for itself and stand on its own two feet, for this is what authority depends on to keep us compliant. If we do not cultivate, flex our philosophical muscles, and critically analyse all that we are told then we will succumb to the lie – the illusion that binds us to collective disposability, like an ant sacrificing itself to the colony.

State-theist or religious-theist, it matters not, for the result is the same. Presently humanity lives and dies by a collective falsehood that serves the rulers of society, a set of parameters that do not apply to our masters. We are individuals, and we are not born into slavery. We are born free and we have every right to pursue individual happiness, though we have no right to infringe upon the happiness of others. We must respect one another’s individual liberty, but we can only truly love and value those that earn it, and cherish those that do. Anyone who believes that we are born into authority, be it the state or an invisible entity, is the enemy of freedom, and they will never see why until the blindfold is removed from their eyes.

This is RockingMrE – over and out!

Alternative Family

2011-07-15T06:59:00.002+01:00

Recently I uploaded this video to my Youtube channel:

This was basically a second video that I made involving the family in modern society, and between the two videos I’ve shown that the modern family is in crisis, and that single parent homes are not an overall successful when it comes to raising children. Some claim that extended family is a good alternative to a father, though despite the fact that extended family and a good support structure in general can help in the responsibility of raising children, studies show that they cannot replace the importance of the father in society.

But there are a few points that I would like to make before I feel that this topic is finished for the time being, which involves homosexual parents. I’ve already stated in a previous video that I do agree with gay marriage and gay adoption. I feel that gay people have as much right as anyone else to be bound legally by a union, and that their help with the burden of finding homes for so many parentless children would be beneficial to wider society. One of the arguments put forward to justify gay people not being able to get married involves the traditional idea of marriage being for men and women. But when we look at history we soon realise that marriage is a concept that spans the ages, and is ever present in different cultures and traditions across the globe. Thus it has always evolved, and it should always be able to evolve in the same manner. My video here addresses my beliefs on gay marriage:

I’ve also had to clarify in my video comments section that though gay adoption should be allowed it doesn’t change the fact that the father’s role in a child’s life is very important. But the same thing should be said about mothers too. The answer for this is simple. We all attain our identity from both mother and father, and thus people have that deep desire to identify with each parent that passed on their chromosomes. This can be proven with evidence that show how adopted children seek out their birth parents. But in a society where so many children end up in care instead of with adopted parents then there is no reason why gay couples should not be allowed to adopt. Even if adoption wasn’t an issue then there is still no reason that gay people should not be permitted to adopt if they raised the child in a safe and secure environment.

The argument that gay people would indoctrinate children into homosexuality is weak because we have to be honest enough to admit that homosexuality does occur in nature. Some argue that homosexuality could be a natural form of birth control to curb the population. There is evidence that shows animals can be homosexual, which proves that it occurs in nature. However, I do disagree that homosexuality cannot occur through experiences. There are several ways of arguing that people can grow to be homosexual. Firstly some gay people may be abused by the opposite sex, and thus grow to trust the same sex more. Secondly if people can grow to be attracted to inanimate objects then there is no reason to believe that they could not also grow to be attracted to the same sex. Thirdly I could state that Radical Feminism is an example of abuse having an effect on people given that there is a culture of hating men among lesbians in this movement. Fourth, psychological studies tell us that childhood experiences have a direct impact on the manner with which children develop into adults.

Let me be clear that I am not insinuating that gay people would be any more likely to abuse children than heterosexual people. But I have shown here that arguing homosexuality is either natural or it isn’t, or that it is a choice or it isn’t, is too simplistic, and is also irrelevant to the fact that gay people are entitled to their liberty to marry, and that they can also be a big help to the burden of adoption in society.

Even though I agree with homosexual marriage and adoption I am beginning to see that unless people truly begin to define the modernisation of the family there is a risk that radicals will attempt to push their postmodernism onto society. When a Torronto couple recently talked about their gender neutral parenting there were those on Youtube that felt that it was a “right” for the parents to raise them in this fashion, and even that it is somehow perverse to wish to find out what sex a child is. This of course is nonsense. Gender is exactly the same as sexuality in that it is influenced by a whole series of factors, including biology and society, and as long as we aren’t too rigid in the manner in which this is addressed gender is harmless. But when I saw this article I knew that, as with most things, it is initially a minor issue involving a small fringe group, but that if this flawed viewpoint is not seriously challenged it would gradually become an issue for wider society. Well Sweden, being the bastion of PC that it is, has now begun to allow gender-neutral schools, and I can’t say that it surprises me. There are those, usually so-called Liberals, who would claim that it is fear-mongering to argue that this could become a major issue. But I think it’s easy to state that if radicals are ignored then there is always a risk that their views will be normalised with each generation. Besides, you only have to look at the civil rights movement of the 60’s without blinkers on to see that a lot of radicalism has taken hold after this period.

