Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Saturday, January 28, 2017
BOOK AVAILABLE NOW AT AMAZON (kindle & paperback): http://a.co/gBQUvAW
Rational Right Press proudly presents The Ghost of Emily, first book in The Ghosts of Men Trilogy, by James Fox Higgins.
Full audiobook and iBook versions coming soon!
THE RATIONAL RIGHT has its own philosophy webzine with additional written articles, and exclusive premium content. Visit us and join our mailing list at: http://ift.tt/2kdCRwk
Yes, we have books. Check out the links below to see our RATIONAL RIGHT PRESS books; ever more in the pipes!
THE GHOST OF EMILY by James Fox Higgins (science fiction)
The post BOOK LAUNCH: The Ghost of Emily (with audio preview) appeared first on The Rational Right ➔.
Sven and James launch their new series for the The Rational Right on peaceful parenting, its roots in philosophy and the Non-Aggression Principle, and its value for the future of humanity.
This will be an ongoing series as Sven and James grow and learn as fathers of young children.
Sven and James read aloud the first hateful comment received on our website, and discuss the “arguments” presented, and how we deal with the emotions that inevitably arise when people spit vitriol at us.
Thursday, January 26, 2017
James, Rob and Sven from The Rational Right team up with Adrian Pikios from Love Life & Anarchy and Dylan Thomas aka @TrueDilTom to discuss philosophical and political issues surrounding Australia Day.
We particularly drill into the mainstream narrative that white settlement of Australia was an inherently and unequivocally evil thing, and a net negative for the Aboriginal people of Australia.
We discuss property rights, taxation (is theft) and other fun libertarian/ancap philosophies in the unique socio-political landscape that is The Land Down Under.
SOME MORE INFORMATION ON ABORIGINAL IQ:
The post AUSTRALIA DAY SPECIAL (feat. Love Life & Anarcy and TrueDilTom) appeared first on The Rational Right ➔.
Thursday, January 19, 2017
Thursday, January 12, 2017
Video above read by Rob McMullan.
I’d like to make a case for the virtue, nay, the cruciality of being judgmental.
This whole line of thinking came to me today when I was in the park. I overheard two young mums sharing some gossip:
“I can’t believe how judgmental she is!”
“Yeah, it’s horrible!”
If you missed it, the women were scolding someone for being judgmental. This is about as self-detonating as the argument “there are no absolute truths” (to which the simple trigger from implosion is the counter question “is it absolutely true that there are no absolute truths?”).
But as we see here in this conversation, being “judgmental” or choosing to “discriminate” is often considered to be a universally bad thing; morally evil. And sure, I will grant that judging someone by their immutable qualities can potentially cross into the realm of bigotry. To judge somebody for the colour of their skin, their age, or their gender, may be appropriate, or not. For instance, to judge that a black person will fare better in the hot sun than a nordic European, would certainly be a fair judgment based on empirical reality. To judge that a child may be unable to comprehend certain complex adult-level concepts would also be appropriate. But moral judgments of immutable qualities are acts of bigotry. It is not fair to say that a person is evil because they are black, or white, or whatever colour of pigmentation you happen to have an aversion to.
Where there is no choice, there is no morality.
What I mean by that is when somebody has no ability to change some aspect of themselves, they cannot be deemed evil for being that way.
A person of any colour cannot be evil simply because of their race.
A person born in New York cannot be inherently better than someone born in Boise, Idaho, based solely on that fact.
A child cannot be a “bad child” if they have emotional outbursts, the control of which is beyond their immature cognitive ability.
What we can judge morally, is the behaviour of adults. Sure, some are mentally ill or disabled, and they fall into a similar moral category to the extremely elderly, or children. But adults of able mind can certainly be judged for their behaviour.
