Starry is a collectivist that feels rights are defined via the approval of authority, and that all morality is ultimately subject to these parameters. This is nothing to do with individualism. It is collectivism through and through. To be an individualist you must believe that rights originate with the individual. It’s as simple as that. Anyone that argues to the contrary is a fool, and I will not waste my time with their circular arguments to the contrary.

Starry claims that I am a “collectivist fascist” because I do not allow gay parenting or IVF. Both of these claims are flat-out lies. I do not deny gay adoption at all, and have never done so. He is welcome to show me where I have. Second, I do not deny people IVF on the condition that they back up their right to reproduce with their responsibility to parent. Rights and responsibilities cannot be decoupled, and the fact that Starry does not make that correlation is further evidence of his collectivism and nihilism, which I have indicated is endemic in MGTOW circles for a while. I am admittedly very concerned about the risks to the child that go along with IVF, which are not discussed very much due to the political and financial interests that coincide with this procedure. The suppression of the evidence in this sense is very similar to what happened in the tobacco industry for decades. This is a ticking time-bomb, and makes me very apprehensive to feel that this procedure is worth risking the quality of an individual’s life on, for the irrational selfishness of adults and social engineers.

During Starry’s rant he also claims that female self-interest can be pursued alongside reproductive interest while men cannot do this because society will not allow it. He is clearly trying to suggest that the fact that men have always had natural roles as providers and protectors means that this forces men into a role where they cannot pursue their own self-interest, while women do not have that problem because their self-interest is identical to their natural roles. Once again we see that Starry tries to alter his language by ranting ad nauseum and make circular points that are so long-winded that they drive you to sleep. Ultimately this is the same old junk; women have a hypergamous instinct that makes their self-interest synonymous with their reproductive interest. Starry, you’re an idiot. You might be able to pull the wool over the eyes of those simpletons that follow on your every word in your cult of personality, but this is one person that can see right through the embellishment, and get to the chewy centre. You’re a one-trick pony, though I will, yet again, explain that hypergamy is like any other instinct inherent to both males, female, and on a universal level. It has advantages when controlled and disadvantages when left unchecked, and there is no deterministic whim that makes any instinct fatalistically inclined. Someday Starry might get that. But I doubt it, because the cult of MGTOW would abruptly die if conjecture did not accompany it.

Starry also attempts to make some bold assertions in his video regarding gay parenting. He suggests that there is no evidence that gay parenting is harmful to children. The fact is that there is no evidence that it is beneficial either. What there is evidence for is the fact that gay relationships are far more unstable, and that gay couples do not stay together as often as heterosexual couples as a demographic, even in the present higher divorce environment. I am not going to directly discuss these fallacious leaps that Starry makes in this video here because I’ve discussed them many times (see this post), not least the fact that a family where both biological parents are involved in raising the children, acting out their natural rights AND responsibilities to parent, is by far the most stable family setting.  

What’s disturbing about men like Starry, who claim to stand up for men, is that they fail to see that the attempt to make parenting accessible for people other than the biological parents (when they are not abusive) has resulted in a redefinition of father’s rights to parental responsibilities, with no right to see their own children. We thus see very clearly how much of a shill Starry is. His own denial of all rights and responsibilities originating with the individual has resulted in the problems fathers are faced with today. He is a part of the problem, and as I’ve said many times, is attempting to finish what feminism started. 

Starry conflates the idea that rights originate with the individual, by extrapolating that which can be achieved in a state of nature, as collectivist fascism. He simply cannot see that natural rights are based on what can be achieved in a state of nature; reproduction, parenting, property via labour, and the right to life being four prominent examples. Any civilisation is then based on the protection of these natural rights, with the acknowledgement that these rights are a very part of you - a birth right. To deny them is akin to denying someone the natural right to breath, turning them into a slave of approval, whatever mechanism this might be – democracy, appeals to popularity, or some morally bankrupt creed like MGTOW. Who has the authority to deny the existence of rights that originate from nature? Starry and his cult of social engineers that want to manufacture a scientific utopia, where reproduction is a loveless institution akin that you’d have to be a Huxlian sociopath to endorse? This highlights why each and every one of us has a responsibility to protect our natural rights from authoritarians that seek to deny that these rights exist, making us slaves to the desires of sociopaths.

By the end of Starry’s vid he goes into a tirade of the calibre I have never heard in my life (I wish I were exaggerating, but I am not). He accuses me of all manner of things, purely on the basis that I believe in natural rights and responsibilities. Is John Locke a fascist, the man almost entirely responsible for influencing the US Constitution? He attempts to contrast such views with Hitler. I am blown away. He literally assumes that objective values equal authoritarianism, as all collectivists do, when in truth it is the idea that no values objectively exist, and thus all values can be defined, that is totalitarian. Look at North Korea, Communist China, the French Revolution, or even Nazi Germany – all of them rejected nature. The dearth of understanding for this disgusting human being is remarkable, though at this point I suspect that it is far more than mere ignorance.

I have already shown that it is Stardusk and his insistence of fatalism in female behaviour that mirrors fascistic qualities, to the point that the Redstockings Manifesto is identical to that of Stardusk’s rhetoric with a little tweaking. At this point it’s easy to see that Starry is desperate to sling as much mud as possible at me to keep his reputation intact (a narcissistic protective mechanism), so he can continue to lie and dupe fools into following his cult of personality without me exposing him. The haphazard use of the word fascist in this final segment of these pathetic videos he uploaded is what I’ve grown to expect from a leftist, which by now is clearly what Stardusk is, considering how much he denies unalienable individual rights, and likes to rely on identity politics and class consciousness.

Leftists like Starry love to muddy the waters as much as possible. The co-option of the word libertarian is also a leftist tactic I’ve addressed in the past, which Stardusk is hell bent on achieving.  Starry is a sociopath of the highest order, exhibiting significant signs of narcissism as he feeds off the naivety of damaged males yearning for some sort of group acceptance, lying and manipulating wherever possible. He attempts to alienate anyone that disagrees with his fascism, and will revert to covert aggression, lying and professional victimhood to get what he wants. The guy turns my stomach, and I cannot trust the integrity of anyone that succumbs to his appeals to flattery that accompany his narcissistic personality. Beware if he approaches you with flattery. You are just a pawn in his game.

Barbarrossaa seems to think it’s a prudent use of his time to respond to someone “mental”, that has “lost” the battle of ideas when it comes to the philosophy of men’s rights. Like the rest of his MGTOW cult he spreads this idea that my channel is somehow dying, and that the only way I get views is by addressing MGTOW. Well Barbie, I’m sorry to say that you’re wrong. My channel subscriber count and viewership has been growing steadily, though I admit that my refusal to revert to demagoguery, like you and Stardusk, means I don’t get as many subscribers as you two. Presently I am getting a minimum of fifty per week (feel free to keep count if you like). But whatever subscribership I get (of which I appreciate their loyalty) at least I keep my integrity intact, and if there’s one thing life’s taught me is that this is what counts, especially when it comes to being happy with yourself. As for you Barbie, anyone can keep their identity a secret while ranting hatefully online, and then deflecting and ad homming anyone that challenges their dogma.

Barbarossaa also claims I only talk about the left and MGTOW. No Barbie. My channel is centred on individualist philosophy, libertarianism for example. Go and see the variety of video topics I address on my channel yourself. It’s there for anyone to see, so again you’re lying. Ironically the one with the one-dimensional channel is you, constantly attacking women as an entire demographic. Yet you have the audacity to accuse me of limited topical scope. Wow, you really can’t see the hypocrisy right under your nose, can you?

He claims I misrepresented his family life by suggesting that he was “raised in a ghetto culture”. Admittedly it appears I was incorrect to state he was “raised” in a ghetto. But still, this statement was not baseless. I based it on a previous video he made in response to MRA+, wherein he asks me whether “I’ve been to an urban ghetto?” He then states he has, using this to cement his arguments regarding the failure of family life. That’s the trouble with Barbarossaa. He takes a section of the population, which by most standards would be considered dysfunctional, and then transfers these experiences to all his arguments to keep his hypotheses afloat. Straw-man after straw-man is what we get from this fool.

Barbarossaa previously liked to give the impression that he has a tough urban background in the “Bronx”, but in truth, and as his video response shows, this is bullshit. He is however clearly a very angry young man that demands a crusade against not only all women, but any men that do not adhere to his relationship strike, which as I’ve said many times, was never originally a part of MGTOW.

Let’s now move onto Barbie’s attack on my family life, which he’s done many times in the past, accusing me of living off my wife while hypocritically demanding that all men adhere to that oh-so ludicrous straw-man “traditionalism”. Once again we see how ridiculous Barbie is. He seems to think that by supporting two biological parents raising their children as a couple in a loving relationship, I am demanding that the father must be the provider, while the mother must be the nurturer, and am thus a hypocrite as a stay-at-home Dad. Seriously Barbie, this lie is getting very old, and if it isn’t a lie then there is something significantly wrong with your ability to listen. I have never said that men must be providers, or that women must be nurturers. The modern world allows men and women the flexibility to mix these roles, which is great for fathers because it allows them to be a bigger part of their children’s lives, and I can honestly say personally that having this opportunity is a wonderful one. Barbie is assuming that because I have stated that sex roles were rigid in the past due to practical reality, that this means they are equally rigid in the present. No Barbie. Let’s get this through your head once and for all; I do not believe this. Your entire argument is a non-sequitur, and for that matter yet another straw-man. You really do like these straw-men effigies it seems.

During Barbie’s video response he also claims that MGTOW are non-violent. Admittedly MGTOW are not physically violent, so in this sense they are not traditional thugs, which is a word I used to describe them in the post he is responding to. But MGTOW most certainly do revert to aggressive and coercive tactics to silence anyone that disagrees with their lifestyle choices, and as we can see they will rely on as many fallacies and as much vitriol as possible to shut you up. They will then immediately fall into victim mode (just as feminists do) when the gaping flaws and hypocrisy in their reasoning are called out. MGTOW are not criminal thugs, but they are certainly online thugs.

As usual Barbie tries to suggest in his response that MGTOW is whatever you want it to be, in spite of the fact that no one is allowed to be MGTOW that is in a relationship with women, at least not the MGTOW that he and Stardusk define. Further semantics are then employed by suggesting that my use of the word “corrupt” is not an accurate representation of what MGTOW feel female behaviour actually is. Barbie says that Starry’s use of the word “maladaptive” is more apt. So let’s see what maladaptive actually means:

“Not providing adequate or appropriate adjustment to the environment or situation.”

Once again semantics are employed. You see, women cannot “adjust” to the present environment, which indicates inherent inferiority of women as an entire demographic. In the past this has been linked to biology, but since this has been thoroughly refuted it’s essential that as many semantics are employed, much like the manner in which feminists cling desperately to their arguments. By deflecting and changing the language as much as possible the MGTOW cult can keep its simple-minded theories alive, so the lemmings can keep falling off the cliff, promised a technological utopia akin to some sort of fascistic Star Trek universe.

Most in the MRM understand that feminists are enablers of misandric policies and theories, used as a justification to label all men as either direct or indirect beneficiaries of male power. This leads to consequentialist values that deem all men as deserving of punishment, regardless of how complicit they are. Either they are directly involved in oppressing women, or they are indirectly benefiting. Why make a distinction between the two given that both are living off the suffering of women? To some feminists this behaviour is inherent to male nature, while those claiming to be moderates feel they are tolerant because they see this behaviour as something that hurts men too, though still define masculinity as the root problem.

This thinking is driven from a leftist interpretation of struggle. Marx called it class consciousness. The theory is that an entire class suffers due to the tyrannical rule of the oppressive class. The consciousness of the oppressed class will eventually unite them, leading to the overthrowing of the oppressive class. Like everything Marx postulated this is highly simplistic, and a theory that appeals to the ego of the victim class, while dehumanising the oppressive class. This is called ‘othering’ in psychological circles, which perpetuates different standards for those in the group, to those outside it. Those in the group are subject to conditioning that fosters supremacy over anyone that doesn’t belong in the circle, and those outside the circle are deemed inferior, and deserving of scorn due to the shortcomings of their oppressive nature and values. This entire process is called groupthink. It was endemic in 20^th century totalitarianism. Whether it was Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, both worked to foster such demagoguery, and inevitably a strong man later emerged to take charge and lead the group to utopia. The useful idiots then got more than they bargained for.

MGTOW are a carbon copy of feminism. This fit is so snug that leftists are flocking to the MGTOW banner, already accustomed to reinterpreting class struggle to different groups, be it race, sex, sexuality, or economic class. MGTOW believe that men have historically been kept down by women through obligations to protect and provide for them, and the entire system has been shaped for their benefit. By appealing to the ego of MGTOW, painting them as a victim class, this sets up the climate for groupthink. Pseudo-intellectual theories, backed by nothing but conjecture, are rife within MGTOW circles, deeming women as parasitic and incapable of virtue. Any exceptions to this rule are somehow dismissed, through talking points, as either a statistical anomaly or a case where the woman has not yet taken advantage of the man in her life. Chief among MGTOW pseudo- intellectualism is Brifault’s law, a communist no less. It’s therefore unsurprising that class consciousness is central to his thesis, and has thus become endemic within MGTOW circles.

MGTOW constantly redefine terminology and facts to suit their outlook, thus gradually building up the mythology of oppressive female nature. The acronym ‘NAWALT’ (not all women are like that) was originally created to counter the deflection that women are not all like that, when it is used by feminist apologists to side line any arguments that oppose feminist hegemony. It was supposed to indicate that while all women are not like that, this does not excuse the fact that many women can and will take advantage of men. This runs counter to the feminist notion that masculinity is the problem, not femininity. Even when feminists acknowledge that some women are part of the problem, somehow the ‘problem’ always comes back to masculine nature or values. MGTOW have appropriated this term to suggest that ‘all women are like that’, using this as a deflection against anyone that challenges their fatalistic interpretation of female nature and intent.

 

Even the acronym MGTOW has been appropriated in this fashion. It was originally a term that had nothing to do with fatalistic female nature and class consciousness, and certainly not the marriage and relationship strike now compulsory to the participation in the MGTOW cult. The website mgtowhistory.com shows that MGTOW was originally an outline to encourage masculinity in men, femininity in women, limited government, and personal responsibility. None of those things are acceptable to the leftist interpretation of MGTOW however.

Today MGTOW is centred on a denial of objective morality, and a total fixation on self-gratification. This is called egotism (a form of narcissism) and is why I often call MGTOW nihilists. Many MGTOW will openly acknowledge their adoration of Nietzsche, who is the quintessential nihilist, no matter what some philosophers might say - anyone that rejects values in nature, deeming all worth to be centred on individual perspective and desire is, by definition, a nihilist. It’s for this reason that leftists are all nihilists. They act as though nothing matters when shaping their reality, whether it’s socially engineering a utopia, or living like nothing matters except personal desire.

Such moral primitives care nothing for reason, like a gorilla moving around in the undergrowth, relying on instincts being fired within its limbic system, occasionally making use of its barely developed neocortex. MGTOW do not feel that reason can be used to extrapolate objective values, such as the need to conceptualise reality and adhere to rational self-interest. Essential values for life do not factor into their reality, be it eating, sleeping, or reproduction. MGTOW act as though these things are not values, even though they are essential to virtue, for without reason life as we know it will cease to exist. In this state humanity will be reduced to other primitive life. This is the biggest irony of all, since MGTOW consider themselves free of obligation, yet they stumble around like beasts in the wilderness, claiming that the world they exist in is subject merely to their hedonistic desires. Only animals lack reason in this manner. Conversely human beings are creatures of reason, capable of discerning objective values from their superior minds. Without this human beings are nothing more than animals.