So I say again that if we do not begin to define what the modern family is then radicals will do it for us, which is exactly what happened when wider society failed to redefine gender roles – Feminism and the state took control, leaving men with a very raw deal. I feel that with the growing potential for designer babies we are facing another crossroad. Do we want to create a society where babies are designed and made to order in a collectivist society where family is superseded, like some sort of setting from Huxley’s “Brave New World”? Is this far-fetched? Definitely not! The choice of designer babies is one that is fast becoming a reality, and unless society begins to create a very solid grounding involving its perceptions of family life then I fear that the collectivist radicalism of Cultural Marxism will continue, destroying the individual pursuit of happiness in a society where “everyone belongs to everyone else”.

This is RockingMrE – over and out!

Financial Crisis Continues

2011-07-08T07:10:00.006+01:00

One of my first videos on Youtube was based on the financial crisis:

In this video I give a summary of the crisis, and how it relates to the debacle of financial chaos that not only ensued previously, but what would also be coming down the road. Well, nine months later it appears that my warning that the financial crisis is far from over has rung true. So am I an expert on economics? Certainly not. I just like to be well informed, and I most certainly don’t pay much attention to the mainstream media when judging the extent of the damage in the financial system.

Recently it’s been Greece that has been in the news regarding its growing deficit and potential to default on unrealistically high debt. Austerity has been passed onto the people via a vote through parliament by dishonest politicians doing the IMF’s bidding, and the people have been out en masse to violently protest against this given that they are not directly responsible for incompetent and dishonest politicians. In the video above I also highlight how Goldman Sachs was largely involved, but this video here further demonstrates Goldman Sachs’ role in the crisis in Greece:

This video gives a good account of the manner in which Goldman Sachs manipulated Greek government bonds so that it would appear to have far less debt than the EU perceived when it joined. One of the things that stood out in this video for me however was that Goldman Sachs apparently did not break the law by doing this. If a normal business had carried out such an act it would be called fraud. But in the world of the banking cartel it is business as usual. This right here exemplifies just how corrupt our financial system is, and how crony capitalism now reigns supreme.

Ultimately it is through the subprime crisis that the major world banks have been able to take advantage. By mixing good debt with bad debt it is now impossible to distinguish between riskier and safer investments. But what’s more is that banks like Goldman Sachs have used other weapons of financial destruction to profit. The first is derivatives, which allowed banks to bet on subprime lending failing, while being all too aware that good debt has been packaged with the time bomb of bad debt along with it. This is also known as shorting the market. The second weapon is credit default swaps, which allows banks to claim back insurance on failed investments, and once again being fully aware of the failing market.

The final weapon is the biggest financial terrorism of all - the notion of “too big to fail”, which means that the banks are able to threaten the governments of the world to bail them out, lest they collapse and detonate everything along with them. Too big to fail was implemented after restrictions between retail and investment banking were gradually torn down in the latter part of the 20th Century by ending the Glass Steagle Act, starting with the likes of Reagan and Thatcher in the 80’s and culminated in the 90’s with the likes of Clinton, Blair, and Bush. So rather than separating the traditional safer aspects of retail banking from the riskier investment side they were merged. This is precisely why subprime lending, which mixes good debt with bad debt, was able to occur. Now we have a situation where huge all-purpose banks are holding the world hostage as they threaten us with defaulting if we don’t keep writing off their bad debts to help bail them out.

What this leads to is a scenario where central banks keep printing and lending money to keep the financial system afloat. The people then have to suffer the consequences of these actions by taking on more public debt, along with the austerity that comes with this, not to mention the inflation that comes with increasing the money supply. Yes, the cost of living going through the roof, squeezing businesses and homes alike, is down to the money supply being increased to bail out the banks. Will this end any time soon? I don’t think so – not while this financial meltdown continues. Central banks are also privately owned, which means that the same individuals that make profits on banking transactions with major world banks are also involved in capitalising on central banking too – thus meaning that this banking cartel always wins. This is a very conceited method to transfer wealth to the elite capital holders of the world.

