A Call for Reason

2018/06/15                           

                                                 A Call for Reason

On the 9th of June, I was watching Canadian Libertarian's video Politic: Doubling down on the great divide. I think you touched on some very important and challenging issues and I wanted to dwell deeper on these issues (and between you and me, when is the last time you have seen a libertarian who had nothing to say 😉). (Note that some of the text is in Italic. This is to indicate that I’m going on a tangent and/or if I anticipate the comment section will be full of smarty-pants making comments pointing out how I generalized too much or misrepresented an argument.)

I believe that we can all agree that since 2016, the entire world has been divided along a line between left and right. People lose their careers; people are rejected by their loved ones; people are viciously attacked; people have their entire lives destroyed over this divide. Both the left and the right are sold as a package deal. If you are a conservative or a progressive; you need to accept all talking points proposed by your political leaning or suffer the consequences. For example, if you are a progressive, you need to support feminism, hate whites, love minorities, support open borders, be pro-choice and support the LGBTxyz community. If you have a single difference of opinion, then you have a problem, a very serious problem. This is pure tribalism. There is no middle ground. Either you are with us or against us. They fight to the end and winner takes all. The tribalism is so extreme that we see infighting on both sides and some people end up being lynched by their own.

As a libertarian, I’ll call myself a neutral party; I’ll ask everyone to take a deep breath and a few steps back and let’s try to look at this problem objectively. What we need to do as Libertarians is to become a viable third option to the major issues dividing our times in order to allow a way out, for the moderates, of this escalating situation. But, to be relevant, we must find long lasting solutions to problems of actuality, while holding true to our principals.

When facing a complex problem with multiple variables, Murphy dictates that you must separate the problem into its smallest identifiable elements and resolve every one of these elements individually. The main issues that I believe we are facing today are:

• Identity politics: conservative, progressive, religious or gender based

• National borders and mass migration

• The MeToo movement

• The lost of fundamental rights and slavery

• Parenting

Identity politics: conservative, progressive, religious or gender based, and National borders and mass migration

Let’s begin with identity politics and the issue of National borders and mass migration because I believe that both problems have the same answer.

We see a growing trend in which people are placed into figurative baskets according to their sex, their color, their religion, their sexuality… Based on these identities they are expected to vote a certain way; they are expected to protest for certain causes; they are expected to have certain views; and they are expected to boycott and/or take away the livelihood of the members of the other political side.

I can already hear conservative saying that they are above those tactics, but the truth is, conservatives have no problem stooping so low. From Infowars to Blaire White, you hear propaganda and calls to arms. ‘’You need to stand up and fight! We have to win the culture war! We need to show these pussy feminist manginas what real men are and kick their little asses back to their mother’s basements’’. What happened to the non-aggression principal? I can understand the validity of defending yourself when you are attacked, but ‘’taking the fight to them’’ is hardly self-defence.

Look, I am not a saint either. I know that we are tempted to retaliate when we are attacked. Even I am sometimes overwhelmed by rage. For example, when the Nice attack append I was in the middle of a online debate with an Iraqi. I was arguing to him that the coercive force of the religious caste, which whipped or decapitated people in the market square, wasn’t right. Then I saw live on the net a truck driving through a crowd of people. People were running through the massaker with their cellphones filming the scene. There was no censoring. You saw people bent in unnatural ways agonising in small pools of blood in the middle of the street. There were so many of them. The Iraqi I was debating was probably looking at the same footage. He had 3 words to say to me: ‘’You deserve this’’. At that moment I wished Trump would have systematically carpet bomb the Islamic world. However, when we regain our composer, we realize that we are an mammals with a developed pre-frontal cortex who have the ability to reason, so let’s act accordingly. We cannot go on bombing the entire planet into submission. The G.W. Bush solution doesn’t work. We need to find sensible and long lasting solutions to these problems. We should also keep in mind that some groups want those conflicts to last indefinitely (for example, the military industrial complex and the Islamic Brotherhood). These groups have a lot of incentives to make some very gruesome and public display of violence and hatred to achieve their goals. We must always keep in mind ‘’are we in the service of justice or are we enabling the warmongers’’. These issues are morally challenging and sometimes there are no right answers. (Ok, I went on a tangent there, let’s get back to the topic at hand😉)

We have a dichotomy in our society that originates from an evolutionary trait our species. Certain mammals, like humans, have the ability to change reproductive strategies according to certain environmental stimuli. The triggering of certain genes according to environmental factors is called epigenetic. This form or epigenetic has been identified as the r and the K selection type. If you are unfamiliar with this form of epigenetic, I suggest that you pause this video and go see the series The Genes Wars, by Stefan Molyneux, then you need to go read or listen to the audiobook available on YouTube of The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. so that you understand what I am talking about. (This will be a well spent 5 hours of your life. Also, if you want to know how a leftist thinks, the selfish gene is a good window inside this mindset. Dawkins talks very openly about his political and economical views in that book. This allows you to understand the unreality leftists live in. You then realize that maybe it is not their fault that they are so fucked up. They are just unable to understand simple concept relating to the economy, politic and common sense.)

On a side note, in one of my classes, the teacher was talking about epigenetic and was trying to find an example to explain this to the class. I raised my hand and proposed the r and K selection type. He couldn’t deny the existence of it. He just tried to change subject as soon as possible. I was lucky. Some teachers would have expelled me from the University for even proposing such a theory.

According to Richard Dawkins, we are nothing more than meat machines in the service of the replicators (the genes). These replicators are hiding safely inside of us and they dictate their will by influencing every one of our decisions. We have free will, we make conscious choices, but so many of our decisions are influenced without our knowing so, that when you look at the behaviour of any individual, you can clearly see that they are acting out their biological purpose and every single action is aimed at fulfilling that biological goal. This goal is to ensure the continuity of the replicators. If I were to make an analogy of this phenomenon, I would use Penn and Teller making a card trick. Penn and Teller will pick a random person from the crown and ask them to pick a card. This person believes that his will is not influenced; that he has 52 choices; that he is in complete control of this choice. He believes he has free will and that the card he chose was an expression of that free will. He wants that card, he picked it himself and he even believes he fooled Penn and Teller by picking a card they would have never suspected. However, the way that Teller shuffled the cards; the way he showed the cards to this person; the rhythm with which the cards are displayed; the body language; the knowledge of psychology the magician has; Penn and Teller will force their choice unconsciously to this man in the audience. This is why Penn usually makes quotes with his fingers when he is talking about a ‘’random card’’. The replicators do the same thing mostly through hormones, the morphology of our bodies and the way information is processed by our brain. When you think about it, it is completely logical, because the members of our species, who were successful in passing down their genes to the next generation, were the ones who had behavioural patterns and the physical attributes that were favourable for reproduction.

Of course I am over simplifying. I do not see the need to talk about statistical error or the evolution of behaviours. We all know that we make choices that go against our biological purpose. We all make choices that reduces our chances of survival or choices that reduces our chances of reproduction. The fact that some people smoke or that other people jump out of a perfectly good plane (with a parachute on their back) is the proof of this. Taking stupid risks that have no cost benefits is not a good evolutionary strategy, because you need to reproduce to play ‘’the game’’ of evolution. If you die before you produce an offspring, you are fucked, you are out of the game. What we need to understand is that genes do not control us, they influence us. However, you need to ignore the trees to see the forest to see the big picture. For example, it is easy to see how the behavior of a woman changes when she is about to hit the wall. Most of the time, she doesn’t notice the changes herself, but the people around her will.

