The Tightly Woven Web (24-11-2016)

James and Sven sit down in the new Rational Right studio for a chat about the tightly woven web and the potential future of cultural discourse.

Sargon vid that prompted this conversation:

That “First” O’Keefe video:

CASUAL COUCH CHATS – Let There Be Trump:

Car Rants Don’t Be That Virtue Signalling Douche Bag (22-11-2016)

Do you have values or moral principles that you believe in? The first place you should apply them to is yourself.

Having opinions on how you want to use other people’s money and labour doesn’t make you a good person.

Christianity Surpasses All Politics

It’s been a while since I’ve written an article for The Rational Rise, and that is largely because I have been immersing myself of late in real life, stepping away from studious examination of politics, and finally giving decent time to a study of Christianity. As a grateful member of Western Civilisation, it was about time for me to honour the cultural cornerstone of our great empire, and so I finally picked up the Bible for the first time and started reading with an open mind.

I think my mind could only really be opened because I primed it with thirty-six hours of Jordan Peterson lectures on the Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories. That lecture series alone gave me a new appreciation of the ancient text of the Book of Genesis, and helped me see that there was a different way to conceptualise God; something much more nuanced and believable than the childish image of an angry and punishing bearded patriarch in the clouds with the power to smite me if I masturbate too much.

After revelling in Doctor Peterson’s engrossing and incredibly detailed analysis of the oldest scriptures, and reminding myself of who Jesus was through old movies like The Greatest Story Ever Told and Jesus of Nazareth, I found myself identifying (humorously) as a Christian Atheist – one who wholly accepts the superiority of Christianity over other religions, and its immeasurable contribution to the very structure of modern life, but who remains an atheist.

Then a good (Christian) friend of mine told me to check out the 1985 debate between Doctors Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein, and I was stunned to realise at the end that the Christian theist had beaten the atheist on logical grounds! How could he have done this? If I was being honest, the result of that two hour debate left me considering the possibility that I could believe in God without having to abandon my passionate commitment to reason, logic and evidence.

And so my deeper study began, and what has followed over an intense month has been the consumption of apologetics books by C.S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, as well as Andrew Klavan’s beautiful memoir The Great Good Thing, and of course a slow and considered reading of the New Testament gospels. Full disclosure: I’ve only read the four gospels (of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) so far, but in so doing, along with the hours of extra-scriptural study, I’ve reached a few profound and life changing realisations. In this article, I would like to share just one of them; the one most relevant to our readers at The Rational Rise.

The more I study its scriptures and apologetics, the more I can see clearly that Christianity is a worldview that surpasses all political ideology and truly deals with the core issues facing humanity.

To begin, we must understand that politics by nature are systems of external governance or enforcement. Woah there, Libertarians! Our political philosophy is no different. On the one hand we have totalitarian (fully externally enforced) systems of law, such as Communism, and on the other extreme we have Anarcho-Capitalism, where there are no state-managed systems of enforcement, only private enterprise and individuals using non-coercive systems to manage social norms. Both extremes, and everything in between from democracy to monarchy, are external systems.

Libertarianism has no objective or universal internal systems of governance, because the only law that is recognised by that particular ideology is the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). Thus, the only things considered to be undesirable behaviours are transactional, i.e. coercive actions between individuals. By this reasoning an individual can choose to do whatever they want with their time, money, and life, so long as it does no harm to another. This is why, to libertarians, drugs and prostitution are perfectly acceptable so long as they are entirely voluntary. On the surface, it seems like the most moral and virtuous social order, and in practical terms, it’s probably the best we can hope to do on Earth, but its major problem is that it doesn’t deal with social degeneracy. For those who misunderstand the idea of degeneracy, it’s simply that if everyone was engaging in a certain behaviour, society would collapse. Obviously drugs and prostitution fall into this category. If everyone did it, society wouldn’t last a month. If many do it, society will decay slowly.

But what to do with these issues of degeneracy when they do start to take a hold; when a society becomes too progressive or liberal?