Thus these morally primitive MGTOW rail against nature. They call it ‘traditionalism’ (just like feminists and leftists) and attempt to conflate religion with rational values. While religion is an attempt to explain natural values through divine intervention it does not follow that these values are created by religion itself. This is akin to believing that the conceptualisation of an apple creates the apple, although the apple existed long before the act of naming it. Religion has always been a mystical attempt to explain reality. This is not the process of reason, but one based on superstition. When one steps back and examines nature rationally it’s clear that the relationship of the sexes is one based on complementation.

It is this relationship that has allowed men and women to traverse through the ages, men acting as protectors and providers, and women as nurturers. Without this survival and progress would have been impossible. It was essential that men and women accepted their strengths during periods where divergence from this could have resulted in great risk in a very hostile environment. To deny this is to deny reason. There is no war of the sexes, only survival and human progress. Those that attempt to frame this as a class struggle are like gorillas moving around in the undergrowth.

I do not use the word cult to describe MGTOW purely for dramatic effect, since the word is entirely applicable. As already demonstrated groupthink is inherent to MGTOW, but this is also a critical part of cult behaviour. It is essential that cults perceive themselves as superior, be it morally or biologically. This is the justification to alienate those outside the group, while also alienating those inside the group from anyone that isn’t a part of the collective. Cults are also renowned for making participants feel there are stages of awareness that must be reached before enlightenment can be achieved.

By going to mgtow.com we can see that this is also applicable, there being five levels of MGTOW awareness and participation. Level 0 is considered an awareness of the problems men face. These men however do not feel the need to drop out of the system. Level 1 is a rejection of all long-term relationships with women. Level 2 is a rejection of all personal relationships with women. This includes friendships. Level 3 denotes the refusal to produce anything more than is absolutely necessary for survival. Level 4 is the total drop-out of society, often called “going ghost”, and involves bare minimum contact with the “blue-pill” world (in contrast to the red-pill world, who are ‘aware’ of the truth).

It is worth noting that it is claimed on the site that these levels are not a necessary progression, although anyone with any contact with MGTOW will realise very quickly that the parroting of the risks of involvement with women are forced down everyone’s throats through hyperbole and conjecture, and that the only acceptable way to defeat the misandric system is to starve the beast through non-participation. Stoicism is rejected, and Epicureanism is at the forefront of MGTOW philosophy. Thus a realistic standard of expectation in life (the stoic approach) is vehemently opposed, and the Epicurean philosophy of doing as little as possible in life is elevated as virtuous. All these values are fiercely promoted through harassment of anyone that disagrees with this belief system. This becomes very vindictive indeed if anyone has the strength of character and integrity to refute these blatant logical shortcomings.

It is also interesting to note that according to mgtow.com “conservatives” of all stripes are not considered acceptable candidates for the MGTOW cult. How could they be, considering that they do not base their values on egotism, and respect the reality of nature and personal responsibility when upholding rights? At the same time no mention of the fact that feminism is a socialist ideology can be found on the site, or the fact feminism is entirely based on leftist thinking, through the very class consciousness already set out here. So it seems that the very left-wing ideologues that alienate men as an oppressive class are not considered out of bounds to MGTOW, while true conservatism (the belief that individuals have unalienable rights and responsibilities) are not welcome in a cult that bases all its assertions on class consciousness.

The men considering themselves MGTOW overwhelmingly give the impression of suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder, almost certainly originating in childhood. Indeed, everywhere that I encounter them online they are highly confrontational and vitriolic, repeating arguments that divorce is 50% probable, even though this is not initiated by women in every instance. The Critical G made a video explaining that, while divorce is at 50% in many places, this is not randomly assigned, and it is perfectly possible to screen potential females by maintaining standards of virtue. I have essentially been saying this for well over a year, and I would add that this can be further enforced by understanding how personality disorders operate, and generally being well informed on human psychology.

Alas, already Critical G quickly received a typically ignorant response from your common MGTOW egotist, believing that morals are subjective, and that even though divorce is not randomly assigned it is still more likely to be enacted by women. This does nothing to prove that a man has no control over the woman he associates with, much like the manner in which feminists deny agency to women. It merely denotes that where divorce occurs women initiate it more. This does not invalidate any of the arguments based on personal choice.

It is common for MGTOW to deflect in this manner, inventing acronyms like SATF (same as the feminist) to dismiss anyone that exposes the similarities between MGTOW and feminism, and reverting to the same type of apologism for extremism as feminism. MGTOW often state that people do not understand the MGTOW philosophy if they criticise it. We therefore have a situation where NAFALT (not all feminists are like that) becomes ‘Not all MGTOW are like that’. Meanwhile MGTOW, just as with feminists, do not connect the dots between theory and practice, and realise it has become exactly what it is fighting against. Feminism is supposed to be about ‘equality’ for example, but in practice it is a platform for extremely divisive class warfare. Yet MGTOW supporters seem to think that they are immune from such pitfalls.

Above all, it’s very easy to see how vindictive and hypocritical MGTOW are by dissecting this comment below, wherein I was accused of being a ‘traditionalist’ by those claiming to be supporting the adaptation of men away from traditional expectations:

"The only tradition you've broken with your wife is that you've managed to become the stay at home parasite, and she picks up your slack. I'd expect women to frame that as an equitable exchange but coming from a man it just sounds pathetic. You're a failed rocker housewife with no marketable skills, of course you'll support the traditionalist lifestyle when you dont [sic] have to actually do any of the work involved other than "homemaking" of course." 

This vile person is a YouTube user called ‘Tom Odd’, and the comment can be found on my video “Men’s Rights & the “Traditionalist” Smear”. The user has no activity on the channel page, which leaves me to question whether this is a sock account. I suspect this account belongs to one of the more popular MGTOW YouTubers. The account is regularly used to harass me in video comment sections, accusing me of being a parasite for looking after my daughter in the day, while my wife works. This is a common type of hostility I’ve received from MGTOW, who blatantly despise any attempt to make relationships work with women.

As it happens I do work, and run my own business in instrumental tuition, which suits my family for financial and parental reasons. However, this is unacceptable to MGTOW thugs, shedding light on the fact that the claim MGTOW is whatever you want it to be is a blatant lie. Only by rejecting relationships with women altogether, and buying into the mythology surrounding corrupt female nature, are you allowed to be a part of the cult. If you try to point out the similarities with this attitude and feminism, or even just explain that it is perfectly possible to wisely associate with women without being exploited, then you will be increasingly attacked, until this is reduced to the type of ferocity that feminists are infamous for.

This sort of behaviour is what I’ve grown to expect from MGTOW – a vicious bunch of thugs that are no doubt a product of a fatherless and broken family system, where males substitute families with gangs. We’ve seen this throughout the Western world as feminist policies have been enacted, the UK riots for example. It is for this reason that demagogic thugs like Barbarossaaaa are so popular within the MGTOW cult. He is a man that, by his own admission, was raised in a ghetto culture, and it seems that his idea of virtue is to spread this fatherlessness everywhere, in spite of the fact that it’s decimated countless communities across the Western world (Update: Barbarossaa, being as manipulative as he is has tried to suggest in a video response that this is an accusation he was raised in a single-mother home. Nowhere has this point been made in relation to him personally. He has however condescendingly suggested he has been around ghetto culture in the past, though it looks as though his attempt to deny that the area he hails from is "ghetto" is yet more manipulation of the truth for his own benefit. It is also irrelevant to the fact that he cannot draw the connection that broken families in areas he has previously described are not something to model). What is the difference between this attempt to destroy family life, and that of feminism? The answer is, of course, none at all. Those in the MRM that do not stand up to this are indeed the hypocrites I set out at the start, and it’s high time that any attempt to fight for men’s rights includes the ostracisation and destruction of the MGTOW cult.

Please note: any comments reverting to the type of deflections, consequentialist justifications, and shaming tactics highlighted in this post as being endemic to MGTOW, will result in the comment being removed. I have neither the time, nor the patience, to keep refuting and replying to this circular reasoning. Take it elsewhere, since I am long past the point of tolerating fallacious MGTOW talking points by vindictive individuals that need psychological help.

N.B. Here is my response to Barbarossaa's video about this post. Also, here is my response to Stardusk's predictable mimicking of Barbarossaa's actions.

Unsurprisingly the programme was a disturbing affair, exposing the horrendous conditions that Koreans are forced to live under, whether it was electricity constantly turning on and off, people cleaning clothing in streams due to a lack of running water, hospitals totally devoid of patients, and most of all the effort that the government went through to present a façade of normality. The programme also turned out to be yet another excuse for leftists to continue with their perpetual revisionism absolving Marxism of any association with totalitarianism.

The morning after watching the programme my wife and I both awoke with accounts of how the programme made us feel uneasy during our slumber. My wife dreamt that she was forced off the bus that Sweeney and the students were ushered around in, told that she would have to stay. Most of all we both felt a similar sense of fear over the very thought of one day being the ones forced to live as the North Koreans do now. Seeing North Korea from the inside reinforced my own desires to stand against collectivism through raising awareness online, so useful idiots can’t cause yet more horrendous suffering. The potential of this suffering happening once again was made all the worse for me by one particular claim during the programme.

Close to the start of the programme a professor of “International Studies” (yes I know, any professor of a course with “studies” in the title is going to be a leftist nine times out of ten) by the name of Brian Myers stated that North Korea was a “far-right” regime because it had such a large military and a heavy sense of nationalism and racial superiority in the country. To say I was shocked that the revisionism on the BBC has become so brazen is an understatement. I struggled to contain my frustration over the Stalinist style orthodoxy that the BBC was airing.

The man who made this claim has an MA in “Soviet Studies” (there it is again) and wrote the book “The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters” which insinuates that North Korea has a policy of racial purity, while the North is a liberating force that will free the South from foreign corruption. There is so much wrong with this description that it would take far longer than I care to spend explaining why this is yet more Marxist revisionism. However, I will focus on some key points.

What Korea is today is indeed a far more insular place than it ever was. Its old ally the Soviet Union has long since collapsed and its other major ally China is liberalising, seeing far more benefit in being a part of the world economic arena than isolating itself as it once did. This leaves North Korea more alone than ever, and the recent threats of force appear to be a combination of desperation to make other nations provide aid and a means for the new leader Kim Jong-un to show that he is a strong and capable leader. But this was not always where North Korea found itself.

Like all Marxist and communist regimes North Korea started with aspirations to centralise all control so that the workers could run the factories, and the technocrats could deal with day-to-day bureaucracy. It never occurs to leftists that this is a recipe for disaster. This centralisation of bureaucracy is a sure-fire way to provide psychopaths with a means to kill off competitors (often literally) and create a cult of personality based around them. This happens every single time communist revolutions occur. We then hear the excuses ad nauseum; the Soviet Union was state capitalism, Karl Marx had nothing to do with the totalitarian regimes of the 20^th century claiming to be influenced by him, and now North Korea is “far-right”.

The biggest bee in the bonnet that destroys Brian Myers’ suggestions about North Korea being “far-right”, and leftists go insane at the very mention of, is that fascists are actually leftists, the term “far-right” is thus a red-herring in this context. But once again we get the excuses; fascists were capitalists because of the dominance of corporations and a strong focus on hierarchy, this in spite of the fact that corporations are a marriage of state and corporate central planning and cronyism. Leftists also ignore the amount of socialist subsidies and welfare that fascist regimes have traditionally been involved in. Most of all it’s when we use the accurate definitions of socialism that we can past the lies; communists are international socialists, unconcerned with race but very much concerned with eradicating class. Conversely fascists are national socialists, more insular in their policies by focussing on preservation of race.

While communism is a naive ideology that suggests that people can all be involved in decision-making without a leader naturally emerging, even if this does end up becoming a psychopath prepared to kill all those in their way, fascism does not try to dismiss the inevitability of hierarchy, actively fermenting it through central planning. Above all both fascists and communists do not believe that individuals can do a better job than the collective, however they believe this can be achieved. What matters most is that individual will and autonomy is crushed by these totalitarian ideologies, with all the trappings of utopian promises that go with it.

When people understand the similarities between national and international socialists they can then appreciate the nature of North Korea. What happened to North Korea is what happens to all communist regimes. When communist revolutions first occur this is far more optimistic than the isolated racial purity of even fascism. Dreams of all workers of the world uniting are what people strive to achieve. As the knowledge problem leads to failures of central planning, along with a battle for control by the most dominant personalities, the ‘people’s revolution’ becomes an Orwellian nightmare. If the regime is unable to expand, as the USSR initially did, its attention will divert ever more inward through the subjugation of its citizenry, so that leaders cannot be overthrown. As the regime inevitably grows threatened by ‘outsiders’ it becomes more nationalistic and racially driven, just as North Korea has.

National and international socialists often feed off one another through demonization of the other ideology, but have also allied together in the past, as in the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939. Fascists and communists are certainly two sides of the same coin, and have often validated one another prior to World War Two, Hitler’s appreciation of Karl Marx for example. It is a blatant strawman to conflate military might with fascism or communism, as Brian Myers did in the BBC programme. Demand number eight of the communist manifesto establishes that industrial armies are a requirement and there is no mandate on their size. The origins of North Korea as a Marxist state are impossible to refute, even if this did end in disaster, albeit I don’t expect leftists to be honest enough to admit Marxist roots when presented with Kim Jong-sung’s ‘Juche’, Mao’s collectivised farming in China, Stalin’s orthodoxy based entirely around Marx’s historical materialism, or any other proof of Marx’s pervasive influence on totalitarianism. What you can bank on from leftists is more Marxist revisionism so that the mistakes of the past can be pushed for in the future.

For me personally the Cypriot bailout is far more than another chapter in the banking crisis that began in 2007. With both a mother and a father of Greek Cypriot origin I have strong roots to the little Mediterranean island, with a population of less than a million in the south and more Greek Cypriots in the rest of the world than those living on the island itself. It’s a tiny place which you could travel across in a matter of a few hours by car, and that includes Northern Cyprus. Many a summer I spent visiting relatives for as long as a month at a time. It was the traditional family holiday, the novelty wearing off as I grew older. Eventually I yearned for the typical trappings of Western culture, which weren’t part of Cyprus life for the most part. The laid back village lifestyle of barbecues, Mediterranean cuisine, beaches unoccupied by tourists, and beautiful trips to the Troodos mountains, didn’t have the same appeal as it does now that I’m a little older. Alas, the routine of visiting the same places in the same tiny country, year after year, made me want to travel far and wide as soon as I was able, and that I did when I hit 21.

 

My mother, having fled to the UK during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974, left behind a sister and her parents. Today her sister still remains on the island, having never left, and her own children now have their own families. I still see them from time to time when they come to the UK to visit, but I haven’t been back to Cyprus since I was 18, which is almost 17 years ago. My mother, having spoken to family on the phone, tells me that they’re shocked by the crisis, forced to endure stringent limits on cash withdrawals which hurt everyday life, be it buying groceries or fuel for cars. All this has caused the Cypriot economy to all but shut down. Businesses no longer feel they can make decisions and continue with obligations when there’s so much uncertainty in the air, and family members have been told that jobs cannot continue until the crisis has been averted.

The teenager I once was never truly appreciated Cyprus prior to joining the EU. Before I was a teenager I often enjoyed simple activities like playing war games with the rest of the children in the village. The village school would be unoccupied in the summer, and we’d have skirmishes in the playground with toy guns that we’d buy from the summer village fete. As I grew into a teenager I found it harder to occupy myself - all I really wanted was to be around girls and to play computer games. While those around me had a different cultural attitude I was a typical Western teenager. Looking back I realise just how unique Cyprus once was. It was a place cut off from cultural Marxist hegemony. While Cypriot politics always had a communist side with the AKEL, this often stemmed from desperation and ignorance in the midst of Soviet demagoguery and Turkish invasion. The failure for the British and the Americans to stave off the invasion of the Turks into Cyprus never helped this unhealthy outlook either.