Now, you are going to tell me ‘’Gato Villano, what is the point of all this fancy shmancy biology?’’ This is simple. If you try to push a person to act in a certain way that goes against the will of the replicators, you will always lose. That or the person will probably end up committing suicide. I’m not saying that everyone who doesn’t fulfill their biological purpose will kill themselves. That would be insane. But the increase of the suicide rate is more than statistically significant. An example of this is the kids who have been brainwash with transgender propaganda and end up physically or chemically castrating themselves, making it impossible for these meat machines to fulfill the replicators desire to replicate themselves. Unfortunately, these kids have a 40+% suicide rate. (This shows that the left are murdering our children and getting away with it). Another demographic I need to mention, because of its importance in our society, are the men who are separated from their children by their ex-wives and by the state. These men commit suicide at 4 times the rate higher than the rest of the population. You can clearly see that they are physically and emotionally suffering because they are not able to provide for, protect and be in the presence of their children. They are not able to fulfill their biological purpose. (It would take little effort on my part to qualify the treatment of those men as torture. We are supposed to live in a society that condemns torture, however, the feminists and the state enables these injustices on a massive scale. Calling the state sadist just doesn’t describe how messed up these people are. I would call them sociopaths. For fuck’s sake people, wake up. The state in not your friend; it doesn’t protect you. The state is a monster that feeds off the misery. And it keeps fooling people by dangling perks in front of them.)

This means that a viable alternative to the current left/right dichotomy would need to ensure the continuation of the way of life and the continuation of the genes of both groups. Stefan Molyneux would point out at this moment that ‘’Freedom is always the solution’’, but I want to dive a little deeper into the subject.

On a side note, Dawkins says that we have evolved to ignore the selfish gene. The use of contraception is an example of that. However, in 1976, he could not foresee the consequences of the sexual revolution. In the present day, the same feminists, who lived for cheap sex and hedonism in their youth, are old now, childless and alone. They are the demographic of women that commits suicide on the largest scale. Academics in social sciences now agree that women have a harder time dealing with solitude then men. This is because, women instinctually need to nurture (Paul Joseph Watson brilliantly pointed out that women on the left, who had no children of their own, will find a substitute in animals, like cats, or in people in need, like the Islamic migrants). Thus, they went against the will of the replicators and now they are fucked. (I just want to point out that it warms my cold dead heart every time I hear that one of those wrinkled feminist harpies, who spend their lives destroying the lives of men, are miserable in their 50s. I think it is poetic justice. Hey! Gato Villano means Villain Cat in English. Don’t be surprised if my evil side pops out once in a while 😉). So Dawkins, I’m sorry, but you proved your own self wrong. This is to be expected from an evolutionary biologist who believes giving birth and raising children is enslaving women and preventing them from reaching their full potential. Having no parental investment and avoiding having children is a disastrous strategy on an evolutionary scale. If any other primates in history had the similar strategy, they surely died out. Dawkins, you drank the cool aid and got hooked on it. (Yes, I just called Dawkins a cool aid junky. His fans can just send me their hate mail and at the same time you can explain to me why Dawkins supports Antifa…)

This leads us back to the r and K selection type. When we look at conservatives and leftists rioting and fighting on TV, we are not actually watching kids beating the living shitt out of each other, we are watching two genes sets fighting for supremacy (This fact was brilliantly pointed out by Stefan Molyneux).

One gene set, the r, has a ‘’spray and pray’’ approach to spreading their genes. They have no standard when choosing a mate; they have no parental investment in their children; they do not understand the concept of creating capital; and they only know how to force the redistribution of wealth through government coercion. Basically, they are like bunnies who do not expect most of their children to reach adulthood. So they are programmed to produce as many children as possible hoping some will have the chance to reproduce before they get eaten. They believe that grass is plentiful and who ever puts any restriction on grass must be a terrible person. Only predators control the size of this population.

Technically, it is not the fault of these individuals that they adopted this epigenetic. The endless resources of the socialist system combined with the constant fear of an impending doom are what triggers this gene set. Using fear to control the masses has been a tactic used by the political and religious castes since the beginning of men kind. ‘’The sky will fall on your head’’, ‘’Judgement day is coming’’, ‘’The barbarians are at the city walls’’, ‘’The Russians are coming’’, ‘’Over population will cause mass starvations’’, ‘’Climate change will be our doom’’, ‘’Trump is literally Hitler…’’. Like Thomas Paine wrote in The Rights of Man, to harvest war, you can always make an enemy out of Russia. By that, Thomas Paine was pointing out that politicians always kept a nation as an optional enemy, like an ace up their sleeve, to incite patriotic sentiments and to justify more taxation. If that nation has been an enemy to your nation for longer than people can remember it is easier to justify this threat.

Let’s go off topic for a second here. Imagine, for a moment, we have force fed fear of doom in the minds of our children for generations in the form of climate change. We have justified major social changes; massive amounts of tax payer’s money has been redirected to the UN; people have protested, even rioted for that cause; some people suffer from depression or have avoided having children of their own because of their fear of the future. Now, imagine that climate change is just a lie. That this was just a hoax to control you; to steal from you; and to force you into submission. Do you believe that this lie is a hateful act? What if the truth came out tomorrow morning that every world leader has been part of this hoax; that people have lost economic opportunities and that some people have actually suffered because of this lie; how would people react? What if I were to tell you that you can scientifically demonstrate that it is a hoax. There is a reason why the left forces teachers to push the leftist talking points in school. They try to use the credibility of the schools to support their narrative and any school that goes against the narrative will lose funding. I encourage you to think about this. It is a very interesting question.
I also need to point out a form of snobbism that has formed in academia. If you oppose the official narrative and you do not have a master’s degree, the professors will not want to hear what you have to say. And unless you have a doctorate, they won’t take what you have to say seriously. This is a sleazy way to dismiss any opposing opinions without having to address them. I have seen it too often. Ok, let’s go back to the topic at hand.

The other gene set, the K, will have higher standards when choosing a mate; they will have fewer children and they will invest an enormous amount of time, energy and resources in their children. The K welcomes competition, they love the free market. They want the government to be a passive entity that only acts when called for. The K do not want to steal property from others and they want to keep their property. They work hard and believe that they should be able to use the resources they have earn to raise their children. The K epigenetic is favoured during peace time, by strong family unites where the father is present and in an economy that is only limited by the effort you are willing to invest. (note that religious communities promote this gene set. The belief that a higher power is looking out for you, that your life has meaning in God’s plan, that in the end, everything will be alright, and to be surrounded by a community that shares these believes, provides a sense of security. Without the cortisol created by the endless fear, your genes no longer need you to produce massive amounts of offspring to ensure the continuity of your genes)

So what does this have to do with borders and migration? Well, both gene set want to have supremacy. This means that one gene set wants to eliminate the other. To achieve this, both gene set are trying to outbreed the other, or to replace them through migration. This is something you can easily see in a Petri dish. Create a selective environment with a limited amount of nutrients. Insert two strains of bacteria, which can survive in this selective environment, into the dish. The strains will try to outbreed the other; they will use chemical warfare; and they will try to secure all the resources for themselves. In the end, they will produce so much waste and have consumed all of the resources that they will both die out, but, before that happen, one strain will push the other strain near extinction. This is exactly what we are seeing in the West. The r identify the migrants has ideologically close to them. They try to integrate them as their own in order to outnumber the K. They believe that this will allow them to grab all the power and resources and cause the extinction of K. The K sees the deportation of the migrants as a means to outnumber the r. This will allow them to grab the power and resources and the r will die out.