And yes, that includes religion. Religion is not immutable. People love to make the fallacious argument that putting a ban on Muslim immigration is racist, and this is simply not true, no matter which way you twist it. Muslims come from all countries and races, and it is not the race (since the religion does not specify a race, only a set of believers) that people like me find objectionable about Islam; it’s the doctrines. Religion is a choice, even for those who were indoctrinated from early childhood, and religion is nothing more than a code of conduct – i.e. a guideline for behaviours.
So can we collectively judge someone for their religion? Absolutely. It’s not an exact science, because within each religion there are many sects and interpretations, and yes, some Muslims are better people than others, just as with Christians or Buddhists. I’ve met Muslims who are pacifists, Christians who are war-mongers, and Buddhists who are materialists. People are certainly capable of behaviour that contradicts their espoused views, and we must judge them by their behaviour. Further, within the collective we are judging there will always be infinite variance in individual personalities, tastes, and interpretations of the dogma. What we must judge them on is that which we KNOW (for sure) that they hold in common. And that’s easy with a religion; it’s the belief in the scripture. If someone says “I am a Muslim” that statement alone contains vast amounts of information with which you can judge the person’s character. Stuff like, they believe in Allah and that the prophet Muhammad was the epitome of man’s potential and is a heroic figure to look up to. Now, if you read a little about what Muhammad did in his life and times, as compared to someone like, say, Jesus, or Buddha, well… you’d be forgiven for suddenly thinking that people who declare him a hero to aspire to are insane, and possibly dangerous. So we can collectively judge the people who acknowledge this about Muhammad (which is all practising Muslims) and know that they worship a mass-murdering pedophile. It’s in the books. Check it out.
One highly judge-able behaviour that people seem to overlook is the very declaration of fealty to a particular God or religious text. The truth is, pacifist Muslims, while nice and gentle people to be around, are terrible Muslims. They are ignoring the words written by Muhammad, and they should probably choose Christianity instead. Likewise, warmongering Christians will have a lot to answer for if they reach the pearly gates that they pray for. So while it is fair to judge these people for their hypocrisy, it is also fair to judge them for the content of the religion that they CHOOSE, as it is written.
The most important judgment is for ideological incompatibilities. By the printed doctrines of each religion, Christianity and Islam cannot coexist. Both claim absolute singular righteousness, while teaching antithetical principles. Christianity is a far more peaceful religion, especially since its reformations and modernisation, and these are things that Islam has not had. Islam is still an inherently violent ideology, hellbent on global domination. It’s in the scripture, and it’s taught in many Mosques. Anyone who claims otherwise has not read the Quran or Hadith.
To not judge somebody by the religion they espouse, is to open yourself and your society to the behaviours you should expect from them. In a way, religions are a handy tool for assessment of someone. When somebody declares their religion by the clothes they wear or the things they say, they are outwardly declaring certain aspects of their character as well. To not heed these clues is foolhardy. But of course, religion is only one behaviour that we ought to judge people for. There’s a whole gamut of other things; some moral, some aesthetic, some cultural.
Judgment is the backbone of a society, and discrimination is its supporting muscle.
Our society has taught us to be “tolerant” above all else, and it has bred an entire generation of overweight, irresponsible, lazy and incompetent fools; the “Snowflake Generation”.
Anti-fat-shaming (or fat-worship) is a prime example of the insanity of the modern cultural left. They want us to be “sensitive” to fat people, particularly they want us to refrain from calling fat women any name other than “gorrrrgeous” or “queen xox“! But the truth is that obesity is a disease, which can lead to heart problems; one of the leading causes of death in Australia. So when you see a mother who is morbidly obese and stuffing her face full of more unhealthy food, you are seeing someone who is wilfully shortening her own life, and increasing the likelihood of hardship for her children. And of course, the same applies to men. When you see an obese parent stuffing their child with the same unhealthy food, you are looking at child abuse. Children should not be obese, ever, and if they are it is because their parent is failing to care for them appropriately. This is not a matter calling for “sensitivity”; judgment is warranted, and verbalised judgment could very well save a life or two.