Many ex-libertarians would tell you that fascism is the answer. Others call for ethno-statism, or the like. And so the swinging pendulum returns back towards totalitarianism, and so it goes. Progressivism, conservatism, rinse and repeat ad nauseum.

But there’s an answer that transcends the spectrum of external political systems, and it’s the hardest one for modern man to swallow, but I believe it is the only way to ensure we don’t destroy ourselves completely: belief in God, and not just any God, but the one true God who sent Jesus Christ to Earth to die for our sins. The difficulty of swallowing the notion is self-evident in the previous sentence, but I won’t get too deep into the spiritual aspects today. I’m interested in discussing the practical applications of Christian doctrine on a societal level.

Christianity is the only one of the Abrahamic religions (and possibly of all religions the world over, though I am not educated enough to say that with confidence) that places its central governance within the individual. Yes, God is seen as the external force that determines the moral code, and designed the very laws of nature to which we must adhere without a choice, but he is not seen in Christianity as a punisher, but rather as a curious and loving creator who wants us to seek him out, to ensure that our eternal life beyond the grave is spent in paradise, and not in hell. And so, we have free will. God won’t punish us for our sins in this life, we’re more likely to do that to ourselves (and one way or another, we and nature do). Because we have free will, we have the choice to adhere to the Christian commandments of God, or not. So self-governance is required.

And what are the Christian commandments?

Well, the two most important are:

1) “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind”

2) “You shall love your neighbour as yourself”

A person is not truly Christian unless they take these two commandments as the highest laws governing how they use their will.

The first of these commandments is a virtually impossible feat, given that all humans fail and falter and get distracted and there has never been a perfect man (except Christ, if you believe in him). But the idea is to humble yourself before the notion of a loving creator who wants you to do good, and not evil. It’s in the act of remaining humble before God, even letting him take command of your very being, that one can actually achieve the second of these commandments.

The second one used to piss me off a lot, because I didn’t understand it. C.S. Lewis set me straight. It does not mean “just love” or “love is all you need” or any of that fluffy spiritualist garbage. It means to love your fellow man in the same way that you love yourself. And how do we love ourselves? Well, we don’t always. We hate much of our behaviour. We punish ourselves, and deride the folly actions we take, and sometimes we even hate our very selves for what we have done… but we always HOPE to get better. We always hope that we can become better people. And that is the key. I didn’t realise this until starting this study of Christianity, but I’ve most certainly taken enjoyment out of other people getting it wrong, because it makes me look good. If other people are assholes, or fascists, or ignorant, or illogical, I take pleasure in their failings because by contrast it makes me look like top shit. And that is how we breach the second of Christ’s commandments. So to change that into rightfully abhorring abhorrent behaviour in others, but hoping that the human being behind those behaviours will improve, will find a better way, and loving the more essential part of them that has the potential for goodness, that is the message of that commandment. Understanding that has made me love Christ all the more.

Both of these commandments, and many other aspects of the Christian doctrine place the essential power in the hands of the individual to choose to have a personal relationship with God, through Christ, and in so doing take a new kind of governance over their own behaviour. This means that not only is the NAP totally compatible with Christian thought by virtue of the commandments, but also that the individuals who adhere to this do not have the option to wilfully corrupt themselves, their families, or their nations, by indulging in a life of degenerate behaviour.

The problem of politics ultimately comes from our distrust for one another. Most people recognise (or self-delude) that they may have high values and morals, but the average pleb doesn’t and shouldn’t be trusted with rights that may cause them harm. Strangely, people look to political systems to resolve this. I say it’s strange, because by their nature political systems are ways of entrusting rights to others. Libertarianism is no anomaly here, it simply replaces coercive states with markets, which ultimately are dominated by other people.

The individual only has dominion over his own life, his internal state, and his behaviour and personal conduct. Christianity recognises this, and makes personal accountability (not to other men, but rather to God himself) the central tenet of human life on Earth. A society of true Christians, were it to ever exist, would look a lot like a Libertarian community, but without the drugs, premarital sex, divorce, or the instability that would be inherent to a society that enforces only very simple transactional laws, but does little to restrain personal conduct.