What the r and K do not realize is that they need each other. A society needs CEOs and painters; it needs accountants and people who pick up the trash; it needs soldiers as much as it needs African gender neutral interpretation dancers (ok, that last one was a joke. At first, I wanted to say ‘’we need feminists to sing to perform The Sirens, but that shit is just so terrible, it is a crime against humanity 😉). We cannot have a society of rigid automatons who follows strict religious and state rules. Automatons whose only purpose is to maximize production. We cannot have a society of hippies who explore their chakras in a self induced opioid trans, while their bodies are starving to death (because, in this leftist society, no one is producing any goods). We need a balance between production, purpose and enjoyment. We are not robots; we need meaning to our lives.

I know that the last paragraph was probably hard to accept. But it is true. Not all leftists are garbage. Some of them can actually be decent human beings when you interact with them outside of a political context. And I’m writing this the day after having to deal with 2 snowflakes that have a lot of time on their hands; who do not mind creating false accusation; and who try, by all means possible, to ruin your life. I still believe that the trick is to love your principals more then you hate these people and some days, it is not easy to do.

So what happened to create this divide? Why is it that in the 1950s, we worked hard on the land, we had a community in the Church, we took our responsibility very seriously and on Friday nights, we would go dance the night away to the sound of the Jazz bands that played for a few coins and fresh veggies. Why is it that in 2018, we are at each other’s throats?

I believe that this is the side effects of the countless social experiments that were imposed on our society since the 1960s. If you grab the people from the land; stuff them into cities; force feed them leftist and rightist narratives; introduce a shitload of migrants into the mix; you achieve the mess we are dealing with right now. Let’s face it, massive changes have been done to our society and no one cared to figure out what the end product would be. ‘’We’ll figure it out as we go along I guess’’… Ask yourself this question: if you displace a large group of people into an environment that is not familiar to them, you force them to attend public schools, where all their core values will be challenged and you keep introducing foreigners into the mix; how do the primal parts of our brain react to this? As a mammal, would we not instinctually perceive this constant lack of stability as a situation of threat, even danger? If your way of life is constantly threaten, wouldn’t it, naturally, lead you to become tribalistic? To associate and form groups with people that are alike and maybe even become radicalize? Can we see these groups (the LGBT, the conservative, the traditionalist, the feminists, the republicans, the alt right…) as a manifestation of this phenomenon? Are the not tribes uniting to fight back against an invasion? Food for thought.

Let’s go back to the two genes sets fighting. If you were a migrant, coming to a country that you know nothing about and the first thing you see are two groups fighting in the streets, how would you react to this. For a moment, I want you to forget about the small minority of migrants that are migrating for the purpose of committing a Jihad. Let’s focus on the majority of migrants who risked everything to travel to a land where they believed they would have more opportunities. Yes, the Globalists are using them as tools to bring down the West. Yes, some of them are only parasites who want to leech off the welfare state. But many of them are peaceful and respectable people who don’t know what to make of the madness they were introduced into. To explore this question, I want you to step inside the shoes of the honest migrants.

On one side, you have the left who are using the migrants. The migrants aren’t stupid; they know that they are being used for political purposes. The migrants probably see the left as a bunch of irresponsible hedonistic freaks that do not have any grasp of reality. A bunch of weirdos who dye their hair in all the colors of the rainbow, who do not care about their physic, who wears ugly dresses (even the men) and who do not plan their lives further then 2 days in the future. Let me emphasise that point, they have no plans for the future, they do not have children, they murder their own offspring, they celebrate their own end and offer Europe on a silver platter to the migrants. So what are the migrants suppose to say? ‘’Euhhhh, thanks you freak of nature…’’

On the other side, you have the right who wants to declare war and/or deport the migrants. They celebrate the destruction of Middle Eastern countries. They throw a party when Trump drops the mother of all bombs on Afghanistan and vaporizes two villages. I bet if the right wasn’t warmongering; the migrants would probably find Western societies to be very organized and very efficient. But, ask yourself this question: if you were in a strange land where people advocate for the destruction of your people, who would you turn to for protection? Between a radical Islamist and a radical Christian, who do they trust?

I know that it is hard for a lot of people to understand this concept. I will make an analogy: You are a skinny white dude who is sentenced to 10 years in prison for some fiscal crimes. You are not part of a gang; you do not know anybody who is in jail; you are in a strange and unfamiliar environment; and you are scared. You are afraid for your survival. Since you are a pragmatist, you try to join a gang for protection. There are 2 gangs, a white supremacist neo-Nazi gang and a black supremacist BLM ‘’kill all whites’’ gang (I am using the typical USA jail as a model, because most prison gangs in the USA are based on race). You are not racist. You have been color blind all your life. But that doesn’t matter. Even if the God-father of your child is a black man, you need to focus on surviving the next 10 years. I believe we all know what gang this man is going to join.

In the same way, you can be a Muslim who enjoyed the company of Europeans in your own country, but now you are alone in a strange land and some people, who you have never done any wrong to, want to harm you.

This is a big dilemma and an important one too. The way libertarians deal with this issue will determine the future of this philosophical movement and the future of the West. As always, the simplest answer is often the best answer. Is there a better place to find answers then in history and literature?

Let’s take a journey back to the origins of the libertarian movement:

The libertarian philosophy originates from a debate that lasted more than a century in the 17th and 18th centuries. The objective of this debate was to determine the condition of men in a state of nature. This question was rooted in religious beliefs. It was in reference to the Bible’s genesis where Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden naked and innocent, living off fruits and surrounded by animals.

Many philosophers commented on the question. There were many historical debates amongst which the debate between Locke and Hobbes, where Locke completely tea bagged Hobbes. Many interesting ideas were brought to the table.

Hobbes argued that men were vicious savages in a state of nature. Without the Church and the Monarchy, men would murder and rape each other. There would be nothing but chaos, hate, fear and maybe some cannibalism on the side. This is why we should obey any monarchs and submit to any tyranny of the kings, because the alternative would be worst.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, believed that society made men evil. In a state of nature, men would be like Adam. We would live the way God intended. Rousseau was also very fascinated with the Native Americans. The Natives were naked, they lived in the wilds and they were not corrupted by society. He saw them as the noble savages. (Note that, even if Rousseau believed that society was evil, he felt no remorse dumping his unwanted illegitimate children in orphanages where the state would raise his children instead of him. Most of the time, he didn’t even bother naming his mistakes. I guess when Rousseau was talking about how society made men evil, he was actually talking about himself)

Karl Marx commented on the question as well. And, of course, he said something completely stupid that is not worth mentioning. I’m only mentioning him because I wouldn’t want to miss an opportunity to verbally spit on Marx 😉.

John Locke made the argument that in a state of nature, men are neither good nor bad. However, in a state of nature, men are FREE. He argued that no man should have dominion over another man; that men inherited certain rights, which are the rights man had in a state of nature, the natural rights; that government should be limited; that men had the right and a duty to oppose any form of coercion. This was the beginning of the libertarian movement (who were called the liberals in the days, but the term was hijacked by the Marxists in the early 1900).

John Locke changed everything. If man was free to act has be please, this meant that man became a moral agent responsible for his actions. He could no longer blame God or the Devil for his action. This began, what David Boaz called in his book, The Libertarian Mind, the libertarian revolution or the revolution of contracts. This meant that an individual was judged for his actions, his honesty and how he honoured his contracts instead of his identity. You no longer needed status or a title to acquire a loan, to acquire property, to get an education or to climb the echelons of society. You had the right to property and you had to respect your contracts. This was the birth of capitalism, the force that freed slaves around the world, a force that freed people from misery and the force that ended famines all around the globe.