 

Like other countries, the EU convinced Cypriots that joining the bloc would lead to prosperity, although Cyprus had another reason or joining – protection against Turkish aggression. The discovery of natural gas in the Greek Cypriot side of the Levant Basin has led to Turkey imposing in the region once more, so yet again it seems that Greek Cypriots are under threat from the same old place.

 

The present crisis tells us a lot about living in a statist system; the bigger you are the more influence you have. Cyprus is about as small as it gets, which is why the European Central Bank has made “unique” demands on a Cyprus bailout. However, I would argue that Cyprus is merely a means to introduce the potential to target other depositors in the future, since this would be a lot harder to introduce in countries as large as Italy and Spain, let alone Greece or Ireland. Cyprus is merely a template for what will eventually happen to all of us, and many people I speak to about this don’t want to hear that this is the case. Anyone that’s aware of what I’ve been saying for a very long time will know that I’ve regularly stated that this crisis isn’t over, and in no way has this prediction been realised, even now.

While Cyprus is very small, banks going under in this country would usher in a domino effect which could affect bigger countries, starting with the likes of Greece and snowballing exponentially across the world financial system. This has always been the biggest threat, and is the reason why countries are so quick to bail out banks instead of doing what a true capitalist system requires; let bad businesses fail, so that better businesses can replace them, as opposed to monetising the bad debt. This is impossible when central banking leads to a structure that’s so globally intertwined that even the smallest bank run could cause panic, and when panic ensues there simply isn’t enough cash in circulation to match the hysteria.

Sadly it appears that the easy going Cypriot lifestyle I remember as a child is now coming to an end. The people that built their own houses on plots of land, living in villages surrounded by family, spending Sunday afternoons eating souvlakia, enjoying the benefits of a strong national currency, are being replaced by Ikea, multiculturalism, national debt, and naïve voters that have no capacity, let alone desire to understand the complexities of the EU con. Hence, just like every other EU nation, Cypriots have been sold a promise of sophistication and wealth, like the Emperor being sold invisible clothes. At this rate, and when all’s said and done, Cypriots will be left with a pile of unmanageable debt, with politicians speaking for them that are even more uninformed than they are. Many of those more in tune with reality, the politicians and financial elite, will keep feeding from the public trough and taking cash under the table to look the other way.

Welcome to the new EU Cyprus; Russian mafia taking over Cypriot cities, International Women’s Day indoctrinating females into giving up family life and becoming tax cows, and stealing savings from hardworking people at the whim of a technocrat, which spells the end of Cyprus as the tax haven that helped its economy stay strong for decades. The EU will never give up Cyprus without a fight, and your average Cypriot wouldn’t know where to begin to unravel the lie. If you think you’re safe living in other parts of Europe, think again. Cyprus may be easier to bully due to its size, but Cyprus also reveals just how far the ruling elites are willing to go.

If you’re wondering how to protect yourself from the financial terrorism we’ve all been signed up to there are measures I would recommend people take, though as an added caveat I’m no financial advisor. Restrict your exposure to cash as much as possible through the purchasing of hard assets like gold, silver, property, and anything that amounts to something solid. Above all stay away from the fake digits on a screen that politicians and bankers can take away at the press of a button – this crisis is far from over.

I called this idea MRA+. The first video in the series was called “Dating in a Feminist Culture”. To date this is the second most popular video I’ve ever uploaded, with over sixteen-thousand views. I explained, via a method I concocted, the type of traits that men should look out for when meeting women. The video was positively received by many. But not everyone. Increasingly I began to receive harsh criticism from Men Going Their Own Way, like appeals to emotion from Stradusk on YouTube; “Do you want to be responsible for men committing suicide” he asked me in one video, attempting to convince others that MRA+ was a fruitless and even dangerous strategy. I tried to shrug off the criticism and made another three MRA+ videos, before the negativity by MGTOW and others in the MRM made me question the very principles behind men’s rights.

No matter how many times I explained that MRA+ wasn’t a method that opposed MGTOW, it made no difference. I initially believed that both philosophies could complement each other. My feelings, at least initially, were that it’s better to be single than to be in a relationship with an exploitative woman, but there’s no point throwing out the baby with the dirty bathwater. If you can find a woman of virtue then why not settle down with her and make a family, if that’s what you want of course? Then you can raise children that oppose misandry. Speaking personally as a father I can profess that this is my strategy, and as someone with a daughter I feel this has even more potential. However, I am just one man, and without many fathers with the same goals it will be harder for men like me to succeed.

In spite of a first and second video I made to reason with detractors, matters went from bad to worse. Barbarossaaaa joined in the fray. It was obvious by this point that both he and Stardusk were working in unison to undermine those that didn’t align with their philosophy of perpetual bachelorhood. I had no idea that they were so dogmatic, but boy would I find out. Stardusk in particular persisted with an “us and them” mentality right from the start. He kept using terms like “other camp”, and repeatedly insinuated that there was a divide between MGTOW and MRAs, as though they were mutually exclusive philosophies.

 

Originally MGTOW was basically a philosophy to express how men should make their own path in life. The “marriage strike” version of MGTOW, which Barbarossaaaa and Stardusk now strictly enforce, was initially popularised by Paul Elam. Gradually he helped to hijack the MGTOW meme along with Barbarossaaaa, both equally determined to undermine any chance of men and women raising families together. By the time Stardusk jumped on the bandwagon the marriage strike version of MGTOW was treated as though it was the only one that had ever existed. Many fell for this. This is typical behaviour of radicals and extremists who attach themselves to an existing ideology or movement, and little by little they co-opt it for themselves.

By my second video Stardusk’s behaviour grew more and more confrontational. It was in a comment exchange of this video that made me realise that he was determined to drive a wedge into the men’s movement:

MRAGreatestHits: Agreed. I think this has been thoroughly addressed. I hope that's the end of it.

Me: Me too.

At this point Stardusk chimes in:

Stardusk: Not by a long shot, expect both responses from me and Barbarrossa.

Me: I am sadly beginning to realise that you're determined to cause division. I've never had any problem with barbarossaaaa, and if they start to emerge now I will become very suspicious.

Stardusk: Hardly. Your video is full of gross mischaracterisations of my perspectives and points of view, most of which I try to address in the response in processing. I am not interested in division but clarity.

Angry Harry has posted a commentary on his site based around the fact that A Voice for Men published an article on “recovered memory syndrome”. His concerns were very similar to my own; people in the men’s movement mimicking the behaviour of feminists. When Harry expressed such concern on the AVfM article comment section, he was lambasted by the type of hounds that now regularly frequent this space. Harry graciously went away and did his research before returning, but still expressed deep concern that AVfM has begun to tread a very dangerous path that creates the type of mentality that funds life destroying industries, such as the domestic violence racket used to prop up feminism.

Unlike Harry, who doesn’t mention AVfM directly in his article, I am past a point of pretending that the site he is discussing isn’t AVfM. You see, I can tell you first-hand that what Angry Harry experienced isn’t new, since I’ve also experienced it myself. It’s a product of a cult-like fervour of professional victims seeking to dominate the men’s movement through the filter of AVfM.

Back in June I was shocked to discover that AVfM was posting articles endorsing Marxism within the men’s rights movement. The first article was called "MRM Marxism", and the second was called "Political Dyslexia". As if this wasn’t bad enough, one of the authors of these pieces tried to deny how feminism and Marxism are cut from the same cloth, in spite of history showing us that wherever collectivist philosophy goes, it strives to reduce women, and indeed men, to another means of production. Whether it’s the Republicans of the Spanish Civil War, the Soviets, or the Maoists of the Chinese Revolution, all behaved the same way; children being raised by third parties, and women working for the benefit of economic productivity, and often in brutal conditions. After all, what good is a parent at home, when this person can’t be taxed, not to mention the fact that parents raising children keeps them away from institutionalisation?

You can imagine the concern that many of us had when we saw that Paul Elam felt that Marxism had a place being a part of the men’s movement, especially since it was Marxist propaganda in particular that manufactured so much social and biological agitprop that sought to divide men and women. Paul insisted, when clarifying his position, that AVfM was a platform for all groups, and that it wasn’t his role to dismiss differing opinions. I found this contradictory. I see no place where fascists have a voice. Anyone that knows Paul’s editorial stance will know that such voices are quickly moved on if they try to associate with AVfM.

Here lies the contradiction. Paul doesn’t see the leftists, almost at the point of total domination at AVfM, as comparable to fascism. There can only be a couple of reasons for this; either Paul only cares about genocide when it concerns politically incorrect groups like Nazis, or he’s too poorly versed in history to realise that Marxists killed numbers of Ukranians in one year that compare (and many believe actually surpass) the entirety of the Holocaust of Nazis against the Jews. Marxists will argue that Marx never endorsed such policies. This is yet another revisionist lie, since Marx and Engels were actually the first people in the modern era to endorse genocide.

 What did Paul do when I expressed my concerns in a video, after being vilified as a “conservative” and a “traditionalist” (common pejoratives by anyone that disagrees with the AVfM agenda) in the comments section of these pro-Marxist articles? He featured a pretentious response video to me on AVfM, consisting of snide criticisms of my use of words, and my guitar playing. The video also involved denials that the leftists I was warning others to be wary of existed, in spite of the fact that leftists actually wrote the articles I was critiquing (duh!). Nothing new there though; when do leftists ever admit that their agenda, let alone that they exist?

Thanks to Paul’s editorial policy, the type of people that perpetuate feminism have managed to worm their way into the biggest platform for the men’s movement on the internet. The fact even Angry Harry is now attacked if he points out the blatantly obvious dangers of repeating history, shows that AVfM is now almost totally lost to collectivist consequentialism. There are others that have been in the firing line of this animosity too, including Bernard Chapin. Many now congregating around the AVfM platform are so incapable of shaking off politically correct thinking, that they even parrot how two parents are what children generally require, as though parents being biologically related to children have no bearing. Kin altruism does however have a huge bearing on the happiness of children, which can be demonstrated in the fact that homes with two biological parents do better than any other group, while homes with step parents are far more likely to be dysfunctional.

There are some good eggs on AVfM, Erin Pizzey chief among them, not to mention my friend James Huff. Alas, these voices are being increasingly drowned out by the talking points and deflections of professional victims that denounce fundamental principles of individual liberty; inviolable rights, and of course a diminishment of the statist platform that makes feminism possible. What baffles me the most about the “social justice” mentality taking over on AVfM is how even Erin Pizzey has published an article on that very site, showing how yet again it was Marxist ideologues that destroyed feminism, reshaping it into a juggernaut of lies and deception which redistributed resources for an agenda of systemic control. Still the denial, wilful or otherwise, ensues.

I’m more convinced than ever that AVfM will eventually be widely considered a site that’s betrayed the original sentiments of the modern men’s movement. I don’t envisage this taking more than a year at this rate, and the attempt to alter the acronym of the MRM to MHRM (men’s human rights movement) by AVfM shows that those having their way with AVfM are looking to steer the MRM in the direction of pity party “human rights” politics, which has so seriously harmed a culture driven by merit and uninstrusive government. How long, I wonder, before the “men” part of that acronym is dropped by those that want to enforce a progressive stack of victimhood, where manhood is the last identity to have any issues addressed? Time will tell.

I’ve felt for some time that Japan is the country that the whole world should be watching during this hour of rising national debt across the developed nations. Japan has the highest debt to GDP in the world, reported by the IMF as a staggering 229.7% in 2011. Not even Greece can top this, with a debt to GDP of 160.81%. Some might argue that Greece is incomparable to an economic  giant like Japan, but quite honestly debt is debt, no matter how “big” you are, and Japan has a lot of problems aside from this that make it a country with a far from certain future.

The level of debt corresponding to any potential Japanese collapse could provide a lot of answers for Western nations, wondering how high national debt can reach before society begins to fall apart. No nation, aside from Japan, has a national debt to GDP above 200%. Perhaps the threshold for the insane Keynesian madness countries have grown accustomed to will be revealed by Japan’s potential fate.

Another big Japanese problem is its aging population, which really translates to people not having enough children. Japan has one of the lowest birth rates in the world, at merely 8.39 births for every 1000 people as of 2012. Presently this puts it all the way down at 217^th position in world rankings, and keep in mind that there are only 229. Much of the faith of a debt based fiat currency system is derived from the assumption that people will continue repaying their debts, and this includes taxes and other forms of state enforced obligations. If there isn’t enough money going into the system to pay off debt and maintain social programs then this is the very definition of a Ponzi scheme. Avid statists will insist that this is not the case if people are still paying up. But if birth rates are dramatically shrinking then this is impossible without only one viable solution; immigration, and Japan is a country that prides itself on homogenous national identity far more than the Marxist infected Western hemisphere.

Japan has another problem somewhat similar to the fictional world created by Ayn Rand. A growing trend among Japanese men is to opt out of conventional life. It’s estimated that as many as 20% of men are now becoming “herbivorous”, literally turning their backs on all the traditional trappings of masculinity; money, sex, success. The Japanese economy has been struggling with stagnation ever since the 1990’s, when it went through a serious economic downturn. Japan has never truly recovered. The male herbivore trend seems to be a direct result of the apathy drawn from a society that denies young people with opportunities, while surrounding them with short-term consumerist highs. Admittedly these men don’t appear to be the titans of greatness that turned their backs on society in Ayn Rand’s novel. But one thing’s for sure; these men aren’t going to be providing a regular flow of taxation for the Japanese government. Woes betide if this trend continues to grow at the best of times, let alone in an economy in the state of Japan.

None of this paints a pretty picture for Japan’s future, and unfortunately that’s not the entirety of the situation. Major Japanese multinationals are struggling to maintain the success of their brands on a world stage. Toyota recalled 9 million vehicles from 2009-2011, due to pedal problems associated with multiple vehicle models. Even the mighty Nintendo are failing to compete in the evolving gaming industry. Some even say the WiiU is Nintendo’s last chance to increase sales, lest the company goes the way of Sega. 

Only time will tell whether Japan can dig itself out of the increasingly bleak future it finds itself in. Personally I’m still inclined to stick to my prediction that Japan is the country the whole world should be watching for a glimpse into the future. If Japan’s economy goes down due to the present trajectory of debilitating national debt, apathy and incompetence, then the rest of the world should take heed – maybe Atlas is ready to shrug in the West too.

Chomsky is typical of a leftist, wherein his views are mired in so much revisionism that it’s hard to decide whether he can distinguish between true and false any longer, or whether he’s foolish enough to actually believe his views from the outset. A detailed website highlights this well, and a gem of an example of Chomsky propaganda is suggesting communist murder in the 20^th century is no worse than anything caused by so-called capitalist countries. This is subjective nonsense that leftists spout a lot, since no regimes in history have slaughtered more efficiently or brutally than communists, over 100 million being the death count often provided. It’s important to note that so many people disappeared in communist countries that all one can really do is approximate on death tolls. Vanishing without a trace was common in the likes of the Soviet Union.

So what of the roots of the term libertarianism? Leftists would have us believe that it started as a collectivist ideal, and Chomsky says that the USA has a radically different notion of the term compared to the rest of the world. When I first heard leftists make these claims I questioned my own definition. Upon further examination I realised this is as false as any other leftist lies people have been fed. It’s false for the precise reason that liberalism was never originally defined as a collectivist philosophy. To understand why the distinction between collectivism and individualism is the best place to start.