Historically the IMF has been involved in moving into defaulting countries to take assets and implement austerity onto the people, though this has been limited to places like Africa and South America until now. We’ve reached a new crossroad for this financial terrorism, and banks like Goldman Sachs are readily awaiting for Greece to default so it can collect on Credit Default Swaps, as well as use the IMF to do its bidding. The crisis also seems to be accelerating, with smaller gaps between one story to the next, and it appears there is no end in sight as the year continues.

What can people do to protect themselves? For starters they need to accept reality. There isn’t going to be a happy ending, not for many, many years to come, and after much transformation. There is simply too much debt to write off without a lot of pain, though now that two rounds of Keynesian money printing has been enacted to jump-start the economy it will make the hangover much worse. But if you have debts then pay them off if you can, and if you can afford to buy some gold, silver, copper, or even buy some food in the wake of rising inflation, then do this too.

As for justice, if the banking cartel were marched off to jail the trail left in their midst would involve a lot of politicians complicit in the scam, as well as short-term financial chaos. But the most likely scenario without radical reform and true justice is that a one-world currency will be implemented to replace the dollar as the reserve currency, which should generate some stability for a few years, at least until the next manufactured crisis. However, much of this depends on how much austerity is passed onto the people in the meantime, and I seriously doubt that a third round of quantitative easing (money printing) by the FED is not around the corner, which means more inflation. I predict this will be in full flow by September of this year, though it’s likely that they will give it a different name, or rely on some sort of near term situation to begin this, like a natural disaster. In the meantime, hold onto your hats, it’s going to get bumpy.

This is RockingMrE – over and out!

Hate Crime Madness

2011-06-10T07:33:00.016+01:00

There was a recent incident involving an 11-year-old boy having his bathers pulled off by a group of girls. They also filmed the event and uploaded it to Youtube:

Apologists for the girls have claimed that the mother could have pressed charges if she chose to, which is partly true, though there is far more to this picture than a simple reluctance in this regard. It is clear that if any boy dared to commit such an act against a girl there would be serious consequences involving sexual assault, and in all likelihood the authorities would press charges without the consent of the parents. A major reason for this involves the nature of modern crime legislation, which elevates women to the highest level of protection. If you commit a crime against a woman, or any other minority, then the likelihood is you will have to prove that it wasn’t motivated by prejudice, or in the case of women, face tougher sentencing due to the victim's gender.

There is also a recent case involving a gay man who claimed that a hate crime was committed against him on a university campus, though he eventually admitted that this was a false allegation. It appears that the man believed that he could get away with such an act in the same manner as women all too often do. This was not the case, and the man is now facing charges. Thus if you’re a man, whether you’re gay or not, it appears that the law doesn’t consider you to be a protected group in the same manner as women.

Women appear to be so protected by the law that there is even talk of closing down women’s prisons in the UK for all but the most serious offenders, though even these prisoners would be put in homely local custody units instead. In the present economic climate it is clear that Feminists are going to take advantage of the lack of state funds to push forward more agendas based on unsubstantiated evidence. If such policies were to be successful there is always the possibility that men would retaliate with violence given that there will no longer be any way for them to attain fair justice against criminal women in the legal system. It has been argued by Baroness Corston that closing female prisons would be for the best given that women commit suicide in prison, and that female criminals are often victims of abuse such as domestic violence. For starters women attempt to commit suicide more often, but three-quarters of suicides are by men. Secondly, Corsten defends her case on the grounds that women are taken away from their children when they are imprisoned, though this argument clearly shows no consideration for the men that suffer the same fate. Thirdly, the claims that female victimhood allegedly motivates female crime is explored in my video here:

The video demonstrates via four Criminology case studies that the evidence to justify this stance is not only biased, but also based on a lack of evidence. It appears that dishonest Feminist research, and the culture of chivalry that has always protected women, is responsible for the injustice of women getting away with heinous crimes of child murder, and the killing of intimate partners. Patriarchal theory has embedded the idea of female victimhood into the consciousness of society, to the point where cognitive dissonance prevents anyone from accepting the facts when they are presented with them. The video above also addresses how domestic violence is now committed against men around 50% of the time.