But what about the adults? They have moral culpability for their own actions as parents, but what about whatever their parents did to them, when they were innocent? These are tough questions, because yes, some obese people are stuck in a mental health rut that you will never be able to judge them out of. Social ostracism, or some degree of mild, but fully felt, public shame, would not be enough to stop them from self-harming by overdosing on food. They need professional help. They need counselling. They need to get to the root cause of their problem. Not just wish it away by making everyone else normalise their language to be “fat inclusive”.
In essence, real friends don’t let friends be fat – at least not without an ongoing conversation, and active concern for their mental health. Talk about it, and offer help and support. Make sure your friend is acknowledging that they have a physical and possible mental health issue (unless other diagnosed in some legitimate way by a physician). Make sure they know you are there to help, but that you’re not going to stop asking them about their obesity, because you want them to lead a full and rich and happy life. THAT is being a friend. Pussyfooting around someone’s impending death is not friendship. It’s pathetic cowardice. Obesity is not normal, its not healthy, and it shouldn’t be socially twisted as such.
The standards of beauty are under attack also, with crazy feminists demanding that businesses stop publishing images of “skinny” women, as it “perpetuates misogynistic standards of beauty that have no place in the current year”. They also honestly think that men SHOULD find fat women equally attractive to any other kind (some go so far as to revile thinness as revolting!) and that men are only into “skinny bitches” because of centuries of patriarchal programming. But that’s utter bullshit.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I believe sexuality should be “each to his own”, but that means that you’re allowed to like what you like, and I’m allowed the same. If you genuinely prefer big mamas, more power to you, and to the mamas. The regressive liberal SJW snowflakes, however, want to control not only our countries and our speech, but they also want to control our very thoughts and desires. That’s right – we HAVE TO find fat chicks beautiful, or we are labelled as white male patriarch fat-shamers, or worse.
Ladies, (particularly you of the chubby variety) I have to tell you that there’s a damn good reason why most men (at least those who haven’t been neutered by your agenda of cultural Marxism skewing their sense of reality) prefer slim women. It’s because we men are biologically rigged to find slimness sexy, because slimness is healthy. And the biological imperative that drives all sexuality is (when operating properly) designed to have us choose the sexual partner who is most likely to produce the healthiest offspring, and provide the best care for the longest time, and help the damn species evolve! Fat-shaming is a natural part of civilisation. This “everything is normal / it’s ALL good” ideology that is being drilled into the heads of young men by their Marxist school teachers is yet another nail in the coffin being slowly built for western civilisation.
Another important conservative institution that served humanity for thousands of years has been destroyed by the SJW’s: Slut-shaming! Yes, our Gen-X parents who fought for the sexual revolution of the 1960s, kinda made it open slather for women (not coincidentally at the same time that the contraceptive pill went to market) to fuck whomever they wanted (who needs marriage?) with very little consequence. AIDS hadn’t become an epidemic yet, and the pill meant no unwanted pregnancies. The culture of the times (fuelled by cultural Marxism, of course) removed all social consequence to being promiscuous, and the men followed along because it sounded like a great party to them! But now we are faced with a generation of young women who have never heard the word “no”, and they are ravenous for more of everything. More freedom, more power, more cock, more equality, MORE equality!! At the risk of this becoming a massive rant on feminism, I will say just this: Slut-shaming had a very important function in societies of the past, and the Thought Police who effectively banned this from the culture opened the pandora’s box that contained so many of the problems that we face in the west today – higher crime included.
Yes, women being free to sleep around is why there are so many young men committing violent crimes in the west. If you dare to think about it, you’ll see the connection.
Perhaps the most important of all the things that we should judge (loudly and proudly) is violence against children. There is an epidemic of spanking and other forms of physical punishment going on in homes, and in public, from parent to child. People think it’s okay. That a man can’t hit his wife because she’s smaller and weaker than him, but both parents can hit their little children, no problem. The social hypocrisy is appalling when we see how many children are battered and psychologically damaged by abusive parents, and their parents get off scot free because of the phrase “it’s not our place to judge, every home is different”.
