The Political Compass

The concept of the political compass is familiar to many people. On the compass I fall in the left libertarian quadrant.

PoliticalCompass

As you can see the political compass has 2 axis, a left/right axis and a libertarian/authoritarian axis. Political positions are described as falling into one quadrant.

The authoritarian right quadrant would describe the position of right wing ideologies like Nazis, fascists, conservative religious and neocons. They share a desire for controlling the behaviour of other people on social issues but with minimum control in business and economic matters. They group as controlling groups wishing to police the behaviour of others for their own benefit, however differently they define that benefit.

The libertarian right represents Ayn Rand types who eschew any state of government control in the lives of people, either in the social arena or the economic one. Rand Paul best exemplifies this position. They desire the dismemberment of government and the total deregulation of the economy.

The libertarian left values freedom and individual autonomy in social and personal matters but favour government intervention in the market economy. They do not advocate adherence to positions contrary to one’s conscience. They believe that run away economic freedom results in a diminished opportunities for most people to exercise any autonomy in their lives. They believe in social programs to promote such.

The authoritarian left includes Marxists, feminists and most identity politics. I have not included white nationalists in with the identity politics because they are very much right authoritarians with equal, but opposite, instincts. It will become obvious in this post why I fear identity politics of the left as much as I fear that of the right.  Tomorrow’s repressive racists are to be found with the vehement anti-racists of today.

We hear of Nazi apparatchiks in Eastern Europe readily becoming Stalinist apparatchiks without missing a heartbeat. How could someone switch allegiances between 2 diametrically opposed world ideologies?

Robert A Heinlein started off on the left side of politics working for the Southern Poverty Law Centre but switched to the right supporting the Barry Goldwater presidential campaign. He practised nudity. Clearly he was a right libertarian. How could someone switch allegiances between 2 diametrically opposed world ideologies?

Most neocons who ascended to power under G W Bush started out their political lives as Marxists before they became neocons. How could someone switch allegiances between 2 diametrically opposed world ideologies?

The Youtuber T J Kirk (better known as The Amazing Atheist) described himself as originally being a libertarian, meaning a right libertarian but would today clearly identify as a left libertarian. How could someone switch allegiances between 2 diametrically opposed world ideologies?

What is going on here with all these people changing their ideologies? I think the change within these people is not as deep as at first it may seem. My hypothesis is that the left/right axis is mainly cerebral cortex centred, consisting of ideas which are malleable with time and experience but I believe the libertarian/authoritarian axis is rooted deeper in the lymbric system of the brain, a part of the brain we inherited from pre-human ancestors. This is a disposition which does not readily change but seems hard wired. Some people have a more libertarian temperament and other people have a more authoritarian temperament. We do not become authoritarian or libertarian with considered thought. We are one or the other and the cerebral cortex goes to work to “ennoble” our instincts, to spin doctor with “reasons” and that becomes “what we think”. Thus a Nazi apparatchik can reason his way to becoming a Stalinist apparatchik but he does not lose his authoritarian bent. Similarly a Marxist can reason his way to becoming a neocon but he doesn’t lose his authoritarian bent. Both of these types have “ennobled” their basic instinct on the libertarian/authoritarian axis.

Similarly Heinlein reasoned his way to the right end of libertarianism but did not lose his libertarian bent. He was libertine in his lifestyle choices. T J Kirk started out as a typical right libertarian but with reasons moved to a left libertarian position. He kept his libertarian bent.

It is easy to see why I fear feminism and other forms of identity politics even though they oppose the authoritarian right. It is their inherent authoritarianism and in the future they could become the very people they fear because in truth they are not very different. There are almost no libertarian feminists other than the usual NAFALT (not all feminists are like that) who have no voice or choose not to raise it if they do, having seen what happens to others. This is a big reason for my blog; to counter the faux activism of authoritarian leftists who used disenfranchised groups as their shield and their cover while indulge the darker angels of their nature. They are like the neocons who tout the “freedom” of people oppressed by dictators while they themselves would become dictator in a blink, given a chance.

Advertisements

Alfsvoid, a bright spot on Youtube and Hegel’s Master and Slave Concept and “Misrecognition”.