Now don’t get me wrong, I think the idea of a Christian society on Earth is as utopian as Anarcho-capitalism or Communism are, but it’s interesting to examine where the weaknesses in each theoretical absolute manifestation of philosophical ideas lie, and I believe that a theoretical Christian utopia is vastly superior (if not downright superlative) to an atheistic (or religiously pluralistic) Libertarian one.

My recommendation to philosophers and Libertarians, who believe they are deeply committed to trying to build and sustain the most morally excellent society possible, is to investigate and open your mind to the doctrines of Christianity. And you don’t even need to start with the scriptures themselves, if that’s daunting for you. Start with C.S. Lewis’s book Mere Christianity which is a concise and brilliant explainer of the practicals of what it means to be a Christian.

Many atheists I know already acknowledge that the Christian worldview is vastly superior in its life-affecting ramifications (both individually and societally) to the post-modern atheism that seems to be the default of Western society at this moment in history. It was that very realistic (albeit non-committal) view that led me to open a New Testament for the first time with a truly open heart and mind, as well as to finally explore Christian apologetics and the logical arguments for God that I had always assumed (in great prejudice) were intellectually wanting. The intellectual and scientific rigour of the apologists surprised me more than I can adequately express, and the practically applicable wisdom of the Bible even more so.

Then, through opening myself intellectually to the teachings of Christianity, my heart began to slowly soften to it as well, and what followed was nothing short of a miraculous, spontaneous transformation of my very person. That particular aspect of my journey in Christianity is for another time, as it does deal with the spiritual/internal experience, and doesn’t fit well with the particular point of this essay.

Suffice to say, politically I can see that Christ is the way. Metaphysically I can see that Christ is the truth. Personally, I am discovering that Christ is the life.

BOOK: The Ghost of Emily



By James Fox Higgins

War and plague have left millions dead.

In the midst of the carnage something awoke, and the wars all over the world stopped. Suddenly. Silently.

Since then, people have been disappearing.

Jake Thorne is a survivor. A nomad. A father.

Hunting in forests of the land once called Australia, every day is a struggle. For food. For safety. To protect the ones he loves: his children Gus and Maisie. Death surrounds them in the lonely wilderness of a world with few humans left.

The greatest threat comes in the night, glowing and artificial, in the shape of their dearest departed.

It comes offering immortality.

Where have all the humans gone?

Doctor Marcus Hamlin knows.

Can Jake protect his children from the terrifying spectre that haunts them?

Find out in this epic debut sci-fi thriller – the first in The Ghosts of Men trilogy, by James Fox Higgins.




Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry was a hypocrite!

This week the third and latest instalment in the rebooted Star Trek franchise hits cinemas worldwide, marking the potential completion of a movie series that started J.J. Abrams’ career in the business of taking great science fiction franchises and turning them into fairly meaningless but fun summer blockbusters with lots and LOTS of lens flares.

Although not directed by Abrams himself, instead by Justin Lin (of Fast & Furious fame) and written – peculiarly – by Simon Pegg (of Shaun of the Dead fame, who also plays ship’s engineer Scotty) and Doug Jung, Star Trek: Beyond is the continuation of the conveniently-altered-timeline romp into the post-puberty, pre-maturity phase of the beloved characters from the original television series. I’ve booked my back-row-centre tickets and my 3D glasses for the day-after-premiere, mid-afternoon session (I prefer quiet cinemas), and I’ll level with you – though my expectations of Hollywood films are generally low these days – I am pumped!

A Confession

So at this point I will admit it: I am a huge Trekkie.

I grew up on Star Trek: The Next Generation, and by my early teens I had watched the whole series (every episode) at least three times. Now in my thirties, I’d say I’ve watched TNG all the way through at least six times. My commitment dwindled in my twenties because I also needed time to re-watch Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Enterprise, and all of the twelve Trek films. Becoming a husband kinda made my viewing time drop a bit too, though my wife did really enjoy DS9 with me. Since becoming a father, I’ve only had time for the occasional movie. Nonetheless, the love affair lingers on.