No. Wrong! Shut up. The initiation of violence is morally wrong, no matter who it is against. Domestic violence is a problem, and yes that includes the children.
We need to start judging this shit, and judging it HARD. Because it’s countless generations of children being battered and abused by their parents that has led to the constant cycle of wars the world has been in for one hundred years. It’s the abuse of children that leads to the obesity we discussed earlier. It’s the sexual molestation, and corporal punishment of little girls that leads them to become dangerously promiscuous when they come of age.
It all starts in childhood.
So we MUST start harshly judging parents who harm their children, and with that judgment comes ACTION to try and save people’s lives. You see, some people (pacifists among them) like to think that observation of people and situations is enough; that judgment is somehow not our job as lowly humans to do. But this denies the reality of the constant judging we all do at all times, and further, it fails to recognise that observation is passivity, pacifism, and can be deadly. Judgment requires action to be real. You judge, then you act. If a man comes running at you with a rusty knife, observing him is not enough to save your life. But judging him as dangerous will call you to action.
The acceptance of observation, but the denial of judgment, suggests a deterministic view of the universe; that all is pre-written or controlled by external forces, and that the individual has no real say in what happens anyway. This is illogical, and it is a self-deception. Even the thinker who denies that judgment is part of their cognitive processing at all times, is making judgments just so. There is no escaping it. Without judgment, you’d be more cucumber than human being.
The truth about being judgmental is that people (and in my anecdotal experience, mostly women) have an aversion to the idea of being judged, so they claim to be un-judgmental themselves, whilst in reality they are constantly judging everyone else, every situation, and themselves, at all times. Think of my example up top of the two mothers I overheard. Totally oblivious to their own hypocrisy.
We all do it, and its a necessary tool of human survival. Our ability to process, index, and judge those people around us, as well as our experiences, is the very ability that allowed us to ascend to dominance in the hierarchy of life on Earth.
When someone says to me “I try not to judge”, all I hear is “I try not to think“. And the person who wilfully shuts down their ability to think is squandering the great gift that is the human mind. It’s reckless, foolish, and anathema to the life-giving nature of the human mind. The human mind is what gave us aqueducts and agriculture; the magna carta and the separation of church and state; penicillin and paracetamol. Rational thought and empirically supported judgment are the very foundation of Western civilisation and they must be protected at all costs.
“Who are you to judge her? Nobody is perfect!” said every 3rd wave feminist in defence of her friend for behaving in a dangerous or reprehensible way, along with every white knight (or as the Alt-Right like to call them, cucks) in sight.
But seriously people, this needs to be understood. The person who stops judging others is soon to be broke, or dead. The society that fails to discriminate will quickly become a den of moochers and barbarians.
Judgment is what makes us the dominant species on earth.
Use it, or lose it.
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
Felicity Sharpe is our guest today. She is a student and has been a political activist in Melbourne for some years. In recent time she had the singular experience of being red-pilled out of her Trotskyite Communist political affiliation into becoming a full Rand-inspired Anarcho-Capitalist.
James Fox Higgins interviews Flick to get an insight into her experience as someone who has been operating on both extremes of the political spectrum.
The post Confessions of a Recovered Communist – Felicity Sharpe appeared first on The Rational Right ➔.
Tuesday, January 10, 2017
Saturday, January 7, 2017
The Young Turks’ John Iadarola posted a short video in December titled “Ayn Rand’s Perverted Philosophy Will Now Rule The White House”. We saw the video in our “suggested” feed, so thought we would watch it and react/rebut live. This is the result; the first full panel discussion on The Rational Right.