Many, maybe most people on Youtube and social media generally make me feel unusually smart, even though I am relatively uneducated. This is a statement on the mass stupidity of social media more than a statement on how smart I, as a first year university drop out, might be. The standard of debate in social media is abysmal. Most creators equate volume of argument with veracity, some sort of argument by volume fallacy. There are however some creators who make me feel very stupid and very unsmart, and I am delighted when this happens. It is why enjoy watching Jordan Peterson, even though I disagree with him on many of his teachings.

Another Youtuber I enjoy listening to is Alfvoid. I have viewed quiet a few of her videos from following anti-feminist link and have consumed many of her philosophy videos, especially those related to Stoicism.

Alfsvoid

Alfsvoid

It was while listening to her video “Why Do I Only Criticize the Far-Left?” that she mentioned the “Master Slave” concept of Hegel. I have not read Hegel but I am familiar the Hegel Dialectic. Everyone is agreed that Hegel is difficult to read and interpret so I have not yet resolved to read him. I decided to google the Master Slave concept of Hegel.

I came across a video on the Philosophy Tube channel explaining the Master Slave Concept.

I do not know who was the narrator for Philosophy Tube. He did give an overview of Master and Slave in a light hearted way, maybe too light hearted for some. He seemed however to have swallowed the post modern koolaid and this showed through when addressing some criticisms of Hegel. It seems he had used Hegel as some use Nietzsche to push an agenda. Of course Hegel “was a racist” as the de rigour post modern tribute paid when talking about “dead white men”. I do not know if this was true or in what context. He quoted from a psychiatrist and philosopher who noted there was little dialectic between black slaves and their owner. I can understand this but my understanding of the Hegelian Dialectic was of it being being different ideas, not specifically between groups or identities. Identities are not ideas. Hegel’s idea of the master/slave relationship, is a dance and each being in need for the other seemed to have been lost in “power dynamics” and identity politics.

Discussion got around to “Misrecognition”, of identities not being viewed and respected as they wanted to be. This is the core of many identitarian political movements and one that is from my perspective disempowering because one can not ultimately control and direct what sort of recognition one will receive from others.  However activism towards exactly this is instead characterised as “empowering”. This is counter to my stoic outlook, as understood and admittedly not always perfected, by myself. A sure recipe for disappointment, rage and a cycle of misery.

Yet I know that misrecognition does hurt, as every human alive has at some time experienced this, and as every human who has not can still appreciate what such would feel like. This is obvious because all of us goes to great lengths to avoid such a fate. This contrary to the doctrine of identity politics who believe one can not empathise with with the suffering of an identity group unless one is of that identity.  However the source of the influence and power of identitarian movements is the fear of social ostracism and loss of livelihood and friends. The fear of “misrecognition” is the big bulldozer of identity politics even as the theory of identity assumes that no such power could be possible. Are identitarians lying to themselves or to others or both?

Fear of misrecognition is biologically based. We all need strokes and social acceptance from others to make us happy. We get dopamine and endorphin releases from such social engagement. But the deeply biological aspect is that happiness is only the apparent outward effect. Ultimately our instincts reward behaviour not so much what is in OUR interest but that which is in the interest of the deep brain brain and does so even at the expense of our safety or any rational reason. We are happy only in so far that being happy is conducive to our reproductive opportunities, and we will be unhappy and irrational if instead that is conducive to our chances of reproduction. This comes down to the question of  “What is us”, the part which pursues our interests, blind that these are instinctual and not at all what you decided, or the watchful part which can see our instincts? Are we simply what our genes are assembled or are we emergent of our genes and not actually our genes themselves? Do we want to reproduce with all the risks and energy that go with that along with chemical releases, or do our genes want to reproduce and we are just the vehicle allowing that? Is it us who pass on our genes or our genes which pass on themselves?

The male praying mantis acts to fulfil itself, seemingly wanting to become dinner for the female but acting in a very risky way. The men who go to war with a real risk of death or injury in preference to receiving a white feather and being socially ostracised.