Men are repeatedly used as scapegoats to defend the innocence of women in society, and in Sweden there was a case where 23 women caught with child pornography are facing a maximum of two years in prison, while the man who provided them with the images has been given a maximum of six years. The women claimed that they were "wrote things that they thought he wanted to hear in order to remain in contact with him," while referring to the man that provided them with the images. Two women are accused of taking pictures of children and sending them to the man. But once again, it is the man who has been framed as the primary instigator, while the women have been allegedly led astray, and thus will face lesser punishment.

Though one might argue that crime against women is not technically ‘hate crime’, the protection provided by the state to women still highlights the bias and similarities towards women and minority groups, and how this can lead to abuse of power in the same manner as hate crime can. In the UK there is a push to make it impossible for women to be charged for false rape accusations on the grounds of intimidation. Once again this shows the complete inability to see women as adults that are responsible for their actions, even when they commit crimes themselves. I do not believe there is a group in society that has anywhere near the level of protection of women.

In Scotland new hate crime legislation has been introduced through the Hate Crime Guidance Manual. Dr Gordon Macdonald of CARE expressed concern by stating that the new system could be abused. The new guidance could force police officers to investigate hate crime that occurred over a decade ago, and they would also have to provide swift and robust resolution to any allegations. Chief inspector Sir Dennis O’Connor warned that police were now focused on hate crime, leaving ‘yobs’ to run amok. The Civitas think-tank has stated that Christians were being unfairly targeted for hate crime prosecutions, also commenting on the restrictions on free speech that come with hate crime legislation.

A case, which highlights how nonsensical hate crime legislation is, involves two black women that beat a transgender woman in a McDonalds restaurant. The black women persisted to the point of the victim almost having a seizure, while staff watched and even filmed the event. The police are investigating whether the crime was hate motivated. To me this is akin to trying to figure out whether a robbery was financially motivated, though most of all the police appear to be uncertain about the stance they should take given that two minority groups are involved. The whole situation clearly shows the irrationality surrounding hate crime, given that society has now reached the point where crime is considered more severe if it is committed against a certain group.

Given that men are now the most expendable group in society, it falls on them to be the scapegoats for a justice system that no longer elevates equality for all. But one important thing to remember when forming opinions in the PC culture we now live in is that today’s moderates are tomorrow’s fundamentalists, which would certainly appear to be the point we’ve now reached with Politically Correct Cultural Marxism.

This is RockingMrE – over and out!

Jewish Conspiracy?

2011-06-03T08:06:00.005+01:00

Pat Condell uploaded a video to Youtube recently in which he defended Jews:

According to Condell Muslims don’t deserve much respect, while Jews are a race of high achievers. While it’s very easy to argue that Sharia has seriously contributed to the destruction of Islamic progress, it’s still hard to deny that there was a time when the Islamic world was at the forefront of innovation. But it’s fair to say that the Islamic world will suddenly find that its ability to attain such large wealth will disappear as its oil becomes scarce, or the world moves onto more renewable and sustainable sources, as Condell also mentions in his video. Thus it’s important that the Islamic world throws off the shackles of Sharia oppression so Muslims can pioneer once again, and to have any hope of progressing in the future.

Israel is a country that is full of controversy every step of the way. Most of the time it’s a scapegoat for other people’s ideologies. If you’re European you’re more likely to be Anti-Israel because Catholic doctrine is deeply embedded in Anti-Jewish sentiment. It’s ironic that the first Christians were Jewish, as well as Jesus himself, but that doesn’t stop the passion of the Christ instilling deep-rooted animosity towards Jewish people. This is a powerful and emotional message, perfectly exemplified by Mel Gibson’s movie. So, despite the Jewish roots of Christianity, it’s the “greedy and murdering Jews” that are blamed for killing Christ, and this message is basically impossible to escape from in Theology.

In the US the story is rather different. Protestantism is the largest religion, though this is broken up into many different churches. The Biblical “End Times” prophecy in Revelations, and particularly the Rapture, holds great relevance to many sects of this form of Christianity, and is associated with Dispensationalism. Zionist supporting Protestants often hold the belief that the end times cannot occur until the Holy Lands are returned to the state they were during biblical times. Thus there is much support by the US to Israel, partly upon this premise, which includes funding Israelis to oust Palestinians from Palestine by setting up homes there.