OUR RELATED ARTICLES:
The Root Of Evil?: http://ift.tt/2iJ7mcf
Universal Ethics & Why We Criticise Government: http://ift.tt/2hYjBh9
Wednesday, January 4, 2017
France has made it illegal to spank your own children. This presents an interesting ethical dilemma for people like James Fox Higgins who identify as anarcho-capitalists (Libertarian on steroids) AND as a peaceful (non-violent) parent. James discusses the dilemma and the alternatives that may be MORE effective in stopping violence against children.
For Stefan Molyneux’s presentation on violence against children and its negative effects on people and society as a whole, go to http://ift.tt/2j2KnGa and watch the videos there.
- I clarified my understanding of metaphysics and epistemology. Finding philosophy and gaining a clear understanding of what I believe to be the nature of the universe and existence was a profound shift for me. This is the advantage that the religious tend to have over atheists; they’ve chosen their metaphysical path and they walk it with conviction. Even if they are wrong (which I believe they are, at least about the nature of existence) their conviction guides them to be able to make radical changes when necessary. Finding my metaphysical conviction in objective rational philosophy was a game-changer.
- Finding my tribe. I probably have less friends than I used to, as far as people that I actively socialise with, and yet I feel more a part of something bigger than myself than ever. I haven’t joined a cult or a church, but I have found a lively tribe of human beings on the internet, all over the world, and in my own neighbourhood who share my values, and I choose to fill my social time with their company over those whose values are antithetic to mine. I still try to engage with others of course, especially to test the consistency of my own arguments, but having a family of friends and acquaintances that I can turn to for understanding has been hugely powerful for me.
- Reading lots. I consumed more books in 2016 than any other year of my life. More than 30 in the year, in fact. Books on philosophy, money, mindset (I high recommend checking our Gorilla Mindset by Mike Cernovich. That book helped me change my behaviour more than any other, particular around my physical health.)
- Doing therapy. I started solo talk therapy last year. In my younger years I’d gone to clairvoyants and other such nonsense to find an emotional bandaid for the emptiness of my existence, prior to philosophy. Later I took personal development courses like the Landmark Forum, and read pseudo-spiritual works by Eckhart Tolle to find the same comfort. I didn’t want to go all the way across to being a religious church-goer, but I guess I emotionally wanted what my Christian friends have - certainty and community. So I looked to cult-like self-help programs and books, and dabbled on the fringes of collectivistic worship. But nothing has ever affected me as profoundly as doing talk therapy. I did it over Skype with a fantastic therapist in Scotland who was recommended to me. I went in there specifically to get help with the extremely painful process of deciding whether or not to continue my relationship with my mother. My therapist helped me get to the bottom of some feelings and memories that I had been glossing over my whole life, and he triggered in me some major emotional catharses that I really did not expect (being such an intellectual and all). Underneath those buried traumas, I found the hidden truths about myself that were chaining me, and I cut the bonds.
- Continuing to work on my marriage. Marriage is a journey, not a destination. And a good marriage takes constant work, just like a business or machine with moving parts. My wife and I have invested heavily this last year in improving our communication with, and compassion for, each other. We’ve built a lifestyle where we both get lots of time together with our children and where we get time to hang out as adults. My wife’s support for my creative and business ventures, as well as her partnership in our parenting journey, has been incredible.
Monday, January 2, 2017
James Fox Higgins discusses the philosophy of the film IN TIME, starring Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried, including major economic fallacies at the core of the film’s ethical message.
The post In Time (Justin Timberlake) – A Philosophical Review appeared first on The Rational Right ➔.
Sunday, January 1, 2017
ELYSIUM is the 2013 dystopian science-fiction film by director Neill Blomkamp of “District 9” and “Chappie” fame.
James Fox Higgins discusses the philosophical issues he has with the plot and finale of the film, and likens it to a piece of socialist propaganda, wrapped in an action/adventure film.
James Fox Higgins from the Rational Right discusses his experience watching Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, including some of its philosophical issues that are worthy of discussion.