Needless to say, I’ve done my 10,000 hours of Star Trek watching and study, and I consider myself pretty knowledgable about it. Unlike most of the convention freaks you see on television and laugh at, I’ve never attended a convention or dressed up as a Klingon or Vulcan, nor do I bother with learning the Klingon language, memorising the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition, or quibbling about the exact number of times that Captain Picard said “make it so”. I did recently take my wife to see William (the real Captain Kirk) Shatner’s one man comedy show, and it was pretty fantastic!

What I concern myself with, and what I love so much about Star Trek is the themes. I’ve always been more interested in the writing and ideas of a TV show or film more than exactly how it was produced, acted, or edited – though all of those things can certainly have a great impact on how the ideas are carried to the audience (*curse your damned lens flares JJ!!!*).

Star Trek has always been about the bright future of humanity, particularly as a species who finally got it right back home on Earth and are now out spreading peace, philosophy, and justice around the galaxy through non-aggressive means – making tonnes of friends, and defending against a few new formidable enemies along the way.

The guiding principles of Starfleet – the space navy who both defend the territories of the United Federation of Planets, and explore space looking for new friendly warp-capable species to enlist into said Federation – are those of non-interference with primitive cultures, non-aggression, and most importantly curiosity. These principles were perhaps best embodied in one Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the USS Enterprise, NCC-1701D (yes, I have memorised the Enterprise’s serial number… so what, wanna fight about it?).

If you’re a millennial and are unfamiliar with Captain Picard, perhaps you will recognise him from this popular meme:


Picard is portrayed by the wonderful Patrick Stewart, a British actor of Shakespearean training. His character is an explorer-philosopher who listens to classical music, reads and quotes from “ancient” literature and poetry, and never fails to agonise over the philosophical details of every situation and desperately seek the objective right thing to do. He also drinks tea, earl grey, hot – like a boss!

Indulge in a 45 second snippet of the kind of pensive, smouldering philosophical think-porn you could expect to see from the Captain back in the day:

Roddenberry’s Bright Future

Gene Roddenberry is the man who created the original Star Trek series, originally led by Captain Christopher Pike, succeeded by the infamous Captain Kirk – who is now, again, the central character of the rebooted series. Roddenberry was so far ahead of his time in his ideas, and although he didn’t write most of the original series, he was the guiding force of the themes and principles of the show. He broke so many rules in creating his vision of the future. Consider this. In 1966 (the year that Star Trek launched) the real world was enjoying the following situations:

  1. The Vietnam War – a divided planet with barbarism happening daily between nations states.
  2. The Cold War – a stagnant distrust and aggression between Western countries and the Soviet Union, primarily Russia.
  3. The Civil Rights movement – Blacks in America fighting for equality under law and for the removal of cultural segregation.
  4. Second-Wave feminism – the beginning of the end of conservative, traditional cultural restrictions on women in the West.
  5. Post-World War Two hateful narratives about the Japanese – as the last major aggressor on the United States, anti-Japan views were still prevalent.

So along comes Gene Roddenberry and creates a vision of an evolved human race, living in the 23rd century as faster-than-light travelling, peaceful space explorers. And who does he put on the bridge of the flagship?

  1. A Russian weapons officer.
  2. A Black FEMALE communications officer.
  3. A Japanese helmsman.

To add insult to injury (as far as the poor old status quo goes) he presents the first ever interracial kiss on television (between Kirk and Uhura in the episode “Plato’s Stepchildren” in 1968), and consistently hires writers who dare to comment (almost) directly on the socio-political climate back here on present day earth. Behold:

Oh, The Hypocrisy!

All looks legit so far, so why is Roddenberry a hypocrite?

The reason I venture to call one of my all-time creative heroes a hypocrite, is because of the philosophy he chose to place at the foundation of this bright future he designed.