If you call yourself a libertarian, this is the ideals you must uphold. When you call yourself a libertarian, you are making a statement to the world: ‘’I believe in liberty and freedom. I believe in the rights of man. I believe in a world free from coercion.’’ Hold your head up high, brothers and sisters; you are on the right side of history.

The libertarian movement wasn’t based on nationalist, skin color or religion. It was based on an idea. People of across Europe, people of every faith, joined the movement and thus began the Enlightenment.

Amongst those who joined the movement were protestants, like John Locke; Quakers, like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine; Catholics, like Frederic Bastiat; Jews, like Milton Friedman; Atheists, like Voltaire. Many libertarians were also Free Massons, like Voltaire, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. Some say that Muslims joined the movement, but there are no sources to back this up.

The Quakers played a large role in the creation of individual rights. Before the libertarian movement, only kings and lords had rights. A noble could trample a peasant with his horse and would only be required to pay a few coins in compensation to the family. People could be evicted from their lands, jailed and tortured or sent to war if a lord so desired. Thomas Paine was the first to talk about individual rights. As a Quaker he believed that the Bible was written by mere men who were recording the word of God on paper. Man who were capable of mistakes. He believed that every man could be divinely inspired without the help of the clergy. He believed that this made every man equal as a brotherhood of men. Thus, if men were equal, they were also all deserving of the same rights. Paine believed that the rights of man should be protected inside a charter of rights. He believe that the state should have its powers limited and that the only purpose of the state would be to protect and intact this charter of rights.

I need to poke Stefan Molyneux for a second here. Because I have a lot of respect for that man and for philosophy, I need to correct him when he is wrong. On the 20th of June, Stefan Molyneux was having a conversation with a libertarian. He ended the video by pointing out that the libertarians have been around for 150 years and that we have done nothing. We have succeeded at nothing. Well, libertarian only created the concept of human rights; they started the enlightenment; they defeated the British army, declared their independence, made a peaceful transition of power, founded the freest and most powerful country in the world and banned slavery. Stefan is right… we libertarians should get off our asses and accomplish something someday…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiXAlw179ec

So, in accordance with the libertarian philosophy, how can we deal with the migrant crisis? It goes without saying that we do not want to replace the demographic of our country to influence politics and we do not want to infringe individual rights. I believe that libertarians have the opportunity to be relevant in the migrant crisis by offering a third viable option that is both peaceful and non-coercive.

First, let me point out that I agree that we should enforce our borders and radically reduce the numbers of migrants allowed into the West. Mass migration has always been a disaster. It leads to social unrest, criminality and it takes longer for the migrants to integrate our society when we are overwhelmed with migrants. However, one thing is certain. Deporting the migrants would require the power of the state. This would result in the most coercive action taken by a government since WW2 and it would set a legal precedent in the West where the government is allow to displacement large groups of people against their will for political purposes. As a libertarian, I consider this action to be against the natural rights of individuals and I oppose such actions. These people were invited in the West; they came; they are here; deal with it.

As for the migrants that came to terrorise the West, I believe we can all agree that these animals need to be hunted down, neutralized with extreme prejudice and buried with pork products. We will never achieve peace unless we show our resolve.

Now, the real question of actuality is: Can we have a civil society with the amount of 3rd world migrants that have entered Europe, Canada and America.

We need to point out the fact that the terms we use to qualify the migrants is intentionally misleading. If we say that all the asylum seekers that migrated to Europe were Africans and Asians, you are technically right, but nobody knows what you are talking about. When you say Asians, do you mean Indian, Japanese, or maybe an Afghan? When you talk about Africans, do you mean people from Egypt, Chad or South Africa?

There are fundamental differences between people from North Africa and people from Sub-Saharan Africa. In biology we love two things: Clarity and to classify things. So I will take the liberty to introduce terms that better qualifies ethnicities according to geography. I will use the terms, Mediterranean (which most North Africans prefer to be referred as), Sub-Saharan African, the Middle Eastern and the Oriental. This makes sense because the Mediterranean region is the cradle of civilisation. I don’t think they like to be compared to Sub-Saharan Africa where many tribes still build their huts out of shit using their hands.

So, are these migrants able to function in a civilized Western society? In order to have a free society, our population needs to have a minimum average IQ of 90. So we will set this 90 of IQ limit as the factor to determine if certain ethnicities are able or not to integrate a free society. We also need to point out that the majority of the people (especially the women) have an IQ that is situated around the average IQ of the population. Around +/-15% of the population (mostly men) will have an IQ under the average and another +/-15% of the population (also mostly men) will have an IQ over the average. So, we must not be surprised if we find a genius, even in the dumbest parts of the world, but we have to agree that the exception doesn’t prove the rule. So please, no comment about ‘’I know a guy…’’ =P

The IQ according to geographical regions has been well documented and confirmed through many studies. In Sub-Saharan Africa the average IQ is around 70; in the Mediterranean region it is around 80 to 85 (+/-82.5); and in the Orient, it is around 100 to 115 (+/-107.5).

We can conclude, right from the start, that Oriental have no problems integrating a free society and they are very likely to welcome a free market. The Middle East and the Mediterranean region are just below the 90 IQ barrier. Let’s examine if there are some environmental factors that can be modified that would allow them to reach this 90 IQ limit. Also, if we are not able to reach the 90 IQ barrier with those two regions, we can conclude that the Sub-Saharan Africans would not make it either.

Before we start, I want to say that this question is very interesting. In the present day, when we talk about Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia, we don’t realize that we are talking about the descendants of Sumer, Persia, Babylon, ancient Egypt and Cartage. This is the cradle of civilization. These people have accomplished incredible feats in technology, philosophy, mathematic, astronomy… It is impossible that a people with an average IQ close to mental retardation could have accomplished all this. We can look at the Mediterranean region and see a mirror of the Western civilization if we do not stop the decay. Is it possible that we can regress from building a space station in orbit around the earth to becoming nomad tribes farming camel poop in the desert. Well, the Middle East is the living proof that we can easily fall from grace.

Also, let’s point out the fact that there has been a massive brain-drain of the 3rd world for the past 50 years. The individuals who are at the top of the intelligence spectrum have either migrated to the West or the Orient or it is very likely that they have become the ruling class in their countries of origin. When you meet a Mediterranean or a Sub-Saharan that as migrated to Canada while Steven Harper was the prime minister of Canada you can assume that this migrant was part of the higher 15% of the intelligence spectrum of his country. We know this because of the prerequisite to migrate to Canada back then was to be married, have a diploma and to possess a certain sum of money. We know that there is no affirmative action outside of the West, so that migrant earned his diploma by his own merits. There are fewer economical opportunities in 3rd world countries, so he had to be competitive and work hard to get a good job. People with an higher IQ tend to have more stable relationships and are less likely to initiate a divorce, so a stable married couple with many children from the same father can be a sign of intelligence. These 3 criteria helped Canada in getting the best and brightest. This was good for our economy.