It could be argued that Palestinians are Arabs, and there is hardly a shortage of Arab lands in the Middle East for Palestinians to move to. But this argument is hardly fair given that Palestinians were there first. Jews haven’t occupied this land until recently. Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, Babylonians, Romans, and other civilisations have controlled this region, but it wasn’t until May 14th 1948 that Israel was first formed. If you’re a religious person then perhaps you could argue that the bible is the justification for the formation of Israel. But to be honest there isn’t any solid evidence that Jews were universally oppressed as the slaves of the Egyptians, which would fly in the face of the story of Exodus. Either way, using the Old Testament as a historically accurate document will cause many problems due to the Jewish bias it represents. So if the Bible isn’t the justification for Israel, then what is?

The main modern justification for the Jewish state is often cited as the Holocaust. If the Jews had their own country during the Second World War then perhaps it would have made a big difference to the persecution of the Jews. Some argue that six million Jews were not killed during the Holocaust, and that the actual figure is somewhat lower. There is some sound evidence to justify this, though truthfully we can never really know the precise number. But whether or not it’s less than six million, denying the Holocaust happened at all is illogical, and it was still an attrocious event. It’s also important to remember that many others were executed by Nazis, including homosexuals, the disabled, gypsies, and not to mention the many soldiers that fell in battle. So, while the Jews were persecuted, many others died in this needless conflict that belonged to “states”.

It’s hard to find any solid justification for Palestinians being thrown out of their homes when you impartially look at all the evidence. But if Israel is to exist then what of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank? Well, it doesn’t look good. Due to the belligerence of the Palestinian government it refuses to officially declare itself a country given that the present borders with Israel would be finalised. The reaction of the Arab world has resulted in numerous conflicts as soon as Israel was officially declared in 1948. This pattern has continued for decades, and it would be surprising if it did not lead to further conflict in the future. Palestinian suicide bombings have resulted in the Israeli’s claiming that they need to build a barrier separating Palestine and Israel. Sadly this has created much persecution of Palestinians, isolating them in enclaves that they require permits to leave, and restricting access to water, hospitals, and schools. This barrier has also been used as a convenient excuse to expand the borders of Israel.

Given that the Palestinians are so oppressed by Israel they’ve resorted to desperate tactics and fundamentalist rulers like Hamas. But seeing as Israel is well supported by the US militarily, politically in the UN, and through arms contributions, it’s hardly a fair fight. No, the Arabs in the region haven’t been diplomatic in their negotiations, but it’s hardly surprising given that Israel was forced upon them. No citizen on earth would tolerate what the Palestinians have had to endure; being kicked out of their homes and effectively imprisoned in their own lands. It’s also important to remember that Jews used aggressive tactics to attain control of Palestine when it was considered Palestinian, like flooding into the promised lands and settling in the region. Another important point is that, while the Muslim Brotherhood is often referred to as extremist, Jews have their own version of this extremist group called the Jewish Brotherhood.

But there’s more to Condell’s video than the Israeli conflict. He seems to feel that Jewish influence in the world is not an issue, despite its disproportionate level for such a small group of people. Proteanview makes a series of counter arguments to this in his video response to Pat:

I mirror the views expressed in this excellent video. Personally I’m getting rather sick of the word “conspiracy” being used whenever someone disagrees with a certain point, even when you can prove a claim. Jews play a major role in the corrupt financial system, leading the IMF, the World Bank, the Federal Reserve, and major retail and investment banks. There are many Jews in Hollywood that shape popular culture and young minds, and many originators of Political Correctness from the Frankfurt School were Jewish. The unsubstantiated theories of Political Correctness dominate Western culture, a serious issue in modern society. While Jews get to have their own theocratic promised land that no one can enter without strict vetting, Westerners have to deal with false ideologies based on Patriarchy and Gender Theory.

Are Elitist Jews solely responsible for all the problems in the world? No. There are other elite groups too, like the British and Dutch Royal Families. But that doesn’t mean that Jewish influence isn’t something to seriously question, and without being labelled Anti-Semitic. Jewish success doesn’t simply come from “talent” either, as Condell would claim. The secret to control is maintaining a clique, and this has always been the way of elitism. Divide, conquer, and incestuously retain power – works every time.

This is RockingMrE – over and out!

Abusing Rape

2011-05-27T07:54:00.006+01:00

The subject of rape is never far away from the public forum. Recently a blog has gained much attention on Youtube due to its radical insinuation that basically everything a man does amounts to rape. As someone who feels strongly about men’s issues rape is a very important topic, and is not a word to be used lightly.