In the 23rd century, Earth exists in a state of utopian paradise. There is no war, no hunger, no racism, nationalism, and (unbelievably) no money or religion… or so they keep saying throughout the show. The planet has limitless power, derived from wonderful, seemingly magical technological advances like transporters (a device that breaks down the molecular structure of a person or object, sends it along a beam of light between ships or planets, and rematerialises it, intact, at its destination), warp drives (faster-than-light travel), handheld communicators (complete with Snake 2, I believe), food replicators (that beam energy in and convert it into delicious, steaming matter in whatever form you desire), and Skype!


Yes, by some miracle, people have abandoned all selfish interest, turned to all-out altruism and discarded the “archaic”  forms of transaction ($, €, ¥, £ et al) and embraced an attitude of “EVERYTHING IS FREE, YIPPEEEE!”, and amidst this obviously utopian socialist revolution, somehow individuals have still managed to be inventive, determined, passionate, principled and empowered to create. The biggest failing of Star Trek as a wistful romp into a wildly divergent future is its failure to demonstrate just how 2 + 2 = 5.

If you’re not following me, consider this: there is one glaringly obvious contradiction at the core of Star Trek‘s philosophy: The United Federation of Planets is a SUPERSTATE!

Allow me to demonstrate pictorially:


Look a little familiar? Yes, like the European Union, in Roddenberry’s future there is a council of representatives from each of the ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY odd member states/planets, spread across a meagre 8000 light years of space, who sit in a room on planet Earth, and make decisions that effect the lives of countless people from hundreds of unique races, whether the individuals there agree or not. Dare I ask the question: What do humans of planet Earth know or care of the plight of farmers from the planet Quartung in the arse-end of the back corner of the alpha quadrant? And should these councillors 8000 light years away have the right to make decisions for said Quartungian farmers? Well that depends on whether or not you are a statist.

So it looks like religion did make it into the 23rd century. To yield to the authority of the imagined entity of “the state”, is merely just a new form of religion. The number of people who agree with you has no bearing on the empirical non-reality of the state, nor will it ever legitimise its claim to authority. Belief in and subservience to the imaginary state is as irrational as a belief in god(s).

Further, like the ultimate superstate – the Communist paradise – this bright future has no money!! At this point, if my shock and abhorrence of a moneyless society is a surprise to you, I will direct you to my friend Sven’s recent article entitled The Root Of All Evil?

And herein lies the hypocrisy – Gene Roddenberry himself was a flagrant, proud and very successful Capitalist. He used the great capitalistic engine of Hollywood to fund and establish his creative vision as the cultural phenomenon that it remains. He grew incredibly wealthy from it. When he saw the opportunity to leverage the growing cult-like fanbase, he seized it, even going so far as to forbid his actors like Shatner and Leonard Nimoy to make appearances at casual conventions related to Star Trek without he himself taking a significant cut of their speaking fees.

And you know what? Too bloody right!

William Shatner was a fine and successful working TV and theatre actor in his time, but where would he be without Star Trek? Would anyone today even know Leonard Nimoy at all? Perhaps not, and the supporting cast even more so. Would Nichelle Nichols have ever had a shot at the level of fame and symbolic power she attained through her role as Uhura – a black, female military bridge officer on the flagship vessel of an interstellar alliance? Not a chance.

Gene Roddenberry used his creative vision, his business acumen, his feisty determination and his cocky swagger to take money from television executives and turn it into MORE money for them (eventually), and he created a franchise that continues to make loads of money for loads of people to this day. Aside from those directly involved, Star Trek has provided inspiration and joy to countless geeks like me, and has even potentially changed the course of human history.

Many technologies we enjoy today have been inspired by Star Trek, and you could argue that without the creative genius of Roddenberry and his team, some of them may not yet have been invented, let alone pursued as design or theoretical concepts. The communicator (mobile phone), wearable communicators (Apple Watch), telepresence (Skype, FaceTime), the tractor beam (yes, MIT developed one on a small scale), universal translators (maybe not yet universal, but getting there!), tricorders (handheld scanning devices used by NASA and in the medical industries), laptop computers, floppy discs (yeah, okay we’ve moved on from those), and so many more devices have come to fruit, some of them directly inspired by the imaginings of the Star Trek universe.