So the desire to be properly recognised which so central to identity politics is the unaware, unenlightened instinctual part of our being. Because reproduction, and not our happiness or welfare, is the prime motivator and is as deeply irrational as it is unconscious, behaviour manifesting thereof can be very dangerous and can not, in total, be in the welfare of the human race. Such movements will not embody wisdom, caution or nuance but will resemble barbarism. We have seen this in another identity politics of an earlier period. The Jim Crow years in the US south and the KKK. There is another danger of identity politics. Newton’s 3rd law of political extremism could well say “Identity politics on one side of politics will result in an equal and opposite reaction on the other side of politics”. Indeed we have seen an increase in white nationalism in recent years in response to left identity politics. I eschew identity politics of BOTH the left and the right.

But there is another problem with identity politics and “misrecognition”. Some people want to be recognised as Napoleon or Jesus. Are they entitled to be recognised as such? Obviously not. Or the people who believe they are the unwitting “stars” on their own Truman Show as described in the “Truman Syndrome”. While most of us are not grandiose paranoid in our delusions, the difference between us and them is one of degree rather then essence. If some recognition entitlements are invalid and this is not known to the “misrecognised” themselves then to what extent are all of us also unknowingly labouring under lessor delusions? 72 genders anyone?

I heard of a great metaphor from Peter Bhoggassan comparing political extremism to a spinning top. There is a speed of spin at which a spinning top will break apart and political extremism with its identity politics is akin to a top spinning out of control.

So “misrecognition” is really shaped by understandable desires, biological in origin, but which if taken to extremes will lead to ruin. In this there is something akin to the teachings of the 4 Noble Truths of the Buddha, the middle path or the teachings of Stoicism.

Censorship at Quora on a MGTOW Question

Some time ago I answered the following question at Quora.

What do feminists think of men going their own way (MGTOW)?

My answer can be found on the site at https://www.quora.com/What-do-feminists-think-of-men-going-their-own-way-MGTOW/answer/Peter-Gregory-Kelly

The question had been on the Quora site for some time and getting quite a few upvotes. Then a few days ago I received 2 emails from Quora.

Quora2

Quora

I had the option of appealing either by submitting my answer and claiming it is not in violation of Quora’s policies or by editing my answer. It needed an edit to iron out some typos and improve on points which needed to be better expressed so I edited my answer and appealed. Their reply was thus:

Quora Moderation reviewed and rejected your appeal regarding your answer to: What do feminists think of men going their own way (MGTOW)? This decision cannot be appealed. Learn more about Quora’s policies here. Mon

Quora did not email me their rejection of my appeal. It was only posted as a notification on the site. Nowhere does Quora specify WHAT was in violation of their TOS.

My edited and improved answer below.

I was MGTOW before the term existed. It is a rational course to take and one that presents itself as the most sane.

We live in a time favouring hypergamy. This is the tendency of women to favour male partners at or above their social and educational level. In recent decades we have seen women occupy most positions at tertiary educational institutions. This is all very good for the women but it creates a situation
where many women can not necessarily be matched. This is sad but true. Nothing to do about this.

The effect on men however is also tragic. This is lead to competition for fewer females at their level. Ordinarily this would be healthy for the women except many women will be left out at the end. A female doctor is not going to marry a male labourer. Thus we see an increase in biologically unsuccessful men. Unsuccessful in luring women through no fault of their own except to be in the wrong percentile. The reaction to this frustration can be anger or depression and related problems. The reaction of helpers like therapists is to “skill up” these men. Better communication skills, becoming better men, learning to please women etc. That is fine in the micro but will fail in the macro. Imagine an effort to increase the number of people with above average intelligence. While such an effort may increase the intelligence of people the project will fail by definition because “average” moves up.

It is easy to see with partnering that if 80% of women want 20% of men, that with any improvement in the desirability of unmatched men to women that what is a “good man” will be redefined to restore the 80/20 split. This is especially true in the area of education where men can not now attain an education sufficient to satisfy the shopping list requirements of most women.

The dilemma is that women want equality with men in the macro but they also want superior men to themselves as life partners in the mcro. This is how the slight dimorphism of homo sapiens plays out. it’s biology and there is nothing that can be done about it.

The result will be “blame the victim”, shaming of men into relationships with women is only adding to the problems of men. More depression, anger and more suicide. Men presently have a suicide rate 4 X that of women and for this the reaction is to “blame the victim”. “Man up”, “suck it up”, “Peter Pan”, “Man Child”, “Basement Man”, “Suck It Up”, “Commitment Phobia” and “GrowUp” etc and no empathy. At most, what is wanted is to change men and upskill them in this therapist’s fool’s errand described above. Workable for the male at the micro individual but fails to capture the bigger picture in the macro.