An individualist believes people have unalienable rights, and that all rights are derived from the perspective of the individual above all, or even in totality. A collectivist believes the opposite, but a bit of flexibility is required to realise that some people sit in the middle. Therefore one would assume that the earliest classical liberals, which is where the modern concept of “liberty” first began, would tell us a lot about the roots of libertarianism. This is indeed the case.

In political philosophy one of the first topics students learn about is the social contract, with three philosophers being the basis. Hobbes is the first, and was not a classical liberal. He laid down his authoritarian view of the social contract in the 16^th century, where the citizen was obligated to surrender freedom to live in the jurisdiction of the state. The argument was justified by postulating that people would be worse off without the state, and therefore should be grateful for their lot in life, even if this means sacrificing elements of their freedom.

Then came John Locke in the 17^th century. He is considered by many to be the father of classical liberalism and libertarianism, which is very telling when we learn about his views. He was the world’s first individualist, believing that people have natural rights that are unalienable. His views became the foundation for enlightenment ideals, and none had a greater influence on the US declaration of independence than he.

Finally we have Jean-Jacque Rousseau. Rousseau also believed in unalienable rights, but he didn’t believe they began with the individual, rather the collective. Therefore the individual was subservient to the will of the collective. Hence a good title for Rousseau would be the father of modern collectivism.

Gradually liberalism was associated not with the philosophy of individual sovereignty, John Locke the earliest thinker to set this out, but a Rousseauian authoritarian view of what “liberty” was supposed to represent. By the time we reach the 19^th century individualism is being systematically brushed aside by a new ideology – socialism. Philosophers like John Stuart Mill were associated with “liberalism”, but in truth the corrupting influence of utilitarianism was a strong aspect of his philosophy, not to mention his gradual approval of socialism.

Thanks to the corrupting influence of collectivism, particularly socialism and utilitarianism, the definition of liberalism began to mean something other than individualism. Thus the term libertarianism would eventually become the alternative for individualists. Now it seems that leftists have their eyes on this label too, calling themselves left-libertarians, which can mean anything from anarcho-syndicalist to anarcho-communist, or any number of collectivist stances.

The terms ‘leftist’ and even ‘rightist’ can further empower the leftist to mislead, though they have their uses as distinctions if you can understand what they really represent. These terms began during the French revolution, where extremists sat on the left of the national assembly, and the moderates on the right. Those on the left wanted an end to the monarchy, while those on the right wanted a limited monarchy to remain. As we know the ‘leftists’ won, and subsequently the guillotine beheaded thousands. A leftist has thereafter been linked to extremists that want to eradicate the status quo at virtually any cost, and is historically the catalyst of the bloody revolutions that overwhelmingly dominated the 20^th century.

Those on the right are considered moderates, or ‘conservatives’, and preservers of the status quo. This description of the left and right fits well today in a political landscape where the left perpetually strives for endless, and often irrational change, whereas the conservative right wishes to maintain social and economic order. I don’t personally feel I fit into either of these distinctions. Above all I am an individualist who upholds categorical morals of unalienable natural rights and the non-aggression principle. I however oppose changes that provide power to the collective, further eroding individual liberty.

As we can see neither libertarian nor liberal were ever originally defined as collectivist. The father of liberal and libertarian thought was the most influential individualist of all, John Locke. His views date all the way back to the 17^th century, long before socialist or utilitarian philosophy took hold. Leftists are simply reverting to their typical tactics of revising the truth with lies, and withholding facts to make people think otherwise.

Let me first clarify that I don’t really feel that I’m a stay-at-home dad per se. I do indeed spend a lot of time looking after my daughter in the day. I do however have my own business. I’m qualified as a school music teacher, and as such I’ve an educational background that lends itself to my private venture as a guitar tutor, which I’ve been doing for a very long time now. I don’t have any issues with the label stay-at-home dad, but what I can say is that my wife and I are a very close couple, and this is definitely a difference maker. We decided very early on that keeping our daughter out of daycare would not only be better for her development, which is backed up by research, but also financially more sensible.

My wife has a good job in the private sector working in telecommunications, while I was the fool that chose to work for the public sector. This was a depressing experience in many respects, and is a big reason why I’ve become the libertarian I am today. But alas, that’s a story for another day. Since my wife earns the type of money that a teacher wouldn’t attain for many years, it was more sensible for me to subsidise our family’s income through working part-time, while my wife worked full-time as the breadwinner. We therefore reached a mutual decision that worked for the family, and this I feel is a good way for a family to operate.

Back to the article in question. It’s a mixture of valid criticisms that I myself have noticed about the perception towards stay-at-home dads, and cultural issues masked as objective concerns. A valid concern I think the article brings up is the alienation that stay-at-home dads can feel. Speaking from personal experience it’s extremely hard to meet other people during the day, and even when you do meet people you can feel a lack of connection to them. I’ve had occasions when I’ve seen dads around, but it’s unusual for men to strike up conversations when they don’t have an immediate reason to do so. Women on the other are accustomed to social interaction, and evolved to be collectively supportive. Mother groups and soft play abound, women start talking with one another at the slightest opportunity, and before they know it they’re having weekly gatherings at one another’s houses, or pubic places like coffee shops. This is pretty standard practice that few would contest. There’s little reason to, unless you have a politically correct axe to grind that insists men and women are the same.

In the article in question the pressure of being a stay-at-home dad reaches boiling point for the writer when he’s told to leave the room by a mother who’s breast-feeding. This is indeed irritating, and shows just how much female emotions dominate the present culture. On one hand we have women complaining when people challenge their right to breast feed in public, and on the other we have a male student nurse being told to leave a class because women were “sensitive to a man’s presence.” Talk about making your head spin! This is an appalling double standard, and shows just how much society is obsessed with appeasing the feelings of females over and above any sense of true equity and universal sense of equality. Women still want their sex specific space, while men have to surrender theirs at every turn via affirmative action and public sport funding, like Title IX.

The isolating experience of being a stay-at-home dad is not about to change any time soon. Stay-at-home dads are on the rise according to recent statistics, especially since the recession is hurting men more than women, thus being dubbed a man-cession by some. So I sympathise for the plight of men who don’t necessarily have a choice when they become stay-at-home dads, as I did. Combined with alienation, isolation, and harsh economic times, it’s enough to make a man feel justifiably depressed. What’s more there aren’t the plethora of support groups for dads as there are for mothers, and in my local area it’s laughable how sparse (aka non-existent) they are.

Once upon a time life was much more clear-cut for families. The dad had his role, and the mother had hers. Occasionally they crossed in the middle, but both sexes (not just men) safeguarded their unique contributions to the family, and the present behaviour by women related to parenthood, and the lack of cultural support for fathers, shows that women are determined to keep their sacred cow of motherhood alive, while men have little choice but to keep to their own traditional roles. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t feel the need to rigidly define familial life, and I for one am very comfortable in mine. Equally I’m less than impressed by the hypocrisy of modern women when it comes to living up to their end of the modernisation bargain.

Chief among these disappointments is the statistic that the article in question cites regarding marital break-ups, involving men who stay at home with the children. This is cited at ten percent of all marital break-ups, doubling in the last five years. This falls directly in line with the bite of economic slowdown around 2007, and shows that many women are so entitled in this present day and age that they can’t return the same courtesy that men have given women to relax their inherent roles as carers, by respecting men as carers too. I do feel anger at this predicament. It also does women no favours when it comes to a person like me defending the fact that women are not fatally prone to their hypergamous instincts. Before any misogynists get excited, there’s every reason to believe that only the most enlightened woman has a chance of rising above the morally bankrupt culture that feminism endorses. With this in mind most men and women struggle to think laterally, manipulated by social engineering instead. This is a recurring theme, regardless of identity.

This aside what favour is the writer of this article doing dads when he claims that there’s a strong loss of self-esteem in his role? He may indeed feel that way, and many alpha males may struggle with changing diapers, cleaning, and other traditionally female jobs. His previous boardroom power jockeying was obviously not transferable to his homely duties, and this doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. Being a stay-at-home dad is not a ego-soothing job. It’s not one that gives you prestige or sadly, even respect in many cases. So why am I happier as a stay-at-home dad compared to people like the writer of the article in question.

First, I don’t dwell on what people think about me, and I’m only principally concerned with people I’ve built a mutual respect for. I don’t care if people think ill of me for earning less than my wife, or that I change diapers, and spend lots of daytime bonding with my daughter while my wife is at work. My daughter completes me as a person, and it really is a pleasure to be around her, and one that words can barely describe effectively. Anyone that feels this makes me less of a man can take a hike!

Second, I admit I have an introverted streak. I love to read, browse the internet for interesting links, play guitar, and generally relish my own company. Weekly exercise is of a similar vein. Regarding friendship my life experiences have made me realise that quality is preferable to quantity, and on this basis my wife and I are the best of friends. We’ve built our relationship on years of understanding. I appreciate this can be rare; especially in today’s vacuous culture. Men and women are very different animals, and no amount of PC propaganda is going to change the fact that science is making this more apparent all the time. Fearing these differences or opposing them is ignorant. There’s no reason, except an ideological one, that men and women should be the same. Saying that my wife and I share common interests, and if there’s one thing I think helps us get along so well it’s this. So this is one way to transcend differences between the sexes.

Third, as I’ve already stated I have my own business, and this helps to keep me busy. Which brings me onto another area that occupies me - blogging and video-making. I love to express myself philosophically. I seriously doubt I could ever have the time to do this to the same extent if I had a full-time job, so I savour the opportunity. Aside from my wife I don’t really know many people outside of online communities that I connect with on a philosophical level, and I now realise this has been a recurring issue in my life. It wasn’t until I started blogging and volgging that I learnt to appreciate how therapeutic philosophically expressing myself actually is.

Last and not least, it never fails to amaze me how couples often live distinctly separate lives today. It’s getting harder to actually live as a true partnership thanks to disgraceful doublethink legislation regarding “emotional abuse” as a form of domestic violence - what constitutes “controlling how you spend your money” is open for interpretation, and as usual the lawmakers and enforcers are almost certainly banking on this. The writer of the article in question also showed signs of petty wranglings over who’s money belongs to whom. Even when I earned more money than my wife we didn't operate this way, at least after we reached a point of certainty about our commitment to one another.

The bottom line is that marriage is a partnership, and couples have every right to be involved in one another’s business, unless this is some sort of shallow arrangement devoid of warmth and love. If you’re the type of person that thinks this is a controlling or domineering arrangement then do yourself a favour and don’t get married. Of course there’s a line where a spouse becomes abusive, but many domestic violence laws are not designed with any kind of pragmatism, hitting nails into the coffin of familial stability with a nanny state shaped hammer.

One of the things that really, really grinds on me is the fact that those who identify as LGBT are a tiny proportion of the population, and yet in today’s climate there are few demographics that command so much political limelight.
Most estimates put gay, lesbian, and bisexual numbers at less than 2%. A 2010 UK national survey puts this at 1.5%. The angle that gender theory advocates like to use when the figure comes in so low is that lack of social tolerance means less people come forward as gay, lesbian or bisexual.

It’s important to note that 3% of those asked in the survey stated that they “did not know their sexual orientation”. In a culture that parrots how gender is a ‘social construct’, such an erroneous cultural meme must be factored into the equation. How many have been influenced by pseudoscientific gender theory into believing that they have no sexual orientation, or that such a question is irrelevant, is anyone’s guess. I bet the place to start collecting evidence is feminist and LGBT academic circles.

When it comes to research defending LGBT social change by far the biggest problem is poor sampling. This is typically suspicious behaviour that points towards confirmation bias. Even the Wikipedia page for LGBT parenting can’t bypass the fact that research into this area suffers from a lack of random sampling. A common problem is sampling drawn primarily from well-educated white women. Researchers even go as far as using samples entirely from lesbian bookstores. Ironically it’s the fact that so few people are actually LGBT in the first place that makes it so hard to create solid research that relies on random sampling.

Sincerely I don’t care if people identify as LGBT. If two people of the same sex want to live together or have sex then they can go for broke as far as I’m concerned. But that’s not an unconditional position. I have a big issue with the fact that flawed LGBT research is being used to push a subjective definition of parenting into the forefront of society. Take France, where an attempt to abolish the words mother and father from all official documents is being taken seriously, replacing them with ‘parent’. All this so that less than 2% of the population, that can’t conceive as a couple, can feel accommodated.

Does anyone really believe equality is the reason people would go out of their way to abolish the biological distinctions of mother and father? Gender theorists have been advocating this for decades, and they show no signs of ending in the present hysteria. Alas, in the world of the androgynous radical there is no distinction between a man and a woman.

I especially have an issue with the fact that all this is being done on the back of such a small LGBT demographic alongside population. LGBTs have a tiny social impact when ideology is not harnessed to incite agitation. A parent is not a label that can be passed around like candy, and I am not in support of people shunning their responsibilities as parents by donating gametes or acting as surrogates. This culturally weakens the biological importance of parental bonding, making people believe that the role can be redefined on demand.

Furthermore it’s foolish to ignore the powerful bond between biological parent and child. Failure to bond is repeatedly the main breakdown when it comes to adoption. It’s also foolish to ignore the fact that homes where both biological parents are present are overwhelmingly more stable. Conversely gay people are not as fussed on marriage and civil unions as many would have us believe. The desire among gay people to get married is low. This pattern is consistent in places like the Netherlands and the US, and even in Scandinavian countries, where gay marriage has been around for a long time.

Research shows that even divorce is significantly higher among gay and lesbian couples, especially among the latter. As if that’s not enough research conducted at UK gay pride events in 2003, based on 1911 women and 1391 men, shows that domestic violence in LGBT circles can be as high as 22% for women and 29% for men. Yet left-wing publications like the Huffington Post continue to spread misinformation regarding the positives of gay parenting, when in truth the research to support this is inadequate. Combine this with the evidence to show that gay relationships are not as stable when we examine more accurate and informative data, and you have a false impression that can only truly be described as propaganda.

I present the following, in the hope that it will make online debate and dialogue more rewarding:

Logical Fallacies

Quoting logical fallacies is very popular in online circles, partly because they have an air of sophistication about them. Here is a comprehensive list of logical fallacies. A couple of others not on the list (but also common) are:

a) Reductio ad Absurdum: The attempt to dismiss a claim by framing it as absurd. This is usually done by exaggerating or blowing a statement out of all proportion. However, it is important to note that this isn't a fallacy in and of itself. It does however become fallacious if it is built on a strawman. One such example might be the idea that because you believe there are some Muslims hostile to the West that this somehow equates to all Muslims being extremists, making you paranoid.

b) Appeal to Academia: This is a type of appeal to authority (or an appeal to misleading authority) wherein only those with academic qualifications are deemed capable of an opinion. It’s particularly absurd because many academics and ‘experts’ can resort to conjecture to appear correct, and thus cannot always be relied upon. The other common misconception is that only peer-reviewed research is valid. This is a poor premise since confirmation bias is always something to consider, climate change and sampling being examples. It’s also dishonest to make appeals to academia in an age where information is more readily available than ever. Information is catalogued in easily accessible places online, including scholarly sites like government and university pages.

c) Appeal to Consequences: The assumption that an argument is valid if it generates a desired result. This is a form of appeal to emotion, and is false because it does not establish a value of truth in the premise. This is a surprisingly common fallacy, particularly among socialists, who will often resort to any lengths to achieve an objective.

d) Talking Point (Added 23/12/12): This behaviour involves ignoring an argument, only to revert to the very points that were refuted by the said argument. This is a form of argumentum ad nauseum, and often coincides with passive aggression via ideologues dogmatically promoting a hypothesis, no matter how many times it's been proven false. This is arguably the most irritating type of logical fallacy for me personally, since collecting sources and evidence, while combining this with concise and logical arguments, is often time consuming. People totally ignoring all this effort, only to bombard a comment section with talking points, can be extremely frustrating.