And if something like Star Trek is so popular that it can influence the progress of humanity in the realms of science and (to a lesser degree) philosophy, should the founder, creator and original owner of the franchise not be paid handsomely for facilitating such a vision? I say he should. And he did too. He took his money and enjoyed it. So why present the future as moneyless?

It’s indisputably proven by history that capitalism breeds innovation and increases wealth for everyone in the society it touches. The freer the marketplace, the higher the quality of life for all. Communism breeds misery, poverty and death. No greater threat has ever appeared to man than totalitarian governments, responsible for the murders of over 250 million people in the 20th century alone. And there is no greater total government than a communist government. Of course, the communist ideology relies on the notion that if you make a government big enough, and powerful enough, it will – when the time comes – magically disappear into a cloud of utopian dewdrops, possibly followed by the return of the unicorns… on rainbow slippery slides. This is why leftists always think that freedom is just one or two more government programs away.

So I would argue that Roddenberry choosing to set the bright future of humanity in a communist utopia like a moneyless Earth, under the supervision of a totalitarian superstate like the United Federation of Planets, is unrealistic, untenable and hypocritical to his own life position.

The double think ran deep in Roddenberry and his successors, for in 1990 (the year before Roddenberry died) they created the dreaded Borg – perhaps the most terrifying alien threat ever written for the screen. A cybernetic, hive-mind, collectivist society intent on the assimilation of all biological and technological distinctiveness in the galaxy – at threat of deadly force.

If you want to see the TRUE face of communist utopia, behold THE BORG.

Still pumped for Star Trek: Beyond, though.

Why, if I disagree with the fundamental philosophy of Star Trek so much, would I still be such a Trekkie, and so excited to see the new film?

Well, sheer entertainment and dazzle factor aside, the truth is, I do not disagree with the fundamental philosophy of Star Trek. Sure, there’s some double-think, and, like most fallacious ideologies and ideas, what they SAY is their philosophy is often not their philosophy at all.

The true (though not declared) philosophy of Star Trek is shining individualism. The things that make the bright future of Earth so wonderful are the achievements of great individuals like Zefram Cochrane, Captains Jonathan Archer, Christopher Pike, James Tiberius Kirk, and Jean-Luc Picard. In fact, the greatest challenge and deepest pain of Captain Picard is when he loses his individuality to the Borg collective. Roddenberry clearly knew that individualism is the power that makes humanity, collectively, soar. But he failed to see the connection between superstates and moneyless (Communist) societies, and collectivism. Despite all this, Roddenberry’s future has been full of great individuals.

Star Trek is full of heroes. As a young boy I idolised Wesley Crusher, the kid-genius who got to pilot the Enterprise before he’s even attended space college! As an emotionally repressed teenager, I idolised Data, the android who – though far superior intellectually and physically to humans – was incapable of emotion, and wanted to feel above all else, to understand the human experience. As a man, I look to Jean-Luc Picard as the captain of my philosopher-explorer heart – the wise elder who looks to the past to inform his present day decisions, with a commitment to a principled and peaceful future.

And even in the new franchise, young Kirk is an admirable hero – he follows his gut and his gifted intellect to protect his crew, he is fiercely loyal to his friends, and when necessary he breaks the rules and even rails against the very system that he works for – all in the pursuit of doing what is right.

It’s the heroes of Star Trek that make it great, and why – despite any philosophical difference I hold – I will likely always be pumped for a new addition to the “watch, re-watch, rinse and repeat” pile.

Your Love is Empty & Meaningless Without Hate

Many years ago, The Beatles taught us that all you need is love, all you need is love, all you need is love, love is all you need (as if chanting something over and over will make it true… *white male patriarchy, anyone*).

But I would like to have a rational discussion about love, and how in fact it is NOT all you need. I would like to argue that you cannot have love without an equal amount of hate, and that your love is empty and meaningless without hate.

As always, it’s good to discuss definitions first.

Most people I encounter consider LOVE to be some kind of inexplicable spiritual force, perhaps a gift from God, or a “cosmic energy”, or some other such thing that cannot be quantified or qualified, so must be left to the realm of the intangible, the spiritual, the superhuman.