MGTOW takes away the negative effects of this undue male on male competition and all the bad effects flowing from that. Effects which take a toll on even successful males as they must work harder to provide and satisfy the hypergamy hunger of their partner, least a better proposition, in the form of a “better” male makes his presence known, leaving said man without his assets, his children and a bill for child support and no sympathy (suck it up).

A MGTOW who has walked away from relationships assures himself of less drama, less need to overwork and more time to tend to his own needs instead of everyone else’s It is an opportunity for growth and wisdom should the MGTOW take advantage of it. The man can for the first time become a “human being” instead of a “human doing”. He can value himself because no one else will unconditionally value him. He is only valued for what he can do for others.

It can be a challenging path initially because it is natural for men to want to compete for women and it does take insight to see this is to the genes’ advantage and not to his personal advantage. Women for their part like men to be competing for them. That is a driver for chivalry and for white feathering in war (especially in WWI) (no fight no nooky). The lack of a desire of some men to fight over women is frightening to many women. It forces women to face up to their biological selves.

Women have responded to this threat of seeing themselves in the mirror by constructing such narratives as the “rape culture” hysteria. Here women can legitimately express a fear, real but exaggerated and goad men to fight other men, to become a white knight for her. A case of “them over there are the enemies, go get them (and to the victor goes the mating rights). Let and him fight over pretty old me.” The reaction of women to MGTOW is predictable. This analysis is consistent with thinking in evolutionary psychology.

I really do see not anything offensive in my reply. I can only imagine that a group of feminists have done a working bee to downvote as many MGTOW replies as possible. A sufficient number of downvotes triggers a “collapse”. Quora for its part is going along with the pressure. Real intimidation and bullying.

Quick update on my “missing black dog”.

Soon after starting this blog I wrote that my shift on my views away from feminism and becoming a critic of it a recovering feminist or where has the black dog has gone.

In that post I said that one unexpected result of my break with feminism was the lifting of my tendency to depression, my black dog had gone. I identified 2 possible causes. One was that this could be a temporary euphoria like that experienced by members joining a new church. The second possible cause was the permanent, the “getting a monkey off one’s back”. From that post is this excerpt.

The first is that I have experienced an endorphin rush of the kind reported by new members of a charismatic church. That is a short lived drug which soon quietens down. The second explanation is that I have shaken a monkey off my back and can walk now with less weight on my feet. This is often reported by people who have left religion evangelical churches and the Catholic Church.

I made 2 predictions of different outcomes which would confirm either the first or the second and falsify the other.

If my remission from depression is of the first kind then it will soon pass and the black dog will return soon enough. If my remission is of the second type then it will be a more permanent and and will mark a different psyche reality for me.

After several years I can confirm that my improved mental health was and continues to e of the second sort. That I feel better not carrying around the luggage of of an ideology of lies and contradictions. I have not sunk to the depths that were  sometimes part of my life. In retrospect I am amazed one, at how many aspects of religion feminism resembles and to a cultish degree and two how pervasive, all encompassing and influential it is. Coming out of feminism is like emerging from a cult boot camp. I look back and I are just in awe that this included me.

Meanwhile in the wider world family courts continue to do damage, boys are “blue eyed” as per the Jane Elliot experiment in the 1960s, men are forced to atone and confess for the “sin” of being male. Campuses are setting up “snitching” procedures to dob in “politically incorrect” influences on campus. The Starsi moves west. The legal system is being undermined by calls to make prosecutions easier for crimes real and imagined. It is bizarre and in the future we will look back with as much incredulity and horror as we look back  at previous witch hunts. How could so many be so blind and so cruel deluded that they were doing good.

The controversial public intellectual Jordan Peterson has stated that the inability to live with cognitive dissonance and the enforced requirement to do so is a large of mental health problems. I relived myself of so much of that in cutting here from a toxic ideology. Peterson sees the similarity between the rise of dangerous ideologies in the 20th century and trends in today’s post modern informed movements. He sees ideological movements as filling a vacuum created in people lives by rapid changes over the last few centuries which have destroyed much of what was meaningful before. He sets out a road map in his Youtube series and his book “Maps of Meaning”. I do not agree with everything Peterson says but he is compulsive listening.