When it comes to the etiquette of quoting logical fallacies there is one fundamental rule – something cannot be a logical fallacy if it’s backed by a value. For example, stating that there are morals in nature via a system of positive sum trade is not an appeal to nature. It is merely a recognition that many animals are capable of understanding that cooperation can lead to a greater chance of success.

Keep in mind that it’s terrible form to quote logical fallacies incorrectly or disingenuously, especially to appear ‘intellectual’ or to confound another. People who do this are usually extremely conceited, and I’ve found time and again that this is a hostile act. This is a pet hate of mine, so be warned.

Syllogism

Syllogism is the formulation of a conclusion based on more than one premise, where facts are determined by combining statements. For example:

All men die

I am a man

Therefore I will die

Sounds pretty obvious right? Well I hate to say it but even basic syllogism like this isn’t so obvious for many. Take the concept of freedom. Previously I’ve had someone state that I’m not free because I can be tied up. However, the one who is tying me up is using force. Therefore this isn’t voluntary, and thus the one who is tying me up is committing an act of enslavement. Thus my freedom is being violated, rather than proven to be false. This is elementary to someone who has a grasp of basic syllogism. Unfortunately even this is level of logical argumentation is hard for some to grasp.

Basic syllogism is an essential component of logical reasoning. Do not expect to be taken seriously if you do not demonstrate this. Furthermore, if belligerence accompanies a lack of basic syllogism you are likely to become very unpopular, very quickly.

Deductive & Inductive Reasoning

Syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is formed by starting with a theory, followed by a hypothesis, using observation to arrive at a given conclusion. The most familiar version of deductive reasoning is the scientific method. Conversely inductive reasoning begins from observation, relying on patterns and a tentative hypothesis to lead to a theory, such as:

           

10% of humans are left-handed

Mark is a human

Therefore the likelihood of Mark being left-handed is 10%

While we cannot know for certain whether Mark is left-handed or not, we can guess that there is a 10% chance that Mark is left-handed. This leads to a theory drawn from observation. For more information on inductive and deductive reasoning here is a useful link.

Again, an understanding of forming a logical argument through evidence is an essential aspect of having a productive discussion, so keep this in mind. Those who are willing to concede that their argumentation requires re-evaluation warrant support, while those that insist on the unproven or unverifiable are not so deserving.

Evidence & Sources

I’ve already gone over the problems of confirmation bias and appeals to academia. Equally, many are also prone to dismissing evidence out-of-hand simply because it came from a certain source, like a particular newspaper or institution. This can even occur with academic evidence, as well as publications that cite sources.

Wikipedia is one source where many people insist that it automatically lacks credibility. Wikipedia is arguably one of the easiest sites on the web to confirm the credibility of sources. Pages and examples that do not cite sources are flagged, and sources are easy to check via a numbered system. It’s lazy to dismiss Wikipedia without providing a solid reason why the evidence is invalid, and this is not a productive way to dismiss it as a source.

The other common misconception is to dismiss a source because of a perceived agenda, like being ‘right-wing’, ‘left-wing’, or part of a religious denomination. This is an ad hominem. Admittedly there are many sources out there that have a poor reputation for bad practice, but it is never good form to dismiss evidence without providing a sound counter position.

Amicability

It’s sad that there are many people that don’t want to engage in an amicable fashion, and see every scenario as a win-lose situation. I am always happy to agree to disagree, but this works both ways (it’s also important to note that agreeing to disagree does not involve having ‘the last word’).

Smearing character assassinations are never an acceptable means of conduct. However, a smear or character assassination does not equate to exposing someone as genuinely dishonest, with a sound case to back this up. I never engage in such behaviour unless provoked, but needless to say I’ve learnt the hard way that many will ad hominem to high heaven at any opportunity.

Thus it’s essential to clarify the facts from time to time, and not allow someone to tarnish your reputation with sociopathic muddying tactics and inciting of others to act on their behalf. There is a time and a place to clear the air however, and I choose my battles wisely. We need only look at history to see the ramifications of being tarnished with lies. Joseph McCarthy and Marie Antionette are two testaments to that.

Revisionism

Revising the facts is nothing new, and there are many times in history where this strategy has been used to harbour sympathy and support. None are guiltier of this in modern times than leftists, and in particular international socialists drawing influence from Marxian property rights. The same can be said for feminism, which is also overwhelmingly influenced by international socialist ideology.

These are tragic times, where thanks in large part to the events succeeding World War II, a pro-communist and radical feminist narrative dominates cultural norms. It is for this reason I have a low threshold for revisionists of this calibre, since it’s a fierce battle to speak the truth when faced with generations of deep-seated indoctrination from these proponents. I’ve learnt first-hand just how vicious these ideologues can be.

Therefore I have a zero tolerance policy for these revisionists alongside others that might revert to such tactics, since their voice has the most support, and has been the most successful in spreading dialectic far and wide via a false message of ‘equality’. 

Concluding Remarks

Sock accounts are now becoming a big problem on YouTube, so be warned that I have no tolerance towards this activity. I am not obligated to engage with anyone incapable or unwilling to be civil, and these individuals will promptly find themselves blocked. I will try to be patient with those that lack the ability to formulate a sound logical argument. If however replies and comments become circular and dogmatic I will most likely find this irksome, as well as a waste of my time and energy.

I would like to end by saying that overall I thoroughly enjoy interacting with others online, in spite of occasional antagonistic goading. The vast majority of the people I interact with are pleasant and supportive, and this makes the experience very rewarding.

Having made a video about the left-right paradigm I feel the yearning to further expound on a more accurate representation of what the left and right truly are. I’ve been researching the concept of the political spectrum for quite some time, and the political compass appears to be the most widely used:

I can no longer accept the accuracy of this chart, since collectivists are always authoritarian to some degree. They restrict individual liberty, and define rights via collective approval. This is the epitome of totalitarianism, brushing aside individuals for collective goals. This is not only oppressive to the individual, but also leads to problems like regulatory capture. Where would the ‘too big to fail’ bankers be today without state funded bailouts, bad debts passed onto the people via money printing and inflation?

Some might argue that if the banks failed then there would have been chaos. This is the fault of policies allowing a small number to dictate economic activity, and tilt this in their favour. The ‘too big to fail’ bankers didn’t care
about losses because they knew that central banks were there to insure them in the event of failure. There is no way to prevent this sort of monopoly under collectivism, since power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore it’s better to have a system where mistakes cannot be accommodated for with bailouts and ponzi schemes.

Before a more accurate diagram of the present political spectrum can be given it’s important to be aware of what democracy truly is. Democracy is a collectivist ideology that defines rights via the ballot box. This is the same throughout the democratic world. True, there is a far stronger Lockean inspired culture of individualism in the United States, but still democracy has the same problems wherever one goes, and it’s worked wonders for the expansion of socialism. It saddens me that two world wars were fought in the 20^th century, and still socialism could not be kept at bay. While fascism, which is simply National Socialism, has been denigrated as the true face of evil, the same cannot be said for international socialism, otherwise known as communism.

If by now you need to be told that Hitler, fascism, and Nazism, are all socialist ideologies driven by state protectionism and nationalism, then the chances are you’re a communist, or an admirer of Marx. There’s always the strong possibility you swallowed the blue pill of government education that teaches people that the Nazis were far-right, even though they controlled the means of production via state regulated corporations, and restricted property rights. If you need any of this confirmed then I have already made videos called "National & International Socialism" and “Nazis Vs Marxists”.

Nothing seems to make a Marxist and a communist angrier than the unrevised fact that fascism and communism are two sides of the same coin. Fascism obsesses over race, while communism endlessly deals with class, but both demand adherence to authority. Hence they are both totalitarian. These two great evils have fought for dominance throughout the 20^th century, and today we have a society where democracy is a perpetual battle for control of production and property rights via either the fascist or communist models.

Corporatism itself is a fascist ideology, where the means of production is manipulated by regulation defined by the state. The differences between this and communist control of production is something communists will contest ad nauseum. But they are semantical issues that ignore the fact that corporations could never exist without state policies of corporate personhood. Under laissez-faire, corporations would just be businesses, like any other. The state however benefits from corporations collecting taxes and controlling society on the behalf of bureaucrats, like feudal lords herding peasants on farmlands under feudalism.

With all this in mind we can now begin to see that we only live in one half of a paradigm made up of collectivism and individualism. Presently we live entirely within the collectivist half, where international socialism and National Socialism reside. Here is what this looks like:

It may seem very unfair to label conservatives as fascists, but this only occurs because the right-wing political choice under democracy is merely a corporatist and nationalistic alternative. Conservatism as an ideology is predominantly based around questioning change, since change may not necessarily lead to good things. Therefore I am not inclined to believe by any stretch of the imagination that conservatives are fascists per se. Admittedly they are more authoritarian than many libertarians. But they are always looking to create a society of personal accountability and minimal statism, which is far more than can be said for any socialist, obsessed with absolute control of society.

Conservatives are often associated with organised religion. Organised religion can be very problematic when it merges with the state. This is called theocracy, and is just another form of collectivism. It is not however compulsory to be religious if you are a conservative, and many conservatives are atheists. Having cleared this up it’s much easier to understand why modern right-wing parties have been lumbered in with fascists, due to their big government military spending and corporate welfare policies. Saying that, the term “far-right” is a smokescreen, since fascists are only far-right collectivists, not far right on a broader political spectrum, which looks like this:

Here the totalitarian ideologies, be it national or international socialism, are on the far left. As we progress to the right we pass all ideologies that demand adherence to the state, like democratic political parties. The middle is obviously the centrist position, though I would call this sitting on the fence. The first position to the right is libertarianism. Modern ‘purist’ libertarians believe in a state that only comprises of military, courts, and police, protecting natural rights instead of defining them (note: left-libertarians are merely communists, using dialectic to reframe terminology). This shows why libertarians are on the right, since they actively work towards a limited state, and democracy would not be a legitimate method to infringe upon the natural rights of the individual. These ideas are defined by such philosophers as John Locke, Ayn Rand, and of course the Austrian economists.

The far-right position is stateless anarchy. In a world of anarchy the individual is sovereign. Appeals to consequences galore are usually the opposition to a stateless world, but at the very least it’s possible to grasp that the interpretation of the political spectrum in this case is totalitarianism on one end, where individuals have no rights without collective approval, and anarchy on the other, where individuals have total autonomy and collectives can only ever be voluntary. Perhaps some day we can live in this world, but for now even libertarianism would be a positive result for individualists, and a perfect transitory step for the evolution of human society to voluntaryism. It seems to me that the history of mankind is the battle for individual autonomy over the collective, and I for one aim to help this cause.

The Olympic Games are upon us once more! For sports enthusiasts, and casual appreciators of human potential, this will mark four weeks of the politically incorrect, in one momentous occasion. A lot has happened in my life in the four years since the last Olympics in Beijing, and one such development has been my understanding of left-wing politics. The Olympics epitomises the pickle leftist ideologues find themselves in, once ever four years.

Nothing exemplifies the folly of political correctness more than the Olympics, since it’s extremely difficult to manipulate the outcome of an athletic event when it’s in plain view. Beforehand it’s easy to reallocate funding, and restrict male participation, but such tactics are setting athletes up for a fall, since there are others that won’t be hampered by such denial of biological realism.

Take Keeling Pilaro, a high school hockey player who was no longer allowed to play for his team because he was too good compared to other players, typically all female. The reason is a state education law that prevents males from taking part if it has an adverse effect on female participation. You would think that if theories of gender being irrelevant were true, then females would brush aside a bit of fair competition.

The Olympics takes no prisoners when it comes to performance. A list of the world records for male and female track and field and swimming events demonstrates the large gap in performance very well. In certain events women are required to perform at a lower standard. Take the 110 metre men’s hurdles compared to the 100 metre hurdles for women, which decreases the distance of the female version of the event, as well as the height of the hurdles themselves.

The other non-PC element of the Olympics involves race. PC ideologues are cultural determinists refusing to acknowledge the genetic differences that come into play in the world of sport, choosing instead to insist upon cultural influences. Gradually this point of view is being pushed out of reputable science, but it hasn’t stopped cultural determinists of the left wreaking havoc on objective truth for decades. Many ask what a cultural Marxist is, but the answer is very simple – a Marxist ideologue obsessed with the social influence on human potential.

It is none-the-less becoming harder to suppress biological evidence related to athletic performance, thanks to the research into genetics, like the fact that 70% of Jamaicans have a relatively rare gene called ACTN3. While Usain Bolt will certainly have a good training regime, it’s hard to excel without genetic capabilities, and the ACTN3 gene gives him the genetic boost he needs.

Speaking as someone who lifts weights at the gym, it’s important to be realistic about what one can achieve, and in this sense that are limits. I don’t have the genetics to look like Charles Atlas (even if I wanted to), no matter how much I work out, at least not without enhancement drugs.

Genetic evidence for athletic performance is prevalent in a multitude of other cases, such as the ability of the Kenyan ectomorph. Short and slender, and with good natural lung capacity, along with slow twitch muscle fibers, this makes many Kenyans naturally adept at endurance sports. This is not so positive when it comes to anaerobic sprinting, which would correlate with the fact that Kenyans are low ranking soccer players worldwide, in spite of the national obsession with the sport. This shows us first-hand that culture has limited influence without biological potential as a basis.

In the swimming pool scientists have shown that white people tend to have a lower centre of gravity compared to black people, meaning that more of their upper bodies are above the waterline. White swimmers have held the 100m freestyle swimming record world record since 1922, which would demonstrate the advantage this provides. Conversely a higher centre of gravity has helped black people retain the last 25 100m sprint world records.

The cultural Marxist will vehemently oppose those who present such data, with accusations of racism and bigotry for accepting objective scientific research, not to mention repeatedly dismissing such evidence with cultural reasons. But the real bigotry is restricting the endeavour of scientific discovery. There are moral questions to be asked when it comes to what we do with any information uncovered, but restricting the truth is a dangerous path to tread, often resulting in others filling in the blanks with their own ideology. This is why affirmative action is so flawed, since it not only creates a biased impression of perceived oppression, but also provides solutions to problems that don’t exist.

Thus Americans must now sign up for Obamacare if they don’t have alternative medical insurance, thanks to a work of subjective legalese that could never pass in any objective sense. But what’s worse is that the US government only has the authority for very specific taxation, be it directly (such as income tax) or indirectly (such as VAT). This truly is a sad state of affairs for the America people. The US constitution, once the crowning glory of a pioneering constitutional republic, has become nothing but a token parchment that holds no moral or objective value. Statists everywhere must be rubbing their hands in glee, since the US was once the closest that humanity has ever gotten to a truly free society, based on the unalienable rights of people. Today it’s just another land where these rights are reinterpreted as others see fit.

Admittedly there is a lot wrong with US healthcare. But it’s a typical story of lobby groups breaking down regulation until this becomes a mere shadow of any initial intent. This is nothing new though, as all societies voting for representatives, while giving lobby groups the chance to bribe politicians into compliance, is never going to be efficient in the long run. Add to this the donations for those campaigning for office, and representatives are never going to serve anyone but the most powerful special interest groups overall.

In spite what those on the left might tell you, it’s not just corporations that hold sway in this respect. Labour unions like the Service Employees International Union, and feminist lobby groups like the National Organisation for Women, are also very influential. Sure, the obvious culprits like financial institutions and oil companies are always in the mix, and of course there’s drug industry lobbyists, highly relevant to the present topic.