Some say love is a noun – a thing you have or give – others (like John Mayer) say “love ain’t a thing, love is a verb”, and I think John is on the right track here.

We certainly can’t hold love in our hand, or measure it in the body – unless you’re of the school that believe love is purely chemical, that the mind is an illusion, and that objective reality doesn’t exist. If this description fits you, please kindly close this website right now and return to the cave in which you belong.

Love is physically, empirically intangible.

So how does it manifest? Well, it manifests in our behaviour. What we say we “love” is what we are attracted to, and what we wish to create or draw more of into our lives. For instance, I often say I love activated roasted almonds made by my good friend Sven Löwe down at ActivEarth Food. What do I love about these? Well, they are crunchy, salty, have a hint of olive oil – they’re delicious – they feel great in my guts, and they make me believe that I am making a healthier choice by snacking on these instead of chocolate or cheeseburgers. So therein lies my VALUE. Two, in fact.

I value pleasure. That pleasure is experienced when I taste delicious things, like Sven’s almonds.

I value my health.

And this can be boiled down even further to a fundamental value – I value my life! It may seem like this has little to do with eating roasted almonds, but on the contrary, it has everything to do with it. My senses of smell, taste, touch, sight and hearing all provide me data about my experience of consuming these delicious little brown parcels of pleasure: The look of them, their shape, their colour; the way they feel in my fingers, the way they collapse under the closing of my jaws; the taste, smell and texture of them as I chew and swallow. My senses provide me with data about what is pleasurable and what is repulsive. If my mind and body are well calibrated, it stands to reason that I should receive pleasure from the things that I know will offer me health, sustenance and longevity. If my mind and body are not well calibrated, then I will take pleasure in things that do me harm – like chocolate and cheeseburgers. And as a hedonist I seek to indulge in the things that give me pleasure.

But I value my health, because I value my life. I want to live as long as possible, and by fully taking ownership (thanks to philosophy) of my right to live and my right to take pleasure in living, my supreme value is now that of my life itself. So things that support, enrich, and lengthen my life give me pleasure.

And so I love Sven’s almonds. And because I love them so, I want more of them. They are virtuous little drops of pleasure and of health. I love them because they are virtuous, because they are good. The love itself is not a thing. The love is the behaviour I enact towards the almonds, because of what I perceive as their virtue.

Which brings me to the definition of love that I accept as rationally true. This one came from my favourite modern day philosopher, Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio.

“Love is our involuntary response to virtue.”

– Stefan Molyneux

Love is a response. It’s a behaviour that emerges from us as an involuntary response to the things that we perceive as virtuous.

We love kindness, because we believe kindness is good. When we meet a kind person, we want to be around them more, we want to meet more people like them, because we know that kindness is good.

“But love should be unconditional!” – said many, many people in my life, and probably in yours. These words are dangerous – they are manipulative and untrue. In fact, the only people who will make this claim are afraid that they have nothing to offer other than a demand. They desire the unearned, which as my nut-activating friend has established, is The Root Of All Evil.

Love is, most emphatically, NOT unconditional. Any involuntary responsive behaviour is highly conditional. It is a response, which means that the correct conditions have to be in place for the response to occur. Therefore without virtue, there can be no love.

Many people call many things love, many relationships are described as “loving”, but this is not true in so many instances. If you want to know if you really love someone, look within and be honest with yourself – what is the feeling when you see that person’s name appear on your phone screen as they call you. Is it joy? Excitement? Attraction? Or is it repulsion, fear, anxiety, or lethargy? Our emotions are the body’s way of telling us what we need to know about the people, objects and situations around us. They help us find the correct things to love, based on their virtue – and virtue (as I established earlier in my discussion on nuts) is nothing more than qualities that further our values.

If we value trust, we will love people who are trustworthy.

If we value honesty, we will love people who are honest – even when it hurts.

If we value our very life, we will love people who enrich our life-force, not diminish it.

So what of hate?