When we look at the current mass migration, we are now dealing with a population at the bottom of the IQ spectrum, a population that has an average IQ of 80-85. They were the ones that were left behind when we vetted our migrants. They are the bottom of the barrel. Let me make an analogy to help you understand this: You have a fish tank with guppy fishes. There are males and female guppy fishes in your tank. Every time you get a new generation of fishes, you remove the smartest fishes from the fish tank and leave the dumb fishes behind to produce the next generation. How many generations of fishes do you think it will take before you have a tank full of dumb guppy fishes? (And please, do not ask a leftist for an answer to this question. He will probably tell you that IQ is nothing more than a social construct and that all fishes are equal. Ironically, this leftist is probably the dumb fish in the pawn 😉) It is like a reverse Eugenic, you favour the weakest members of the species. (You can watch a cool presentation on this topic by TL;DR https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0-kYGtyQxA )

I need to go off a tangent and talk about something related to our topic. I often hear that we do not know how to increase intelligence from a certain philosopher who has the biggest philosophy show in the world. This is partly true. We know the technique to select certain alleles from two gametes. It is called PID, Pre-implantation Diagnosis. We fertilise the mother’s eggs with the father’s sperms in vitro. Then we make a series of biopsies on the stem cells produced by the conception. The egg that has the desired set of genes is introduces in the mother’s womb. This technique has the benefit of both parents being the true natural parents of the child and to produce superior offspring. At the moment, we use this technique when two parents are carriers of a genetic disease and that the offspring is at risk of receiving both recessive alleles. You can then produce a child that does not carry the disease.

If we were to use this technique to increase IQ, we would need to identify the set of genes responsible for intelligence and then, hold on to your chairs, because we would have a second renaissance 18 years later.

Sadly, the left and the UN prohibit us from doing this research. Prof. James Watson had his career destroyed and had his Nobel prize taken away from him just for proposing this solution.
This reminds me of how we describe blacks in the hood. They can’t get out of the ghetto because, every time one black dude is crawling out of the ghetto, the others around him pulls him back in out of jealousy. This is similar to this situation: We rather see the average IQ of our nation decline then to allow some people to produce superior children. When you look at it from a free market perspective: if people are willing to pay for it, this means that it is something that people want, and prohibiting the access to this product is enforcing rules against the desire of the people. No one is forcing anyone to use this technique. You can still have children the natural way even if this product is on the market. So, yeah… maybe they should allow scientists, like me, to play God 😉.
Ironically, my lab partner, who is a Colombian woman, told me, last year, that intelligence was related to evil when we talked about PID. She and many people who come from 3rd world countries believe that when you reach a certain level of intelligence, you then become a person with no morals that exploit the little people. I almost fell on the ground when I heard this bullshit. This confirmed Stefan Molyneux hypothesis that the r (the takers) feel that their survival is threaten if there are too many K (the makers). That if the K take over, it will be the end of the forced redistribution of welfare and the r will starve to death. This mean that the r sees the property rights has being evil and exploitive ‘’you have a lot of resources and you are evil for not sharing’’. And this showed that the r feels this threat instinctually, because she does not know about the r and K, she doesn’t know Stefan and she doesn’t know about his maker/taker hypothesis. For a biochemist, like me, this is amazing. You are witnessing the expression of the selfish gene, first hand 😊.

So let’s get back on topic. We know of many factors that reduces IQ: Malnutrition, smoking during pregnancy, inbreeding, child abuse, lack of intellectual stimulation and the absence of the father in the formative years. I need to confess that IQ is not my field of study. I am a biochemist and not a psychologist. Also, the research that has been done in this field is quite limited due to the political incorrectness of the subject. I also have to mention that different factors will have a different level of effect depending on the predisposition of the child. I will not pretend that the data I put out is completely accurate. I am only using the available data and math to provide an indication if environmental factors could influence the IQ of future migrants and predict if they are likely to function in a free society. To do so, I have taken certain statistics that are presented by different humanitarian organisms showing the percentage of factors, such as malnutrition or marrying your cousin, depending on the region and I have multiplied it by the IQ modifier for every one of those factors. This will show the average IQ of that population when they adopt a western way of life. To avoid scaring the listeners with math, I put all my calculations in an index at the end of this presentation. If there are some people listening who are working in the field of psychology, feel free to examine my data and my calculations.

The Mediterranean region and the Middle East have a very low percentage of their population that are considered malnourished. This is probably due to the climate that allows for two harvests per year in some regions. However, the factor that people often look over is the Ramadan. Muslims fast for a month every year. The problem is that the brain is not completely developed until the individual reaches the age of 25 years. When this individual is in his mother’s womb, the brain development is even more critical. The brain of a fetus grows by a few hundred thousand neurons per day. Neurons and red blood cells (erythrocytes) only consume one form of energy, glucose. (If there are some diabetics listening to this, you will understand what I have going to talk about next) When you are studying an organism on a biochemical level, you need to focus on bioavailability. This means that you need to measure the concentration of that molecule in the system and to determine how available that molecule is. When we measure the sugar levels we create charts like the one you see below. At certain moments of the day, your blood sugar levels drops and your metabolism releases glucagon to increase the sugar concentration in the blood.

If there is no sugar available the system is then in a state of hypoglycaemia. The liver will then catabolise cells to produce kenotic bodies that can be used as a form of energy by the vital organ. This is a desperate measure, done by the system, to keep the body alive. In the absence of glucose, neurones have no energy to perform metabolic functions. This means that they will delay growth or simply die. Without glucose, red blood cells cannot carry oxygen. Without oxygen, neurons die very fast.

Now that you have this information, imagine how a child doing 25 Ramadan before his brain is fully form will be affected. Imagine how this will impair his growth.

At the moment, researchers are only willing to admit that doing the Ramadan during pregnancy will only make the baby smaller. They say that it has absolutely no affect on the development of the child. Nobody seems to find any problem with a developing brain lacking glucose for 12 hours per day for a month. No… nothing wrong with that??!!?? I hope I’m not the only one who can see how fraudulent the conclusions of this research are. I’m sure that the fact this research was done in Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with the results they came out with.

Inbreeding has terrible negative effects on a child. It increases, dramatically, the chances of having a genetic hereditary disease. This has been understood by geneticists for over a hundred years. If both parents are related and they both possess a recessive gene responsible for a genetic disease, the likely that the offspring will have the disease is very high. You can find many examples of this when studying the royal families of Europe (they often married inside the family). Studies now show that inbreeding lowers the IQ radically. As I mentioned earlier, we have not identified the genes that are responsible for intelligence, so we do not understand how inbreeding affect IQ. However, I will make a hypothesis that certain recessive alleles might activate or inhibit intelligence. This hypothesis would be supported by recent studies showing that mix race children have higher IQ then their parents. If this is true, then reducing genetic diversity would act in a similar way hereditary diseases do.

When it comes to inbreeding, Muslims are well represented. Almost a third of Muslims marry their cousin. This is probably due to the fact that Muhammed married one of his cousin and that most Muslims want to live in accordance with the life of Muhammed. This would also explain why this practice is praised in the Muslim world.

However, I want to be clear. I do not believe that there is anything evil in this practice. This was a custom that predates our knowledge in genetic. I do not doubt that these couples love each other and love their children. If you are to call these people freaks, know that Darwin and Einstein also married their cousin. In science, you follow the facts where ever they lead you. When you find new knowledge that contradicts what you previously believed, you need to change your practices. So, now that we have the scientific knowledge that demonstrates inbreeding as negative effects on the child, people need to change their practices. There is no need to shame them.

Peaceful parenting is the goal of our current generation. In the past, rights were given to men. Generations that followed acknowledged rights to women. The task falls on our generation to recognise the rights of the children and the foetus. We need the world to understand the importance of providing a safe environment for our children to grow in. This means to negociate and reason with the child; it means to avoid hitting the child; it means to avoid yelling at the child; it means to avoid indoctrinating our children ideological garbage; it means to stop neglecting our children and to stop putting them in day cares where they feel abandoned; it means to provide both a mother and father figure, and not to denigrate one of the parent; it means to protect your children from sexual abuse that is often committed by teachers or single mothers; it means to stop murdering babies.