Drug industry lobbyists have been pushing for medical prices to remain higher in the wake of Obamacare, a consistent lobbying pattern that leads to anything but a free market of supply and demand. What this does lead to is exploitable red tape in the terms and conditions of policies. Obamacare will purportedly rectify this, though all this regulation will inevitably lead to artificial price fixing, with only slightly less complexity in the terminology that sets out in policies. Obamacare simply prevents a free market of competition between insurance companies from ensuing, contributing to a crony capitalist society.

The slippery slope of inefficiency, leading to a gradual socialisation of the healthcare system, seems unavoidable now in the US – it’s only a matter of time. But what would this result in? For starters you can expect more and more cronyism to be adopted. One such example would be cleaning contracts for hospitals. In the UK this is notoriously bad. Contracts are sold to the lowest bidder in a tender offer, over extended periods of several years. The company that wins the contract, often having made the lowest offer, will cut corners in order to make a profit, with disastrous effect. Recently there’s been an outbreak of legionnaires disease in an Edinburgh hospital, linked to a contaminated water supply. To date one person has died, and several were put in intensive care.

Legionnaires aside, in the UK there’s also the outbreak of MRSA that resurfaces from time to time, again strongly associated with lack of hospital hygiene. UK Hospital waiting times are also a serious issue, up to 7699 people waiting over 36 weeks in Wales, where I live in the UK. These statistics are often worse than they’re made out to be, partly because there’s a low, medium, and high priority system when being referred to a hospital. Of course, when the pressure on waiting lists is up, the definition of ‘priority’ is re-evaluated.

Canadian waiting times for socialised healthcare

are also very poor (click for full sized image):

Speaking from personal experience I have very little to say that’s positive about public healthcare. My father suddenly dropped dead of a heart attack two years ago, and though he was blatantly overweight, his doctor basically allowed him to self-diagnose for years as a sufferer of heartburn, playing along with this absurd suggestion, no doubt because it meant one less person on a hospital waiting list. I would regularly say to my father that he was overweight, but others humoured his delusions, including professionals. As an overweight man my father had to take responsibility for not being here today. Nonetheless, in a private healthcare system medical check-ups are far more readily available, since there’s no pressure on quality of service, and doctors can be safe rather than sorry when diagnosing a patient.

My wife also had a tough time when giving birth to our daughter. We were told on the week of Christmas that our daughter had situs inversus, or in other words that the organs in the body are reversed. On New Years Eve it turned out that the nurses doing the ultrasound scan, which doctors do in the US, most likely had the machine aligned incorrectly, therefore mirroring the organs of the body. The moral of the story? Don’t send a nurse to do a doctor’s job!

During labour, my wife was hoping to have a water birth, but this was abandoned when the running water became discoloured (*cough* legionnaires). She went through around ten hours of labour, only to be told that the baby was back-to-back with the mother, which makes it impossible to push the baby out. She then had to have an episiotomy (look it up - it’s not nice).

As a result my wife then spent several days in a dirty ward, where even a second pillow was considered a big ask. My newborn daughter, having contracted jaundice, was struggling to stay awake long enough to feed, while my wife, having never had a child, was simply left to her own devices, unaware that she had to practically force our daughter to stay awake just so she could drink enough milk. All the while the severity of my wife’s stitches made it difficult for her to move. I was only allowed to be around this particular ward at certain times of day, which meant my support for her was limited until she got home a few days later.

It took weeks of intensive feeding routines to get my daughter’s jaundice to diminish, warned by nurses that she would have to go back into hospital if it didn’t get better. It would have helped if the nurses had given my wife the right feeding advice as soon as my daughter was born. But you see, that’s the thing with socialism - no one’s responsible for anything. As Winston Churchill once said:

“Socialism is the morbid doctrine that nothing matters but the equal sharing of miseries.”

If you ask a ‘progressive’ they will probably say no. According to patriarchy theory us men are the oppressive class, the ones with all the power, hogging success due to the privilege that goes along with patriarchal power. But life is not so one-sided. There are men who live their whole lives as blue-collar workers, fixing pipes or wiring, or working as a chef in a restaurant. Even in this scenario there are those who would insist that a chef is still higher up the social ladder compared to the person who cleans dishes or waits on tables. Meanwhile the upper echelons of society are looked upon as the beneficiaries of the efforts of the many, like company executives. It’s often glossed over that these men work the longest hours of all.

The division of social oppression doesn’t stop with men. There’s race, sexuality, and your standard social class, or whatever else can be added into the mix to suggest that a planned society is how we stop ‘regressives’ from harming the vulnerable.

The fact is that progressives are obsessed with hierarchy. They suggest that this is what they want to end, though in truth they are fixated by it. Without hierarchy there would be no way to preach the moral high ground so nanny state can come and make things better. This is the ride to bureaucracy and public funding they are after – a free meal on the coffers of taxable revenue.

There is no distinction for individual nature to a progressive. You are either a ‘have’, or a ‘have-not’ – ability doesn’t factor into the equation. If you’re the former you’re used to attain power, and if you’re the latter you’re used to maintain it. Men are at the bottom of this pile, and nothing demonstrates this more than the disregard for black men, who are the continuously shown to be the demographic with the lowest life expectancy, while black women even have a higher life expectancy than white men. There is no better indicator for quality of life than the amount of years that you live - so much for male privilege.

Close to my heart is the way that fathers are treated by feminist progressivism. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a happily married father with a wife and daughter I adore, but this is all the more reason to feel for those men disenfranchised by family courts. In the UK 93% of custody is awarded to the mother, while the courts are notoriously bad at upholding visitation rights. Progressives cannot help but intrude on the individual, and the case of a Canadian father deemed too obese to see raise his own children is a new low of late.

We fathers often get a bad rap. A regular social meme is the deadbeat dad. Even father’s day is considered an acceptable time to shame dads, as David Cameron’s article on father’s day demonstrates. Yet again, this is not the full picture. 57% of mothers in the US have been found to keep to their child support obligations, while 69% of fathers do. The fact is that the family court system is rigged in the favour of women, and while women have been allowed to shed their old role as default nurturer, we men have been given no such flexibility when it comes to our roles as providers.

That’s not to say that I, like other ideologues deny practical reality. There is of course a valid case to be made for the roles of men and women in history. Today though the case is pretty weak. As long as hunter/gatherer roles are less necessary then women should accommodate men as nurturers, just as men have accommodated them as providers. One thing’s for sure though, a world where men and women don’t raise children together is one that throws away stability in the process.

Our children need their biological parents because they are the ones who will sacrifice the most for them. We have kin altruism to thank for that – the bond that makes blood far thicker than water.  Otherwise it’s nanny state to the rescue once again, and with it some of that individual autonomy that should never be bargained with.

Above all we need a men’s movement to set the record straight. Men have been repeatedly slandered since the civil rights era. It seems that many can’t distinguish between the actions of one man, and all men. Apart from setting the record straight and challenging agnotological (a la cultural) lies, induced by feminist hyperbole, we men must stand up for our essential liberty. No one put this better than Benjamin Franklin when he said:

What the men’s movement should not become is another version of feminism. Feminism started out as a movement concerned with de facto rights, or those defined by fact. One such example would be the unalienable rights that we are born with. We are not born into slavery or servitude. Hence we are free individuals, and with this freedom comes rights and responsibilities. As free individuals we can live free of coercive elements and exercise our own labour, transferring our own freedom into the world around us, sowing the fruits of our own existence, much like animals in the wild. What this results in is natural property rights, which even animals and tribal cultures adopt by maintaining territories.

As human progress evolved people realised that territorial battles among parties was a zero sum game. Thus they created contract law and trading psrtnerships, so that exchanges between parties would become a universally preferable outcome of positive sum trade; why fight when you can trade? That way all those involved can walk away from the table with their lives, and something else in the bargain. Thanks to contract law our rights are now written down, meaning that we brandish a piece of paper instead of a gun when our sovereignty is challenged.

As long as we focus on a de facto definition of rights then there is little risk of going down a path of abstract and arbitrary laws that have no basis in reality. One such example is marriage. While marriage is a legal union, it is still based on the natural relationship that occurs between men and women when they pair-bond to reproduce and raise chidren. This consistently accompanies social prosperity and the success of children with two biological parents, driven by kin altruism.

This is especially prevalent when we look at the rise of western civilisation, which was founded on monogamous principles of Judeo-Christian values. When we examine the evolutionary advantages of monogamy it is apparent that Christianity became a cultural representation of the natural propensity for human pair-bonding to occur when population numbers begin to thrive and rise.

Then there’s de jure rights. When we start to revert to this rights do become abstract, arbitrary, and even spurious. De jure rights are based on law, but this alone is no basis for rights. After all one could make a whole array of dubious claims about what de jure rights they deserve, with no basis in de facto rights at all. Consider divine right. Monarchs are often believed to have the right to rule based on them being chosen by god. Is this based in fact? No, since there is the requirement to prove this is the case – a burden of proof. If a monarch enacts laws based on the false premise of being god’s representative, this leads to a legal system that throws de facto rights out the window.

By the 60’s second-wave feminism became the very definition of de jure rights. Rather than focussing on natural and unalienable rights, feminism concerned entirely itself with the abstract – affirmative action programs demanding certain numbers of women in positions within society, an obsession with increasing the duration that abortion is permissible, or the definition of rape, which is now defined by the FBI as:

Obviously this is a highly subjective and problematic definition open to interpretation. This is what happens when we lose a grip on facts, reverting to de jure rights influenced by postmodernism.

This is not what men’s rights should lead to. The way to avoid this is by focussing entirely on de facto rights, and the unalienable autonomy that we are born with as free people. If we do not do this then men’s rights will become yet another social justice movement driven by radicals wishing to control society through the state, just like feminism. Only through strong philosophical principles, and an understanding that the state is the entity that imposes the abstract, while denying natural freedom, can we create a world where men are free to live in a voluntary society.

Considering these MGTOW pretenders like to condemn women as an inherently oppressive class, incapable of treating men with any sort of mutual respect, I felt it was fitting to see how accurate a little tweaking of the Redstockings Manifesto would be. What I discovered was shocking!

For the record, the changes I have made are very minor. Bar a few extra alterations at point II regarding the nature of “exploitation”, all I have basically done is swap the words man and woman or male and female.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Redbreeches Manifesto:

REDBREECHES MANIFESTO

I    After centuries of individual and preliminary political struggle, men are uniting to achieve their final liberation from female supremacy.  Redbreeches is dedicated to building this unity and winning our freedom.  

II    Men are an oppressed class.  Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives.  We are exploited as soldiers, sperm donors, worker drones, and cheap labor.  We are considered inferior beings, whose only purpose is to enhance women's lives.  Our humanity is denied.  Our prescribed behavior is enforced by the threat of physical violence.

Because we have lived so intimately with our oppressors, in isolation from each other, we have been kept from seeing our personal suffering as a political condition.  This creates the illusion that a man's relationship with his woman is a matter of interplay between two unique personalities, and can be worked out individually.  In reality, every such relationship is a class relationship, and the conflicts between individual women and men are political conflicts that can only be solved collectively.

III    We identify the agents of our oppression as women.  Female supremacy is the oldest, most basic form of domination.  All other forms of exploitation and oppression (racism, capitalism, imperialism, etc.) are extensions of female supremacy: women dominate men, a few women dominate the rest.  All power structures throughout history have been female-dominated and female-oriented.  Women have controlled all political, economic and cultural institutions and backed up this control with physical force.  They have used their power to keep men in an inferior position.  All women receive economic, sexual, and psychological benefits from female supremacy. All women have oppressed men.

IV    Attempts have been made to shift the burden of responsibility from women to institutions or to men themselves.  We condemn these arguments as evasions.  Institutions alone do not oppress; they are merely tools of the oppressor.  To blame institutions implies that women and men are equally victimized, obscures the fact that women benefit from the subordination of men, and gives women the excuse that they are forced to be oppressors.  On the contrary, any woman is free to renounce her superior position, provided that she is willing to be treated like a man by other women.

We also reject the idea that men consent to or are to blame for their own oppression. Men's submission is not the result of brain-washing, stupidity or mental illness but of continual, daily pressure from women.  We do not need to change ourselves, but to change women.

The most slanderous evasion of all is that men can oppress women.  The basis for this illusion is the isolation of individual relationships from their political context and the tendency of women to see any legitimate challenge to their privileges as persecution. 

V    We regard our personal experience, and our feelings about that experience, as the basis for an analysis of our common situation.  We cannot rely on existing ideologies as they are all products of female supremacist culture.  We question every generalization and accept none that are not confirmed by our experience.

Our chief task at present is to develop male class consciousness through sharing experience and publicly exposing the sexist foundation of all our institutions.  Consciousness-raising is not “therapy,” which implies the existence of individual solutions and falsely assumes that the female-male relationship is purely personal, but the only method by which we can ensure that our program for liberation is based on the concrete realities of our lives.

The first requirement for raising class consciousness is honesty, in private and in public, with ourselves and other men.

VI    We identify with all men.  We define our best interest as that of the poorest, most brutally exploited man.

We repudiate all economic, racial, educational or status privileges that divide us from other men.  We are determined to recognize and eliminate any prejudices we may hold against other men.

We are committed to achieving internal democracy.  We will do whatever is necessary to ensure that every man in our movement has an equal chance to participate, assume responsibility, and develop his political potential.

VII   We call on all our brothers to unite with us in struggle.

We call on all women to give up their female privilege and support men's liberation in the interest of our humanity and their own.

In fighting for our liberation we will always take the side of men against their oppressors.  We will not ask what is “revolutionary” or “reformist,” only what is good for men.

The time for individual skirmishes has passed.  This time we are going our own way.

      June 15, 2012

     Redbreeches

     P.O. Box Barbarossaaaa

     Stardusk Station

     Airstrip One, Oceania.

I trust I've made my point. Don't become what you are fighting against.

UPDATE (16/06/12):

Considering Stardusk has decided to suggest that this has all come out of the blue in a video here I will point people here and here. I have done my utmost to be civil with those that have harassed others into obeying the angle of insurmountably flawed female nature, and anti-family rhetoric. Those harassed people include Cajunlouise and Bernard Chapin, the latter being an outstanding fellow whom I have the utmost respect for.

I am starting to wonder whether Stardusk is a histrionic or a narcissistic personality. He has been causing division within the movement for months, and now he has the audacity to step back and play the victim card when he is called out, after inciting leftist radicals and easily led youtubers like barbarossaaaa into being more vocal about their absolutist ways.

As for the above article, it demonstrates that the language used by certain people within the MRM perfectly fits with leftists and feminists. If people are uncomfortable with this then that is a personal issue that most likely relates to their own attitudes too. If you want proof of Stardusk's radical language then you will find it here, here, and here.

I am mentally prepared to take flack by those that are uncomfortable with exposing separatist and supremacist absolutism within the MRM. The way I see it, a movement that is no better than feminism is not worth being a part of anyway, though this attitude is only a subset of the movement, no matter what others might suggest.

I want to live in a world where men and women coexist peacefully, and free of indoctrination by totalitarian entities, like the state and ideological bigots. No one - feminist, totalitarian, male supremacist, or any other, will bully me into submission. I’ve been through enough in life to understand when it is time to speak up, and this is one of those times.

The insinuation often thrown around is that left-right politics is an illusion. This is a ruse designed to distract people from attaining a truly voluntary society. “Why?” one may ask. Because ideologies are different, some being completely opposed. While we have a system where the battlefield is substituted for the ballot box, both sides are locked in a struggle. Meanwhile, those who operate at the state or government level, reap the rewards of bureaucracy, forcing everyone else to endure broken promises of political, economic and social reform. Meanwhile career politicians milk the teat of society for every drop. In spite of this it doesn’t change the fact that the left and right are diametrically distinguishable:

The left believes in a planned economy, often enacted through Keynesianism, and the redistribution of wealth via progressivism. This results in property ownership being limited, or absolute collective ownership of assets. Where property is limited it comes with heavy tax obligations, and strong limits for passing wealth on through inheritance. At the same time the government is a bloated entity of large bureaucracy, and this can even result in a public sector that dwarfs the marketplace, or the government controlling all the means of production.