For myself I take a great deal of interest in Stoicism and philosophy in general. It was my interest in philosophical questions which led me to Peterson’s work. I have listened to some audio books he assigns to his students. In considering the insights by Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche among others compared to the noise coming from feminists and other SJWs one can see the proverb “Empty vessels make the most noise” at work in real life. 

The Jaw Dropping Tweet about #FalseAccusations

FalseAccusations

There is hardly anything which needs to be said about the above tweet. It displays a callousness and a lack of empathy for others, at least those others who are not members of her “approved groups”. It almost revels in false accusations and a complete disregard that false accusations are actually a criminal offence, even if they are not often prosecuted.

She is also too honest revealing more about herself than perhaps she realised or intended. What could be the agenda of someone who would tweet in these terms? One can speculate.

One thing which can be said is that historically a great many of the falsely accused were black men in the US south during the Jim Crow era with its lynch mob justice.

ListenBelieve.jpg

This is what #ListenAndBelieve looked like the last time around. This was an earlier  “rape culture” hysteria The tweeter, to use the language of SJWs, is “othering” black male victims of false accusations. The central plot point of To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee is a false accusation of rape against Tom Robinson. A book which could not be written today because it would be “politically incorrect”.

What does this say about feminists? It says they not believe that justice should be denied to black men. Rather feminists believe that all men should face the same injustices which were faced by black men. Equal opportunity lynching. Lynch mobs which do not discriminate on the basis of race. Bringing ALL men down the horrors met out to black men in an earlier era.

This all highlights the dangers of racism for those opposing feminists. This only serves the interests of feminists. Men fighting each other instead of facing feminists with their lies and double standards. Unfortunately the rise of Islamic terror sets men against men in exactly a way which advantages feminists. I will talk about racism and nationalism in a future post.

The Assimilation of Aborigines compared to the War on Boys

From the 1930s until the 1960s and even into the early 1970s successive Australian governments had a policy of assimilation. It was believed that aborigines were going to die out. Under assimilation policies the incomes of aboriginal people were garnished and held by the Protector of Aborigines. Pocket money change was paid to the aborigines. Major expenditures like travel or to buy a car needed the approval of the Protector of Aborigines. In recent decades the monies kept in trust is unaccounted for. Additionally their wages were lower and there was segregation in the use of public facilities. In Perth aborigines needed to vacate the city before the evening. The people lived on missions looked after by religious missionaries or government bureaucrats.

A part of the policy was removing half caste children, that is children of mixed European and aboriginal parentage, away from missions and families and putting the children up for adoption. The workers in the church, on the missions, in government departments were certain that “it was all for the best”, “think of the child.”, “a mission is no place for a child”. The heartbreak involved formed part of the tragedy of what was called the Stolen Generation.  The child removalists believed themselves to be noble and righteous. They cared for the welfare of the aboriginal peoples. But they were absolutely certain of their cause to the extent that that they were blind to their own humanity as well as being blind to the plight of the heartbreak left in their wake. These do gooders prided themselves on being more morally upright than those who brought atrocities including mass killings in conflict between European settlers and aborigines in the 19th century. These do gooders social worker analogues sawed themselves as giving palliative care to a dying people. At the base of this kind palliative care for a dying people was a chauvinism about the “advanced” peoples, social Darwinism, sometimes eugenics and an absolute certainty that what they were doing was the right thing. It goes without saying that there was no need to listen to the aboriginal people themselves. “You’ve got to be cruel to be kind” and “tough love”.

This is the same absolute certainty which is seen today in the treatment of men and boys. When Erza Klein asserts “spike of fear” in a Breitbart article Ezra Klein: Men Need ‘Spike of Fear’ with Sex to Prevent Rape or when Catherine Comins asserts that “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” we are seeing people who really honestly believe that it’s “for their own good” and if a few eggs have to be broken to broken to make scrambled eggs then so be it. In this and in the Stolen Generation one’s won humanity is put to one side in service to a high ideal. One outs aside empathy and compassion. This is the effect of being blinded by the light of an ideology. In the USA countless cases of male students having their college studies terminated and their lives ruined because of the abuse of Title IX for minor, silly or actually fabricated cases of harassment. The same logic of Klein and Comins could be used to justify miscarriages of justice of say black men in the Jim Crow south because sending a “spike of fear” into those scumbags will improve public safety. There is a ruthlessness in Comins and Klein which would be rightfully condemned if made in any other circumstance. In fact there is the cold efficiency of fascism echoing with no regard to the consequences and the only reaction if any is usually laughter at the plight of unlucky males.