Stefan Molyneux has fought relentlessly for this cause and he needs to be applauded for that. Most people never heard of peaceful parenting before he started FreeDomainRadio. I want to suggest a book by Lloyd deMause called The Origins of War, Child Abuse, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oLl4oppAv4 . It will help you understand that the rise and the decline of a society is linked to the way we treat our children.

Studies show that child abuse will greatly reduce IQ. This can be observed in the West. Single mothers are the demographic that commits, BY FAR, the most child abuse. I’ll link you the presentation called The Truth about Single Mothers, by Stefan Molyneux, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1xf78EltKM . As we see an increase of parent households in the West (and the majority are single mothers), we see a constant decline in intelligence in the West.

The presence of the father in the household also increases the IQ of the child. By removing the father from the child’s life, we are contributing to the decay of our society. Here is a link to a research maybe by FIRA, it is the most thorough and solide research I have found on the topic. https://fira.ca/cms/documents/29/Effects_of_Father_Involvement.pdf . This document might change the way a lot of people view the role of a father in the child’s development.

The Muslim migrant have strong family bonds. They have a low divorce rate. This means that the father is present in the life of the child and we can assume that he is respected by his family. This helps to provide a stable environment for the development of the child.

However, the Qur’an condones, if not encourages hitting as a force of discipline. This means that, not only does the child is yelled at and receives beating. He can also witness his mother receiving beatings and in certain Islamic countries, he will witness people being wiped or decapitated, as a form of punishment, in public. I challenge anyone to try to convince me that this abuse doesn’t impair the development of the child. Please, I want to see the epic mental gymnastic you would have to go through to justify this abuse and to pretend it has no negative effect on the child.

It is important to stimulate our children intellectually. This stimulation can start at a very young age. This will encourage the curiosity of the child and his desire to learn more. Many studies have shown that this stimulation has a positive impact on the IQ of the child. In the West, we have made strives to provide easy access to information for our children and to constantly encourage them to learn. However, in 3rd world countries, such opportunities are not available to children growing up in poverty. By migrating to the West, they will gain these opportunities.

If we create the perfect conditions for the development of the child, which would mean: To abandon the tradition of the Ramadan; to stop inbreeding; peaceful parenting; and to stimulate the child intellectually, I calculated an average IQ of the Mediterranean and Middle East population to be 104,7. This is the population that gave birth to civilization.

This also means that we might be able to increase the IQ of the Sub-Saharan population close to 90.

So what can we conclude from this? We see a current theme. All the negative effect on IQ we have seen are directly or indirectly caused by the Islamic faith. We could even say that Islam is what’s keeping these people down. It will be hard and unlikely to create the perfect environment to raise the IQ of the migrants. They would need to, either reform Islam or to give up their Muslim faith all together. The importance of reforming Islam is something Christopher Hitchens emphasized a lot in his book, God is Not Great, how religion poisons everything. I guess Hitchens was right.

So, now that we know that Muslim migrants have the possibility to be able to function in a free society, what do we do as libertarians to provide an alternative to the bickering and fighting of the left and right? Well, it is easy. We preach the good word. We need to approach this community in a non political or religious way. We need to have friendly conversations with the migrants about liberty, freedom, the free market and peaceful parenting. I believe that if we identify ourselves as a philosophical movement, the message will be accepted by a larger group of individuals and we will have a greater impact.

The way the message is delivered is as important as the message itself. If you are going to talk to these people in a condescending way; have debates to tea bag them; insult their way of life; or to point out how better the West is, just stay home, you are doing more harm than good.

I suggest approaching people on an individual level. Start by saying hello, how do you do, when you see them. Then, get to know them. Be friendly. Talk about your wives and children. Ask where they came from. Try to learn some Arabic words. Then you can start talking about liberty and freedom in a conceptual way (not a political way). Talk about how property rights are great; how great property rights are. Talk to them about voluntarism. Talk to them about the brotherhood of men. Talk to them about human rights.

Also, when I talk about these things to people, I realized that they are able to assimilate these concepts in small doses. You can feel in the conversation when the person can take anymore. It is important not to push at that point. Don’t try to force feed these concepts down their throat. They will spit it out in your face and they won’t want to talk about libertarianism anymore.

A good trick is to talk about an everyday situation and to introduce a question that they will plunder on till you see them again. Then you can discuss about the conclusions both of you came with. This can be done in a friendly and casual way.

You can also use the cake technique. You come across a Muslim with a cake in your hands. You tell him: ‘’Hi brother! I got cake. Do you would want to share it with me while we talk about liberty?’’. Now who in their right mind would turn away cake? You have to be a madman to refuse free cake. 😉 Ok, that one was a joke.

As the number of Muslims exposed to the concepts of freedom and natural rights grows, the easier it will be for more migrants to join this movement. By that, I mean that it will be easier for other Muslims to learn these concepts from another Muslims.

The more people in our society who adopt a Libertarian philosophy, the more our society will change accordingly.

During that time, the left and the right will be at each other’s throat. Let those idiots fight to their heart’s content. They will kick and scream at you (especially the conservatives), saying that you need to fight, that the West is at stake. Ignore them. It is this fighting that is destroying the West in the first place. Without this great divide between the left and the right, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Parenting, The lost of fundamental rights and slavery

As we talked earlier, parenting is essential to the development of the child and is directly linked to the rise and fall of our civilization.

However, for the last 3 generations, we have witnessed the destruction of the nuclear family and the decay of our family values. This virus our society suffers attacks in many ways: culturally (music, movies, TV…), through the educational system and through the judicial system.

If you watch any series on television or any cartoon, you will see that men are portrayed as idiots, as bumbling fools or as violent aggressors. There have been studies made showing that men are portrayed in a negative way on television about 4 to 5 times per episode of any TV show. Women, on the other hand, are portrayed as perfect, as geniuses, as neglected and as victims. With the amount of time a person spend in front of the tube, from childhood to adulthood; we can agree that it might inculcate negative stereotypes into the minds of the population. This can lead to women despising men and for men to feel a shame of their masculinity. It can also lead to women believing they are superior to men and to believe they can achieve anything in life without putting any effort into what they do. (I’m not kidding. I have had many debates with fucking feminists where, in the heat of the debate, they will make the assertion (with no sources supporting that assertion) that women are superior to men in every way. And you can see that they actually believe it.)

For children who grow up in a single mother household; who is surrounded only by female teachers from kinder garden to high school, media might be the only image of masculinity provided to these children and this image of a man is a fat moronic idiot who is prone to violence.

Another message that is delivered by the media is that the earth is, somehow, over populated. This lie is perpetuating through the child’s academic career. When you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

So what is the result of all this toxic indoctrination we expose our children to? Well, exactly what you see in the news. You get women who hate men. You get men who want to be women or fairies. You get women who say ‘’I DON’T NEED NO MAN!!!’’. You get people who spend their lives alone. You get couples who don’t want children and who believes that ‘’children are not important anyways’’.

In the past 2 years in my University, I have met countless students between the ages of 20 to 25, who do not want to have children. I have never met so many people in a short amount of time that has no desire to build a family. From my perspective, this looks like an epidemic.

So, what is the solution to all this. Well, we need to start portraying the nuclear family in a positive way; we need to change the preconceived images people have of men and women; we need to reintroduce fathers in the families; and we need to talk about the joys of having children in everyday conversations. And I mean, you need to emphasize how much happiness this little bundle of joy brings you to the point people in the room feel uncomfortable 😉.

In order to reintroduce fathers in the family unite, we need to change some legislation. I won’t lie to you. I am the most unapologetic Men’s Rights Activist after Paul Elam 😊.

We all know that the current legislation is completely gynocentric. If you walk into a family court with a penis between your legs, you have already lost. You are nothing more than a pig who is dragged into the slaughter house.