The right was founded upon the basis of laissez-faire, a system of free market interaction through voluntary exchanges of goods, primarily via monetary transactions. Individual property rights are essential to the success of this system, contract law being a key area that solidifies individual ownership of assets. Traditionally the right has always been for small bureaucracy, which often accompanies low taxation, and limited interference from the government into the lives of the citizen.

The initial diagram is a basic illustration of how the left-right paradigm operates. To fully expand upon this it is a good idea to go back to the start of the industrial revolution and see what the left and right represented then:

When the industrial revolution came about during the 18^th century the left-right paradigm began to take shape. During feudal times a form of despotic rule gripped the western world, where a caste system was largely in place. If you were born a peasant, you would die a peasant. If you were born a noble or a lord, it was likely that you would die as one. The monarchy was at the top of the hierarchy, and would rely on advisors, while the church would usually have a great influence too.

When democracy began to take shape at the start of the industrial revolution two political ideologies were at its fore - conservatism and classical liberalism. The conservatives believed in limiting social change, and the old adage of “if it isn’t broken then don’t try to fix it” is very appropriate to understanding the logic here. There is indeed some credence to be had in the notion that change may not always be for the better. None-the-less it has always been difficult for many to tolerate the rigidity of conservatism.

Classical liberals however were socially progressive, and open to potential change within society. Many early feminists were classically liberal, as were other advocates of human rights, like those who believed in universal suffrage. But that is pretty much where the variation ended. Both classical liberals and conservatives believed in free markets, individual property and a small bureaucracy, at least far smaller than anything that we see today. Bureaucracy always incessantly grows though, and has done so ever since the start of the industrial revolution. There is one main reason for this - socialism.

The emergence of socialism coincided almost immediately with the industrial revolution, since workers were concerned with their ability to control the means of production. But this initially had a very limited influence, particularly since democracy was not immediately a right for every citizen. Initially voting was limited to those that owned property. This might seem harsh, but the reasoning behind this was that if the poor sections of society were able to vote, then they would increase the size of government through welfare and social programs, thus leading to a burden upon individual freedom through an over-reaching state. This kept the left-right paradigm similar in economic structure and property rights, as well as size of bureaucracy.

By the 20^th century universal suffrage began to take hold across the western world. Once every person could vote socialism quickly took hold in Europe. Along with revolutions during the 20^th century, the most famous and far-reaching being the Russian revolution of 1917, this led to a dramatic increase in the size and scope of government into the lives of the individual. In the rest of the west people went to ideological war through the medium of the ballot box, and the two-party system of statism benefited greatly.

Initially the two main parties in the UK were the Conservatives and the Liberal Party. This remained constant for a large part of the 19^th and early 20^th century. Labour, as the left-wing party opposition to the Conservatives, eventually became more popular than the Liberal Party. This led to a transformation of the Liberal Party to the Liberal Democrats, through a merger with the Social Democratic Party. Similar transformations occurred throughout the west, marking the death knell for classical liberalism as a popular philosophy, to what some call modern liberalism. This new movement bares little to no resemblance to classical liberalism though, since socialism has consistently succeeded in co-opting everything it touches over time. It is for this reason above all that socialists can never be underestimated.

During the 60’s, radicalisation across society was pervasive. This resulted in Marxist ideologues latching onto the civil rights movement, fanning the flames of social discontent so that the state could be co-opted. This changed the left of the political paradigm even further, into what was eventually called the New Left:

Socialism, by its very nature, pushed the political spectrum further to the left, leaving classical liberalism in the centre of the political paradigm, somewhere between left and right of centre, at least on social issues. As the new left came into being the doctrine of political correctness became a central focus. Nothing would be the same again, as the left was now radically opposed to the right in every way, even compared to classical liberalism.

The fact is that socialism is an unbeatable force when it exists in a democracy. Why? Because the ballot box always allows the left to regain power at a later point. From here the left will increase the burden of government debt over time. When the right gets back into power it is nigh on impossible to make any changes, since they are still opposed by the left in political spaces. Thus national debt cannot be decreased without ardent opposition by leftist supporters, like unions, civil rights groups, public sector workers, university academics, and all those living on the handouts of the state, funded by the redistribution of productivity via taxation.

What’s more, this state of affairs is exactly what the left wants. Collapse of capitalism is what Karl Marx himself envisioned, but unlike his interpretation it is not a natural occurrence due to market imperfections, but an agenda to crush free market interaction, stifling it through bureaucracy and socialist economic policies. One such example of this deliberate attempt to collapse capitalism is the Cloward-Piven strategy. By overloading the government with debt, and then relying on radicals to protest when any cutbacks are attempted, it is impossible to reduce the size and scope of government, which means that the right makes little progress. That is why national debt has been on the rise for decades, and after the deadlock raising the debt ceiling in the US in the summer of 2011, there seems to be no way to end this marginalisation of fiscal conservatism.

The left doesn’t care about what is sustainable. It is an ideology based on irrationality, where base human emotions such as animosity and jealousy are fine-tuned into a political engine of unstoppable erosion. The ideology is very attractive to people who are unable to rise above mediocrity, or too lazy to try. This group finds it hard to accept that their own shortcomings might also be based on their lack of ability. So the finger of social oppression is pointed everywhere, as long as it leads to more collectivism, with the eventual culmination of collapse of the whole of society via a bloated and tyrannical state, all because ‘needs’ are deified. But in truth it is people of ability that elevate human progress, and whether we like it or not most of use will never be great enough to provide anything more than a fleeting contribution. Stifle this and the whole human race suffers.

There is only one way to truly stop the left from winning basically every battle ever since the introduction of democracy. The state must be marginalised. Then every ideology can be free to express itself, as long as there is a respect for non-aggression and property rights. That is not to say that collectivists cannot share their property via agreed contractual terms, or co-operatively operate the means of production in a free market. But it is the left that wishes to restrict everyone else’s expression, and they do this through endless absolutism.

There is no doubt however that presently even the most strong-willed fiscal conservative struggles with handling the reigns of power once they reach the state level – it is like being given Sauron’s ring. And who always wins when the ring of statism is donned? Why the state of course, and those who control this entity. Even though the left always wins, and the right always loses, the result of this is always totalitarian. Many bureaucrats know full well how the battle of left and right feeds their voracious appetites for power.

All the more reason though to reduce the reach of the state, allowing people to live in a society built upon mutually beneficial interaction. Statist coercion however is the true distraction, not the left-right paradigm. Anyone who tells you that left and right is an illusion, or that an issue is apolitical, is most likely well aware that the left always beats back the right eventually:

As a result of this early conditioning I spent the majority of my life believing that leftist ideology was right about basically everything. I believed it to be the embodiment of fairness, justice, virtue, and a better all-round society. I cringe at how I believed feminist agnotology, or how I respected people like Michael Moore. But by the time I hit my 30’s I was independently studying, reading, watching videos and documentaries, looking at websites, and examining the alternative – the other argument - the one that is heavily suppressed by the mainstream.

It took me to a wonderful world of classically liberal philosophy championed by Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Ludwig Von Mises, and many more. It showed me that a limited government protects the liberty of the individual and wider society. It showed me that government suffers from the knowledge problem, where the state is unable to react to the needs of the public rationally and efficiently, while a free market adapts to the needs of society through consumer demand.

I have learnt that there is credence in social conservatism seeking to protect society from cultural degradation, or that equality is really a buzzword that denies practical reality. In other words, we are all free, but we are not all equally capable. This is what the left does not understand, and this is why Marxian inspired social warfare is so short-sighted and destructive. It fails to conceive that human beings are victims of circumstance, and are only every able to enact equality when there is no threat to survival. But even when people are able to relax their social boundaries they cannot do this without a strong foundation within society, and this must occur within a sustainable framework.

I wouldn’t call myself a social conservative – I am more of a right-wing libertarian. But to even utter the word ‘right’ in our present western culture is often a recipe for automatic criticism. In the US one has to be very careful which state they are in if they are going to be open about political affiliation. In Texas Republicans are dominant, while in California it is the Democrats. In the UK there is basically no right, since leftist parties like Labour and the Liberal Democrats quell the opposition. All that remains is a mere shadow of conservative values, cocooned in a shell of religiosity.

One of the ways that the right has been smeared is an alleged associated with Nazism. First, it always amuses me that people gloss over the fact that Nazism is short for ‘National Socialism’ in German. What’s more the Nazis controlled society through central planning, a socialist philosophy, albeit Nazis did not abolish property rights altogether, like the communists. Social conservatism also has nothing to do with Nazi style mass genocide either, but can be isolationist at its extreme. The confusion regarding Nazi alignment can be solved with the political compass:

The horizontal line defines economic stance (communism/collectivism – neo-liberalism/libertarianism), and the vertical line defines social views (authoritarian/fascism – libertarian/anarchism). The Nazis were economically central, and socially fascist. The suggestion of Nazis as far right has been repeatedly used to describe Nazi sympathisers, or those that share similarities, like Anders Breivik. This is not accurate. It’s interesting to note however that nobody ever talks about the far left. In fact that term is never used to describe modern extremists.

This is where we truly begin to see the reason why Nazism has been thrown at the lap of the right, while the destructive nature of communism has been ignored. Since the civil rights movement of the 60’s there has been a radical transformation of the left of the political spectrum in democratic countries. While the political paradigm was once broken down into classical liberalism on one end, and conservatism on the other, there has been a push even further left, to what is now called the ‘New Left’. Through Soviet style ideological subversion this has led to far-left radicals gaining positions of influence in society. In particular this occurred in academia, where Marxian inspired lecturers now promoting their leftist critique.

What didn’t help in averting this were the policies of Joseph McCarthy during the 1950’s. This led to the term McCarthyism to describe those who accuse others of being communist subversives. But we do know from defectors from the USSR that ideological subversion was very much at the forefront of Soviet espionage during the cold war. One such example is Yuri Bezmenov, an ex-KGB defector. But this didn’t prevent paranoia from kicking in, where people were in danger of becoming what they were fighting against, much like the ‘war on terror’ today.

Now that I am free of leftist indoctrination I find myself relishing the classical liberalism at the centre of the enlightenment and industrial revolution. As a result the Austrian School, Rand’s Objectivism, or the Chicago School, among other philosophies of similar vein, now inspire me. I am fascinated by the question of minarchism versus anarcho-capitalism, where like-minded individuals debate the shape of a classically liberal government.

The minarchist desires a minimal state, where the government simply protects the people via police and military, and where courts are also provided for arbitration. Meanwhile the anarcho-capitalist feels that the state is inefficient in every sense, monopolising force by its mere existence. Both ideologies however espouse free markets, property rights, and non-aggression, all fundamental to classical liberalism.

Fiscal conservatism is also a core value of the right, not to be mistaken with social conservatism. While socialists feel that everything should operate via state redistribution, fiscal conservatives understand that this is expensive, inefficient, and leads to a loss of individual liberty. This is precisely why the larger the state becomes, the more national debt increases. The US started out as a minimal government based on pioneering philosophy of individual liberty and unalienable rights, and has turned out to be the largest state in history, with huge national debts of around 16 trillion.

This is one of the reasons why anarcho-capitalists feel that the state cannot exist, since it will inevitably grow over time. I am inclined to believe that the real conundrum is whether it is feasible to make it impossible for the state to grow once it is minimised. Minimal state or no state it truly is a matter of healthy rhetoric among fellow classical liberals, who realise that socialism has led to inherited national debt by the unborn, a nanny state, intrusive government that meddles with every facet of life, and a push towards totalitarianism. The right seeks to prevent this, and this is why the right is right.

I call this diagram, and the theory that it spawned, the ‘Gender Equality Paradigm’. Feminists talk about female objectification, while men’s rights proponents often talk about male disposability. Both phenomena are based on legitimate aspects of gender identity, albeit there is an obvious disparity when we look more closely. This leads to learned helplessness if entrenched into an ideology. Feminists seem to feel that their objectification has no advantages, while some in the men’s rights movement feel that male disposability has harboured no positive results for men either. There is therefore a discrepancy to address, initially requiring a breakdown of the categories represented by the four corners of the diagram:

The biological vulnerabilities of women have meant that they have found other ways to survive. Like many animals, they rely on the ability to acquire agents to assist in this endeavour, not unlike pets that use endearing qualities to acquire support. The role of women as vulnerable, yet efficient nurturers has resulted in them being treated like precious objects that must be protected at all costs, since men, as supporters of women, go to great lengths to make them feel comfortable and happy. The instinct to protect and care for women results in elevating them to pedestals that often make them infallible and free of responsibility. Many, including women, often show systemic gender bias towards females.

From the perspective of a woman this can result in them being treated in a similar manner to children. While the swooning behaviour of women can have positive effects on the acquisition of assistance, it can also lead to women who wish to be more independent feeling patronised or overprotected. That being said the modernisation of society is the primary reason that women are capable of being as independent as they are today. One of the greatest dangers and limitations to women in history was childbirth, which would always place the mother’s life at risk, especially if complications were to arise. Again, modernity via medicine and contraception significantly helped women in this regard.

The man, as the risk-taker and provider, is showered with great adulation, praise, power and reward upon his success. Men, while given heavy burdens of responsibility, have the opportunity to rise to the top of the social ladder, it being possible to carve out a legacy that has been out of reach for women in the past. Many leaders in history would also partake in roles that women would never have been capable of as a rule, like generals who fought alongside their troops, Julius Caesar and Napoleon being two very famous examples.

For a man to prove his worth he has to take risks that often put his health and well being in jeopardy. Human beings also consistently care less about men, since consideration for male safety and health are lesser concerns, especially when compared to women. This is an evolutionary and cultural condition akin to ants in a colony being sacrificed for its success. It is important to note that many of the responsibilities put upon men in the past were often based on necessity, since expecting women to take the place of men would have inevitably had a detrimental effect on success overall.

While this is a brief breakdown of the detailed field of gender dynamics, this, along with the diagram, demonstrates that being a man or a woman has its advantages and disadvantages. Social change is never an easy thing to enact, and it is a sad fact that this often results in the pendulum of change swinging too far in the other direction. It is for this reason that when we attempt to implement change we must never do it by suppressing the full interpretation of reality, since this leads to anger and resentment. Feminists and the Marxian inspired ideologues behind its inception have always tapped into social warfare when bringing about transformation, and it is for this reason that feminism is so one-sided and flawed in its reasoning. This results in revisionist tactics that obstruct the full appreciation of gender dynamics. In the case of feminism, negative male disposability and positive female objectification are ignored. With regards to the diagram two quarters are left blank:



This demonstrates that feminist theory makes no effort to consider negative male disposability, and ultimately fails to recognise its existence. One minor exception is kyriarchy, though this still primarily suggests men can also be oppressed by patriarchal structures, i.e other men. On the other hand the suggestion that average women have any true power over average men is a dismissed in the vast majority of cases, especially in the political and academic arena, where men’s issues are seriously downplayed. Therefore feminists keep switching back and forth between a perception of misogyny and positive male disposability, which only leads to female supremacy, since it fails to consider positive female objectification and negative male disposability.