I would argue that hate is the equal opposite of love. For everything we love, we must logically hate its opposite. For example:

  • I love virtue, so I hate vice.
  • I love honesty, so I hate lies.
  • I love freedom, so I hate tyranny.
  • I love my wife, so I hate the idea of her non-existence.
  • I love integrity, so I hate flakiness (except in a good activated muesli!)
  • I love winning, so I hate losing.

The last one there is worth unpacking a little, so as to illustrate the ever-so-important function of hate. I hate losing, but that doesn’t mean that when I lose at something I collapse in a puddle and ask others to throw money, time, labour, or unearned compliments at me to prop me up again. I hate losing, so when I lose it hurts, and I want to return to the feeling of winning again – the pleasure of winning. It’s important to lose though, and to fail. In losing and failing we are able to identify and viscerally connect with the feelings that we want to avoid, and in doing so we take ACTIONS to prevent future failure. We get BETTER at what we do. This is evolution, this is self-knowledge, this is the very essence of LIFE.

But isn’t love all you need? Wouldn’t life be better without the hate?

So many people I know revert to “#LoveIsAll” or “just spread love” as the catch-all answers to any discomfort they feel in the wake of a terrorist attack, a personal relationship conflict, or a loss at some competitive venture. It’s a convenient irrational null zone in which to fall, where by depending on the “spiritual power” of love and rejecting everything else, you can effectively strip all virtue, vice, success, and failure of any distinct consistent meaning. In a world where nothing is concrete and “truth is relative”, people can check out as it were, and feel good again that they do not have to hold consistent standards.

And that’s what love and hate are all about – STANDARDS. When we are self-aware enough to understand the true nature of love, to experience it fully, and to lean into it with pleasure and pride, we are setting standards for ourselves. In order to maintain these standards, we need to also be aware of their equal opposites (the things we hate) and be prepared to say NO to them, or if necessary, to fight them.

Of course, nobody wants to fill their lives with things and people that they hate – but the whole point of hate is to discriminate (i.e. use your rational judgment) and determine the difference between what is good and what is bad.

A number of years ago I wrote a song called “Hate Won’t Bring Us Together”. I was quite a staunch leftist, moral relativist, and otherwise irrational and unhappy person in those days. I had not yet discovered philosophy and while I had a good sense of the general notion of the Non-Aggression Principle, innately, I had not yet honed my understanding of such principles and why they are so essential. I often look back now at my songs from those days and cringe a little, at how much I was missing the mark in some ways, philosophically speaking. This song, however, I think I got right.

As the song’s very title suggests, hate won’t bring us together – hate is a divider. And this is true.

The song is about the barbarity of war, about governments sending young men off to kill or be killed. The truth is, invading another land and killing people for a political agenda is wrong, immoral, bad and it needs to stop happening. But… there is a righteous time to kill, and that is in self-defence. When attacked, we are granted the moral right to defend ourselves. This doesn’t need to go so far as killing of course, but we have a right to take violent action to prevent any aggressor from harming us or our possessions because we each own our bodies and the products of our labour. We own our things, and we have a right to defend them if people wish to destroy them or steal them from us.

When we meet a known thief, we do not invite them into our home, or even tell them where we live and what times of the day we tend to leave and not lock the doors. We discriminate. We hate theft, we hate the injustice of it, and so we use that hatred to help us make the choice to say NO to the things that are not aligned with our values, in order to protect the things that are.

There are so many ways this conversation can expand outward into politics, “social justice”, conservatism vs. “progressive” liberalism, but I will leave it here for now with one final thought:

Love is not all you need. All you need is rationalism. Because if you are rational, you argue with reason and evidence in response to the empirical reality of the world around you, and the emotional world within you. With your sharp blade of rationalism, you can defend that which you love from that which you hate. You can create your world in the image of beauty, truth, integrity, virtue and pleasure, and keep at bay the beggars, thieves, looters and moochers who wish to take from you what you have earned.

Love virtue, hate vice.

Defend that which you love, speak up against that which you hate, and you will find yourself surrounded by more beauty, virtue, joy and pleasure than you ever imagined possible.

Take it from me, I’m doing it right now. *bites down into a handful of delicious almonds*