Your ex-wife can make false accusations about you and doesn’t have to provide any proof. The court will believe every word she says like it was the word of God; She will take half of everything you own; She will have full custody of your children by default; you will have to pay for child support and maybe even some alimony to your ex-wife even if she is out of your life. You will have to work to support yourself AND to support your family who are living in a different house then you (and you are lucky if you don’t have a criminal record, due to your ex-wife false accusation, that makes it harder for you to earn a living). You will work 2 jobs, see your children a week end every 2 weeks. This could lead to a burn out or depression. You might start drinking or self medicating. This could lead to problems with the law. If you are unable to make the payments, you will go to jail. This will probably make you lose your job. Creditors will be at your throat. You might lose everything you have, end up on the street or commit suicide. All of this because of 4 simple word ‘’I’m not happy’’.

This is what the MRA are talking about when they say that men have lost all rights and have become wage slaves for the state and for women. Indentured slavery is illegal according to our constitution and yet, the state enslaves men every day. Like I mentioned earlier, John Locke said that no man should have dominion over another man. In The Second Treaties of the Government, John Locke though us that it was the right and the duty of a citizen to alter or to replace a government when it has become corrupt and oppressive. Our government stinks so much of corruption, it is nauseating. This is the kind of shit that makes me happy the system is going to shit. When I talk about this, there is only one thing on my mind. I want to see to sit down with a beer in my hand and marshmallows on a stick while I watch all this god dam statist society burn to the ground. Afterward, I’ll gladly spend the rest of my days building a better world out of the ashes of the old one.

When you want to make social changes, you need to examine society. You need to see if it is the right time to make changes. Are people ready for it? Is it the right time for change? You can see this from the last American election. Trump made many promises and he did try to honor his promises, but he was blocked every step of the way. When you compare this with the political changes in Canada in the 1960s, there was no resistance. We often call this revolution ‘’the quiet revolution’’. (I guess the boomers had no objection to taxing the unborn to have more perks in the here and now)

I don’t believe our society is ready, at this moment, to allow men to have basic human rights. So, what I am going to do is to propose some legislation that would fix the problem and hope that someone in the decades or centuries to come might be inspired by them. A message in a bottle, I guess:

• Marriage is a contract. It must be void by a notary and not a judge.

• Divorce and sexual crimes must be dealt with separately (one in a court of law and the other in a notary’s office) and they must not influence each other.

• Property must be divided equally. After which, both parties are free from any responsibilities to the other party. No more alimony.

• The minimum monthly cost of raising a child in a region should be determined. This cost must be divided in two. Both parties must place this amount in a special account created by a bank where both parties can have access, at all times via the net, to the information on how the money is spent. If this money is spent on goods and services that are not related to the child, a fraud claim can be filled. The amount of money each party can use from this account is divided by the amount of time the child spends in each residence. When a parent is unable to make the payments, this parent is denied access to the child until the amount as been paid in full into the account.

• If a parent is denied access to the child, he or she is exonerated from any legal and/or financial responsibility to the child.

• Men can abandon all rights and responsibilities to a child at any time from the moment of conception of the child, up to the age of 18 years old.

• Abortion is considered a 1st degree murder.

• If the woman gives up her parental rights, the father obtains full custody of the child by default (rights that the father can relinquish if he pleases)

• A father as the right to demand as many paternity test as he deems necessary, at any time he deems right. Paternity fraud is a federal offence. (I think an 18 years penalty in prison with a fine of 200 000$ would be fair. If the woman would have committed the fraud, this would have been the cost to this man). The intention of the mother for committing the fraud is irrelevant to the conviction. If a woman wishes a man to raise a child who is not his own. She must inform the man that he is not the father. The man can agree contractually (and this contract must be signed by a notary or a judge) to take responsibility of the child as if it was his own; he can chose to cohabite with the mother and the child with no responsibility to the child; or he can decide to leave the woman. A woman is not guilty of fraud if she was truthful to her partner about him not being the father.

Paternity fraud is the most hateful crime you can do to a man. He will spend is life providing and protecting a child of another man thinking it is his own. This could lead to this man not having any other child. This would result to his genetic death, while he is living a lie. In the present state of the law, even if a man proves he is not the father of a child, he might still have to provide for this kid. Even after a divorce. This would put this man in an indentured slavery for the child of another man. This financial and legal burden greatly diminishes this man’s chances of finding a new mate.

There is a good reason why the penalty of such a crime is stoning to death in Sharia law. Even in ancient codes of laws, they recognized how hateful such a fraud is.

• The law must recognize that men can be victims of rape, sexual assault, harassment and intimidation.

• Female sexual aggressors must receive the same sentence as if they were a man.

• The accuser of a rape or sexual assault must provide physical evidence that proves, without the shadow of a doubt the culpability of the accused. If the evidence leads to an interpretation other then rape or sexual assault, the evidence must be rejected. If the accuser cannot prove the culpability of the accused, all charges are abandoned.

• The identity of the accused must remain anonymous until he or she is judged guilty of the crime. If a person or a media is advertising the culpability, name, address or other personal information of the accused, before he/she has be pronounced guilty by a court of law, to the public, an employer or his family, then the person spreading the information deemed to have committed a hateful crime that destroys the life, the livelihood of the accused and put the life, of this person, in danger. If the court determines that this information was divulged 1 second prior to the guilty verdict being pronounced, then this person is guilty of a hate crime with a penalty of time in prison (I think 10 years would be fair). The intention of that person leading to the doxxing is irrelevant to the conviction.

You might think some of the proposition I have put out are ruff. I don’t think so. I think that they are more than fair. We have tried being nice. We have tried sacrificing men for the good of women and society. It doesn’t work. It only leads to men losing more and more rights and freedom and, to women and the state, gaining more power over our lives. There needs to be serious and real consequences to the abuse men have suffered. And I’m certain that if we would implement this legislation, the relations between men and women would improve radically.

One thing is certain. The social contract between men and women as been voided since the 1960s, yet men are still required to uphold their side of the contract. I think we can agree on the necessity, as a society, to create a new social contract. This new social contract should be based on both, responsibilities, freedoms and voluntarism. If people voluntarily chose a certain commitment, then certain things are expected of them. This contract wouldn’t be written in law. It should be expectation society has on men and women. It could be enforced by ostracism. But, we also need to take into consideration those who refuse commitment. Society should accept that person’s choice. This question is very complicated. You need to take into account the responsibilities as well as the freedoms.

For example: If society expects men to protect women and children, then society will judge men who did not want to risk their lives for strangers. Are we not taking away this person’s right to safety for the concept of honour? This is an important question because through history, we have sent young men overseas, against their will, to die in order to protect society and women. By doing so, we are saying that a man’s life is worth less than the life of a woman.

I’m going to make a proposition. Let’s both think of what this social contract between men and women should be and let’s have a discussion online about it in the future. What do you say?

The MeToo movement

Something very sinister is taking shape in our society and most people are not feeling alarmed as they should be. We are witnessing a social movement that is stripping away men’s constitutional rights to due process and exposing people mob rule, under the guise of what some people consider a righteous cause. This is not the first time this has happened in history and the consequences were terrible.

Many people associate the MeToo movement to the Salem witch trial. I do not think this is accurate. If you were accused in Salem, you could plead guilty, accuse another person and you would be absolved. All your property would be seized by the state, but you would be free and alive. If you plead not guilty, you would be hanged and all your property would be seized by the state. The Salem trials was an hoax created by a corrupt judiciary system that abused its power and used an opportunity presented to them (the threat of witches) to steal the property of the people.