That brings us to the unpleasant potential for escalating the cruelty against men and boys. There is laughter at the abuse of men by women and an impatience with their pain, even as feminism complain that “men need to learn to express their feelings” (so that we can shut you up again). One thinks of what it took to get ordinary Germans to commit extraordinary abuses on others. We can gain a clue to what motivates other people by observing ourselves. Insight into ourselves. Something feminists avoid by projecting on to others that which they fear exists in themselves. There is a certain point in the slide into hate where no appeal to logic or common sense can help and will not be allowed to help and where the mere reluctance to join the hate movement makes one a suspect. The “spike of fear”. Erza Klein may wish to live in such a society but I do not.

Not all men will be treated unfairly, they will only fear that they may be so mistreated. Basically men can be “protectors” of the paranoid delusions of extreme feminists or they can look forward to be persecuted by those men who are. To be one of the “protectors” or one of the persecuted at the hands to a “protector”. If you’re one not one you must automaticly be the other, the hated other. This is the utopia that feminists want to deliver all of us to but I get the sense that we have been there and done it all before in lessons of history we have now all forgotten.

I will end this post with an image meme which speaks for itself.

Julie Burchill2

Young fatherhood may be a risk factor for early death

This post is inspired by an article “Fatherhood in Early 20s May Raise Risk of Midlife Death” at

http://m.livescience.com/51734-early-fatherhood-midlife-death.html

The article can be summarised by one sentence from it as reproduced below.

In the large Finnish study, researchers found that men who had their first child by age 22 were 26 percent more likely to die in middle age, compared with men who fathered their first child at age 25 or 26

The article doesn’t go into the reasons other then some speculation that the education and careers of young fathers being short circuited and thus being forced to support his family with lower paying and more dangerous work.

“…interrupt career plans and push young dads into lower-paying jobs, which could impair their health”

The factors will not be known without further research but the results suggest that fatherhood and family life in general takes a toll on men. There are many stresses associated with family life and men generally have few resources and few people who will want to listen. “Be a man”, “suck it up” and “man up” are common put downs while the problems of women in general and mothers in particular are acknowledged.

This caused my brain to recognise a pattern. That this that since the 1960s and 70s the difference in life expectancy between men and women has narrowed from a maximum of 7 years in favour of women to 4.2 in 2014 in favour of women. In the period 1975-7 the average life expectancy of men in Australia at birth was 69.6 years and for women it was 76.6 years, a difference of 7 years. See

http://abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features10Mar+2011

Fast forward to 2014 statistics the life expectancy for men is 80.1 years and for women it was 84.3 years. See http://www.aihw.gov.au/deaths/life-expectancy/

Over this period the median age of first marriage has increased. See

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/a8d1bea8a2ff1b33ca2570ec001b0dc3!OpenDocument

This is a graph from the above site.

AusFirstMarriageThe observant reader would have noticed on the tables of the previous web pages listed that the  difference in life expectancy between men and women was narrow near the end of the 19th century and widening out to the 1970s before narrowing again towards today. This widening of the difference in life expectancy in the 1970s mirrors the dip in the median age of first marriage in Australia. See

AusLifeExpect

I can guess that the age of fatherhood would bare some relationship with the median age of marriage. It looks like that early marriage and early fatherhood are health compromising choices for men. If that is the case the Finnish study linking early fatherhood to more likely early death of males does not surprise me.

This highlights the need for more study of men’s health issues in general. Trends in men’s health are occurring under the radar without comment or interest. The narrowing in the gap of life expectancy for men and women is good news for men. The reason as I see it may be worrying for policy makers. The implications for the value of marriage for men and its cost in terms of the health of men are areas researchers should take an interest in. The implications for the MGTOW movement are obvious although I will not talk about MGTOW in this blog.