The place to start would be the statistics. A particularly alarming one is that 1 in 4 women are raped at some point in their lives. Many will suggest that there is no way of knowing how many women are raped because so many will not report it, and thus figures are rounded up and justified with questionable studies. Unsurprisingly, many studies have been carried out by Feminists, and as usual this movement has a lot to answer for when it comes to manipulating data.

Arguably the most famous study involves Ms Magazine in 1988, when Mary Koss was commissioned by Gloria Steinam. This uncovered that 1 in 4 women were raped on college campuses. When the questions are broken down it turns out that a woman who regrets a one night stand after drinking with a man counts as a victim. Furthermore only 27% of the women Koss identified as victims considered themselves to be raped, and 42% went on to have sex with their alleged attacker at a later date. Coercion was used as a justification for this, as well as the fact that most relationships did eventually end. Of course, most college relationships end in a break up, so this is hardly a revelation. A further 49% of the rape victims felt that their experience was a result of “miscommunication”. 14% said it was a “crime but not rape”, and the final 11% said they “don’t feel victimised”. When all of this is factored in this gives us a far more conservative figure of 1 in 14 women being victims of rape.

Similar patterns of abusing data can be found in the UK. But it’s another US study that demonstrates just how common false rape accusations are. This was carried out in 1985. 556 charges of rape by servicewomen were investigated by the Air Force. It was found that 27% of the women admitted that their accusation had been false before or after a lie detector test. By using 25 criteria that were common to the women that admitted they’d lied, three independent reviewers counted a rape as false if all they all agreed. They found that 60% of the original allegations were false.

This is alarming to say the least given that many would argue that being falsely accused of rape is akin to being a victim of rape. Many will ostracise a rapist, be it family, friends, work colleagues, and the wider community, so this alone is difficult enough. The financial constraints that come with fighting against an accusation in court is also a major issue. Then there’s the fact that rape victims are entitled to anonymity, while accused rapists have no such entitlement. Violence from chivalric men against rapists is common, not to mention the fact that rapists can be targeted for rape and assault in prison. Imagine if you were falsely accused and you had all this to worry about – suddenly it’s easy to see how false rape accusations can ruin a man’s life.

A current case that exemplifies the debilitating effects of false rape involves Vladek Filler. Maine prosecutor Mary Kellett has taken it upon herself to drag Vladek through the courts for the second time for allegedly raping his wife Ligia Filler. There is no physical evidence of rape, and Ligia is a proven violent offender and abuser who lost custody of her children to Vladek, and has a history of serious psychiatric problems. Ben Harbour, Maine has a disproportionately high level of men charged with rape given the size of the US town, which is itself a worrying factor. Kellett is actively blocking the defence with a subpoena, so it is unable to bring forward evidence that would expose the background of Ligia. The most disturbing evidence, which is not for the feint hearted, is a police recording:

The allegations against Julian Assange can tell us a lot about the consequences of a state where the crime of rape is abused. Sweden has very strict laws involving rape, not unlike the flawed reasoning behind Koss’ study on college campuses. Having sex without a condom in Sweden is considered rape without the consent of a woman, which in itself is open to abuse given that it results in subjective testimony. In one instance Assange states that the condom split, while on another the woman did not protest when a condom was not used. These accusations have been used to make Assange’s life difficult, and many believe they are also designed to extradite him to the US, where he would be imprisoned in Guantanamo. Biased laws can be abused by the state, and when someone like Assange is actively seeking to expose the corruption of those in authority, it's easy to feel this is true.

Once we arrive at the fact that rape can be a nightmare for both accuser and accused it’s clear that anonymity should be granted to both parties. Anonymity would be beneficial to the accuser due to the delicacy of the crime, but the same could be said for the accused. The trouble is that we live in a society where men are regularly treated as inherently violent animals that cannot control their urges. All this despite the fact our culture raises men to be violent and emotionally numb, while absolving itself of the repercussions. Women can also realise rape is a sensitive accusation, and Zomgitscriss on Youtube is one example:

Many laws and ideologies behind Feminism treat women like children. They’re given victim status at every turn, but still elevated as the gender that can achieve anything. The truly hypocritical part is that women are treated as though they can’t be responsible for choices regarding consenting sex, and that the word “no” is not in their vocabulary.

This is RockingMrE – over and out!