The MeToo movement resembles the French Revolution. A cause that was originally considered righteous was hijacked by ideologues and ended up in a mass hysteria that destroy countless lives in its wake.

Fortunately, our good friend, Thomas Paine, witness and documented the French Revolution. Thomas Paine wrote an answer to the false accusation made to his person by Edmund Burke. This answer, that he named, The Rights of Man that he addressed to President George Washington was a call for peace and reason.

Thomas Paine played a key role in the American Revolution. Has a philosopher, he proposed America should oppose King George’s due to the lack of representation of the

American people. He suggested America should become a country.

After the American Revolution, Paine traveled to Europe as an entrepreneur. He was welcomed by the French monarchy and was forgiven for his role in the American Revolution by the British monarchy. Things were looking up for our friend Thomas 😉.

During his stay in France, he accepted the hospitality of M. Burke. Burke and Paine shared a common interest. Both of them were interested in the transition of French from a Feudal system to a republic. However, they did not agree on the method this transition would be achieved.

Thomas Paine wanted to reproduce the peaceful transition from a feudal system to a republic that was achieved in America. He suggested the creation of a transitional government with Louis XVI at the head of that government. This would allow to maintain order until the people would elect a government of their liking.

Burke cared little for a peaceful transition and he did not trust Louis XVI at the head of the state. Burke was a fanatic ideologue. He was more interested in seizing the power then preventing useless bloodshed. He believed that matters of justice did not relate to truth or falsehood. He believes in a dichotomy of good and evil. What was good for the cause was right and what was bad for the cause was wrong.

Burke published a pamphlet falsely accusing Paine of betraying the Revolution. This led to the imprisonment of Thomas Paine in the Luxemburg prison, where he wrote The Rights of Man.

This ideology led to a mass hysteria; unfounded founded accusations; mob rule; kangaroo courts; and tens of thousands of public accusations. This movement was so pretentious that it advocated for equality and the rights of the people while everyone whose neck stood out too much had his head cut off. Once this movement caught momentum it was impossible to stop its inertia. Opportunistic sociopaths, like Robespierre, used this movement as a tool of terror to dominate the population. No one was safe. Simply questioning the brutality of the revolution would constitute a death sentence. Portable guillotines were produced and transported throughout the country side. Petty disputes, bigotry or simple jealousy against citizens who were more fortunate than others turned into blood baths. These executions became a source of entertainment for the crowds. People took pleasure in the misery of others and cheered at the gorish display of severed heads.

This madness only ended when Robespierre was betrayed by other revolutionaries. He was shot by the revolutionary army and decapitated in public.

There are a few things you can count on in this world: What goes up, must come down; The Sun will rise tomorrow; and leftists will always backstab one another 😉.

Let’s make some parallels between the French revolution and the MeToo movement.

For many years now, the feminist movement have pushed a false narrative of a rape culture in our society. The term ‘’rape culture’’ was originally create to describe the epidemic of abuses committed in male prisons. These assaults are used as a tool of intimidation and submission between different prisoners. Since the feminist movement could not tolerate any victimhood being attributed to men (because, that would contradict the Duluth model) they hijacked the term and used it to attack Western society.

Every feminist movement used a topic as a sells pitch for their ideology. First wave feminism used the right to vote; second wave feminism used the equal pay act; and third wave feminism uses rape culture. Using this term is very strategic on their part. Rape is considered on of the worst coercive act a person can make and at the same time, it coops male’s nature and their desire to protect women.

For years, the right pushes back, successfully, against this false narrative. Unfortunately, the movement attacked an important person on the left and people on the right finally got screwed. They just couldn’t resist such a victory that they swallowed the bait, hook, line and sinker. When Weinstein was accused by the MeToo movement, the right were too tempted to see such an important figure of the left taking the fall, that they praised the MeToo movement and acknowledged its validity.

What the right actually did was to accuse a man through the media and through mob justice, denying him his constitutional right to due process. Then the heads started to roll. Democrat and Republican senators fell victim to the movement. Comedians and actors were faced with accusations of supposed actions that took place decades ago. Unable to prove their innocence, they have fallen victim to the court of public opinions. This led to the end of their career. This year, we have seen the MeToo movement accused political rivals in order to remove them from the political race and to influence the elections.

This movement doesn’t give a fuck about right or falsehood. What helps the feminist cause is right and what hurts their cause is wrong. We have yet to see the full momentum of this movement. Influential feminists have suggested that women use the MeToo movement to replace every man in a position of power. They plan to throw falls accusations to get CEOs fired and to replace them with women. They plan on replacing men in STEM fields and in tech companies. Their plan is to replace all men in the upper echelons in order to submit men.

However, this is not the worst that could happen. If the MeToo movement gets the same support as the Duluth model, this means that men will lose their constitutional right to due process when facing accusations from a woman. I hope that this thought sends a cold sinister chill up your backs.

Imagine for a second what follows. The country ran by a feminist party? innocent men jailed for disagreeing with a woman? The institution of the death penalty for ‘’crimes’’ against women?

We have yet to see who will be the Robespierre of this movement, but I suspect it will be a woman. And once this movement has gained enough inertia, it will be extremely hard to stop. Many lives will be destroyed by this movement.

Thomas Paine talked about the fundamental differences between a constitution and a set of laws.

Laws are created by a ruler. These laws express the ruler’s will, not the will of the people. A ruler can change laws has he pleases. The people live under terror and uncertainty when a ruler determines the laws.

A constitution is a contract between free people and a government. The government is obliged to respect this contract with the people. This ensures that fundamental human rights are respected.

Do I need to explain the importance of preserving our constitutional rights? I’m pretty sure we all want to avoid living under the reign of terror of another Robespierre. This is why Libertarians should call out the MeToo movement for what it is. It is not a movement for justice, its goal is not to protect the innocent. This is a movement aimed at manipulating the people stripping away their rights. We support the victims of this movement.

Well I hope this presentation has inspired some of you. I hope that it will spark some discussions. I’m always happy to get some feed back.

Gato Villano

I dedicate this presentation to Thomas Paine. A man who sacrificed everything in the pursuit of individual rights. Rest in peace brother.

Annex

Average IQ of the Mediterranean region and Middle East: 80 to 85

(82+85)/2 = 82.5

Malnutrition:

Percentage of the population malnourished in North Africa: 11%

Percentage of Muslim who celebrates the Ramadan: 100%

IQ modifier of malnutrition: (9.13+18.1)/2 = 13.6

Impact on the average IQ of the population: 13.6

Inbreeding:

Percentage of the population who marry their cousin in Muslim countries: 30%

IQ modifier of inbreeding: 2.5 to 10

(2.5+10)/2 = 6.25

Impact on the average IQ of the population: 6.25 * 0.30 = 1.9

Peaceful Parenting:

Percentage of children exposed to child abuse in Muslim countries: +/-100%

IQ modifier of child abuse: 5

Impact on the average IQ of the population: 5

Intellectual stimulation:

Percentage of people living in poverty in North Africa: 17%

IQ modifier of intellectual stimulation at a young age: 10

Impact on the average IQ of the population: 10 * 0.17 = 1.7

Sum of all the modifiers and the impact on the average IQ of the population:

82.5 + 13.6 + 1.9 + 5 + 1.7 =104.7

N.B: Psychology is not my field, therefore I do not have the training to measure IQ and IQ is a taboo these days, so it is hard to find any scientific paper that will present clear numbers. Most of the intelligence modifiers stated above were taken from sources like Stefan Molyneux presentations, Wikipedia and articles on education and childcare.