The men’s movement is barely taking off, but even now it is clear that there are some who are incapable of viewing history through a lens that observes the full picture. If this is not addressed very early on then there is a serious risk that the men’s movement will make the same mistakes as feminism, thus taken over by political radicals who seek to divide society. On this basis it is important that those who would ignore negative female objectification and positive male disposability are challenged:



Such a view only leads to half the paradigm being visible, just like feminism. In this case male supremacy is a result of a short-sighted perception of misandry, since positive male disposability and negative female objectification are ignored. This creates yet more imbalances, requiring a need for equal and opposite reaction. Such a course of action is typically the smokescreen for radicals to manoeuvre themselves into positions of influence and authority, and historically fails to lead to a place of equilibrium.

It is therefore essential that one views the full paradigm when advocating for change, lest those who have no interest in creating harmony be the ones that are heard, since they are often the ones that are noticed by the disingenuous. These people are the most open to being manipulated, especially by those in positions of state influence who would seek to co-opt a movement for political ends.

It sounds like an obvious question. According to the dictionary definition feminism is defined as “the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.” You wouldn’t be the first one to believe that through this definition, and the impression advanced within society, that feminism represents women. The next assumption would be that feminism is beneficial to all women, since all women are supposed to have better lives due to the policies advocated by this movement.

Feminism is perpetuated upon the notion that all women are oppressed, and have been kept down throughout human history. In this vain women are entitled to more social and political justice to correct these errors. There is a problem with this theory, and it is multiple in its consistency. Until the latter part of the 20th century men were men and women were women. Obvious I know, but not to feminists. A woman’s job in history was not based on oppression, but on biological reality. Even this however is denied by feminist claims that men and women are equal. Equal in what way, one may ask? That is the question.

Men and women are born unto this world in the same manner, pushed forth from the womb of a woman, be it male or female. They are not born into servitude, and in this regard all people are instilled with unalienable rights. How could it be any other way, since there is no absolute creed to claim that we belong to anyone? On this basis all people are free, and no person has a right to claim otherwise, since no matter how affluent your background, you are still a human being, just like everyone else.

There is the practical reality that comes along with this, and this is where the picture becomes more complex. Being free does not mean that you are entitled to anything other than what you can achieve with your own merit. Therefore you are entitled to benefit from your own labour, or to claim something as your own if it is based upon the fruits of your labour. By no means are you able to claim that you are entitled to the labour of another though.

What then if you are unable to achieve something? Is it fair to state that you are entitled to something because you are incapable? On what basis could you claim such a thing? Is it not fallacious to state that you have a right to the labour of another? Such a claim is vague at best, and tyrannical at worst. It is therefore by the grace of another that they may grant you with the fruits of their labour. Fortunately nature has an answer for this.

Human beings are social animals that not only enjoy company, but also thrive in a cooperative environment. This brings people together, and nature has a way of fulfilling certain roles. Men and women compliment each other in ways that make them work perfectly as a team. While men hunted, built, and reasoned their way to success, women nurtured, communicated, and provided stable domestic settings that have always benefited the fabric of human existence.

Whether it was a cave, a mud hut, a cottage, a suburban home, or a metropolitan apartment, women are known for their ability to nest. Likewise, men protected and provided for women and children throughout eras like the neolithic period and other early human civilisations, and into the modern sprawling culture we have today.

Let’s go back in time to the stone-age. Imagine that feminism came about in this period. Would ancient women have complained that they were unable to go out and hunt, stuck at the camp with the other women all day, collecting berries and looking after one another’s young? I highly doubt it. Women evolved to carry out their role with precision, and their contribution to the species via childbirth was a great one, which came with serious risk of death. Conversely, women were not so adapted to hunt, while men, particularly through male oriented hormones like testosterone, were perfectly crafted to use focussed vision and increased strength to home in on a target and throw a spear, killing a wilder beast and bringing it home to roast on an open fire.

Therefore feminism was not practical in the past. As we travel through the ages we see that men and women did adapt and change their roles, but as a rule they stuck to what they felt comfortable with, since the biological qualities that make men men, and women women, made them gravitate towards certain roles. This wasn’t perfect, but then again human beings aren’t perfect. When we objectively examine the evidence we realise that all human beings have ever done is try to survive. Sadly though the struggle to survive can lead to less desirable outcomes, like a culture of violence through tribal warfare, where collectives fight over scarce resources, or fear sparked by superstition in a world of uncertainty.

In spite of all this human beings are the most successful species on the planet. Every problem they faced they overcame, and with this came modernity; technology, science, philosophy, engineering, economics, and a plethora of advancements that made life easier for everyone. Feminism would have us believe otherwise. It would have us believe that men and women never cooperated, and that the innovations of men somehow popped out of nowhere.

To feminists the very breakthroughs that provided the contraceptive pill, medicine, automation, supermarkets, indoor working environments, and all the things that make the modern female’s life possible, are not testament of male support for women. Feminists instead talk about patriarchy theory, the idea that the world is beset with oppressive males who held women back and hurt them. But truthfully this is nothing short of exaggeration at best, and a lie at worst.

Men simply did their best to survive, just as women did. Through their ignorance, as humble creatures traversing the landscape of time, they made mistakes. Men have suffered for those mistakes, and so have women. Women also benefited from the productivity of men in an era where it was completely impractical for women to live as they do today. But in all likelihood they would not have felt the need to mimic men, much like the manner in which women simply do not wish to carry out certain male dominated roles today, like jobs based on manual labour. Human beings are wired to act a certain way, but this is not fatally deterministic. As a result men and women can change. This transformation though cannot occur until the time is right. Sometimes this change is hard to enact, since human beings are also creatures of familiarity, and with this familiarity comes comfort.

Fast-forward to the first-wave of feminism. The first-wave was largely based upon what people call de facto rights. Women wanted the ability to own property and desired more employment freedom, and the world had moved on enough in the 19th century for many of these rights to be instilled, in spite of opposition from those in society who feared change, a natural reaction from many human beings. Then came the second-wave in the 60’s. The second-wave feminists were interested in de jure rights, and this movement was dominated by radicals. Second wave feminists actually called themselves radical feminists, but this was far more than a title – it was literal.

The rhetoric of second-wave feminists goes hand-in-hand with Marxian driven critique. It is for this reason social science and humanities departments in universities are the breeding ground of feminists on campus. Second-wave feminists, in all their guises were ultimately separatist female Marxists wishing to create their own movement. Well, that is what they got. Rudimentary to Marxist theory, and that is influenced by it, is class warfare. A more accurate analogy for this is social warfare, since any demographic of society is a potential battleground for the conflict that Marxists seek.

By fanning the flames of conflict, with whatever group might listen, Marxists seek to supplant authority with their own ideology. It is a sad fact that feminism, like much of the civil rights movement, was radicalised by this Marxist critique. That is not to say that some of the civil rights era was not necessary or productive, but Marxist ideologues are the reason why this era has resulted in undesirable consequences, as the pendulum swung too far.

When second-wave feminists protested for change they used tactics that were far from honourable. They accused men of being fundamentally flawed, hurting women socially, domestically, economically, and other abuses regularly cited as aspects of patriarchal oppression. While men are not perfect, they most certainly are not the demons that feminist hyperbole suggests. The stats and theories that feminists cite to are mired in conjecture at best, but at worst it has no basis in objectivity.

Women were not inherently oppressed in history. Men had a difficult time being a provider and protector, while female nurturing was a valuable role that came with its own risks through pregnancy and childbirth. When men failed women suffered, and women could not have done without male support anymore than men could have reproduced without female aid. Feminists disregarded all of this when they manufactured feminist theory. Even the innovations of men that allowed women to move away from their generic biological roles were ignored.

To feminists, men were predominantly oppressors, and the narrative of feminist theory was contrived entirely around this premise. Combined with claims of glass ceilings in the workplace, epidemics of rape, domestic violence mendacity, and a myriad of other accusations, feminists succeeding in infuriating, indoctrinating and radicalising a whole generation of women, as well as their male supporters. This is why feminism is a dominant ideology today.

Who benefits from this? Women? They only benefit in as far as they are led to believe they have emancipation, but what they really have is obligations akin to men. Today women have no choice but to join men at work, merely to sustain a standard of living the baby boomers enjoyed. Since divorce rates are now so high and single people are more common, resources are spread more thinly than ever. This leads to prices going up in markets like property. Jobs are also scarcer since more people than ever compete, whereas previously men and women worked as teams in stable nuclear families, raising well-rounded children for the next generation. In this setting mothers and fathers would be part of their children’s lives.

So who truly benefits from feminism? Socialists for one. They are the group dreaming of a naïve proletariat’s paradise, where everyone works, and the nuclear family is marginalized, since it is purportedly a product of property rights. But above all it is the state that benefits the most, since more people now pay taxes, and the breakdown of the nuclear family leads to a dependence on welfare programs, which spurs on an expansion of the state. Women regularly vote for the left, since socialism is what women need when society is not etched in mutually beneficial interaction between men and women.

Feminism does not represent all women. All women might superficially benefit from feminism, but this is all a façade, and this façade will come crashing down once unsustainable social programs cease. The state will make use of any group that gives it more power, and it is this that robs us of our liberty.

It was only when I sat down to write this article that I discovered it was gone (update: here it is). Therefore I am left feeling that it is even more essential that I complete my objective here, so men might be fully armed with the knowledge to combat ‘sperm theft’. The whole premise of this post may seem patronising. It might even seem ludicrous that an adult male may be unaware of details involving impregnation, but believe me it is far from either of these things.

Sperm theft is a very real problem in our present culture. According to a UK scientific review a median of 26.9% of men have been victims of paternity fraud, meaning that both father and alleged father have often been conned by a woman continuing her charade. Psychological studies also show that women hide their affairs far better than men. Still not convinced? How about the findings of a survey showing that 40% of 3000 pregnancies were unplanned? The BBC article states that:

19% of unplanned pregnancies being down to a split condom is very high. It takes a lot to break a condom, especially if worn correctly. Personally I have never had a condom split. My own personal experiences make me feel that the likelihood of condoms splitting 7.6% of the time, which the survey would indicate occurred over 3000 pregnancies, is highly questionable. You would think that countless experiences of sexual intercourse with my wife with a condom would have garnered this result at least once. This is not the case.

Here is a list setting out the reliability of contraceptives across a wide variety of choices. You will immediately notice that the percentage chance to get pregnant after a year of sexual activity with any contraception increases significantly. The percentage chance of getting a woman pregnant with the condom after one year is 12%. This seems even higher than the survey, yet I have never experienced this occurring. After my wife gave birth to our daughter we both felt it would better to keep her body free of the effects of the contraceptive pill for the foreseeable future. The contraceptive pill dramatically affects the female menstrual cycle and hormone levels, so this is the reason for the decision. As such I have been using condoms now for almost two years. Again, no broken condoms, and no ‘bun in the oven’.

So how do we arrive at these questionable and somewhat meaningless figures? Unless we have far more observable conditions, for all 1200 cases of unplanned pregnancies in another survey, it’s hard to take someone’s word seriously. I’m sure we can also agree that creating a more observable survey would look more like a set to a new Jenna Jameson movie. So this isn’t likely to happen. Second, I think the pharmaceutical companies providing contraception have a vested interest in suggesting that the likelihood of contraception failing is actually much higher. That way companies can avoid being sued when things do occasionally fail to go according to plan. So something else is happening, and I’m sure we can guess that some people aren’t being completely honest.

The survey in the scientific article also suggests that 3% of unplanned pregnancies were from failure to put a condom on. Did the woman ‘convince’ the man that she was on the pill? Did she tell him that it would “be okay?” Of course men can whine about having sex with a condom, but is this common enough for 36 out of 1200 unplanned pregnancies to occur in this manner? One has to ask who was doing the convincing to ‘keep it off’?

Which leads us onto the biggest figure of unplanned pregnancies in the survey – the contraceptive pill. 62%, or 744 unplanned pregnancies occurred when the pill was unsuccessful. That’s a whopping 24.8% of the 3000 total pregnancies in the survey! Even according to the list of contraceptives 3% of women will become pregnant after one year of using the pill. This highlights a major discrepancy.

A BBC Talking Point poses the ironic question, “Would you trust a man to take the pill?” because apparently the male contraceptive pill could be available in 5 years. This was posted 12 years ago. So apart from the fact that a male pill will undoubtedly set men free from a lack of reproductive rights in the present climate, we also have to ask why on earth it’s taking so long to develop? In the meantime we can grow human ears on mice and send satellites into orbit around the earth. Call me paranoid, but it seems to me that too many people have a lot to gain from the financial servitude of men towards mothers.

But this is the least of men’s problems. We are supposed to believe that unplanned pregnancies are so common today that many simply accept it casually when we hear a woman say, “It was an accident.” I know two women who are presently pregnant 'by accident'. I also know another who recently had a baby when she accidentally became pregnant too. One basically admitted she lied. Anecdotal evidence yes, but are we truly naïve enough to believe the woman’s word every time, especially when relating to a reliable contraceptive like the pill?

Before my daughter was born, and before my wife and I were married, we relied on the contraceptive pill for around ten years. Not once in that time did my wife get pregnant. Not once did we need to deal with an unplanned pregnancy. One of the biggest reasons (or excuses) given for an unplanned pregnancy while on the pill is being on antibiotics. Really? To the extent that it’s such a common reason? To the point where as many as 24.8% of 3000 women in the survey got pregnant while on the pill? Besides, many doctors would let patients know about the risk of becoming pregnant due to this factor.

To truly understand why such high degrees of unplanned pregnancies are something to be sceptical about we need to understand the female menstrual cycle. This is broken up into the follicular phase, ovulation, and luteal phase. It’s during the fertile ovulation phase that the woman is most capable of conceiving.

Having sex as close to the start of ovulation as possible is best if pregnancy is the desired result. The newly formed egg will remain in the fallopian tube for around 3 days after being formed. If sperm are also in the fallopian tube during this 3 day period this will significantly increase the odds of fertilisation occurring.

After 3 days the egg will then travel down the fallopian tube and attach itself to the wall of the uterus, called the endometrium. If the egg is not fertilised it will eventually break off the wall of the uterus and slip away, taking a small amount of blood with it. At this point menstruation will begin anew.

In case you haven’t noticed this gives approximately 3 optimum days a month to get pregnant; the period when the egg is in the fallopian tube. This optimum period is not easy to calculate either, and as such women often use an ovulation calculator to figure out which part of the month this occurs in, which my wife used when we planned for the birth of our daughter. When this calculation is made it is possible to get pregnant remarkably quickly, if both the male and female are healthy of course. It took my wife and I six weeks of trying to succeed in getting her pregnant, though we were both armed with the correct information, and mutual determination to have a child.

What more, it’s highly unlikely that it would be so easy to get pregnant from missing the occasional pill here and there. The woman needs to terminate ingestion of the pill before the production of eggs from the ovaries begins to occur once more. This in itself poses the question of how many women aren’t taking the pill at all when they ‘accidentally’ fall pregnant?

Are the alarm bells ringing yet? The idea that getting a woman pregnant is a case of “wham bam thank you ma’am,” at any old time of day, is a myth. Yet here we are talking about ambiguous statistics of 40% of pregnancies being unplanned, condoms failing 12% of the time, which itself can result in women getting pregnant, and 24.8% of women getting pregnant on the pill! Not to mention that the morning after pill is always available for any unforeseen events. I think it’s time men woke up. It takes premeditated intent to get pregnant the vast majority of the time, especially given that women have never had it easier when it comes to controlling their bodies.

There certainly shouldn’t be anywhere near the amount of unplanned pregnancies that we are faced with in society today. My suggestion to men; wear a condom until you are ready to get a woman pregnant. It’s the only way to have peace of mind. And always remember that trust is a two-way street that takes time to build.

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 post 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.

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 isn't 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:

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, homophobe, 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.

Eopyk then 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:

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!