I have radical subjectivist knowledge based on my identity: experiencing truth in my own terms and not in the terms of others (a philosophical and social prerogative identified by both the Buddha and Nietzsche); it is also important for me to uphold the right of others to experience truth in their own terms, and not in the terms of others.

I am a cisgender, heterosexual, masculinist. Based on this identity, I don’t really believe in undertaking non-cisgender non-heterosexual everyday practices myself. However, I understand I have no right to impose my identity choices or encroach onto the freedoms of others in identity formation, whether it be transgender, pansexual, homosexual (and the whole spectrum of LGBTQIA+ identity formations and ensuing everyday praxis). My politics are based on a libertarian ‘anarcho’ (small-state) private-property ‘communist’ resource based economy (Fresco) political outlook (with graduated stages to get there!), which means full self-determination of others to become who they are, through being afforded the maximum amount of (political) freedoms in their own identity formation, and thus have full political and social rights.

I would also like to acknowledge that I have Platonic and sexual attraction to other men, trans men and trans women; but my reproduction of my dominant heterosexual identity (which includes an attraction to the full spectrum of LGBTQA+ adults) means I don’t undertake in non-heterosexual or non-cisgender courting or sexual activity – not acting on (in terms of courting or sexual activity) my pansexual attraction to all cis men and trans women and trans men.

My masculinist identity, whilst intensely pro-feminist (especially encouraging women to adopt a collectivist socialist identity in an illuminating and enlightening dialectic with men and all people) I understand and am in touch with where the patriarchal socialisation in hegemonic masculinity affects (not only women but) men negatively, as well as being cognisant of men’s issues which are inevitably entangled with women’s issues.

Reconciling good subjectivist and objectivist political identity formation is a must, and we should encourage all peoples to adopt this level of philosophical and political sophisticated mutually respectful integrity-building, individual and collective identity strength. This is where we marry post-modern truth dialectics rightfully with political objectivist emancipation of all peoples.

Whilst my chosen gendered identity is AMAB (‘assigned male at birth’) cisgender heterosexual masculinism, I note: I would like to extend my compassion to and Platonic love for, as is in my interests, all adults of all gendered identities and sexual and asexual orientations: I am open to giving and/or receiving non-sexual body massage(s) from adults of all gendered identities and sexual/asexual orientations. This includes spectrums from cisgender, transgender, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual masculinity/femininity/non-binary formulations.

Whilst there is such disadvantage in being born into lower socio-economic stratums of the 2nd and 3rd worlds, it is incumbent upon the First World to allow some immigration of disadvantaged peoples abroad, to enjoy a First World Lifestyle, whilst there is such a discrepancy in wealth between nations. This is in addition to the welcoming of refugees genuinely fleeing persecution in their home countries, with on-shore processing.

Simultaneously First World countries must eradicate 3rd world national debts, and increase aid to close the wealth gap between nations, as well as the wealth gap within nations between individuals and classes of individuals.

This is to establish and maintain ethical and political authenticity.

Altruism works when a person takes their own interests as equal with that of others.

The method upon which altruism is delivered is where people adhere to the neo-utilitarian imperative through maximising the net positive aspects of sentience in the cosmos (happiness, ecstasy, positive meaning, wellbeing, health etc.) whilst minimising the net negative aspect of sentience (suffering) in the cosmos.

This is adherence is combined with a view to elicit an equal share of the positive and negative aspects of sentience across all social agents.

This is the bedrock of altruistic ethics.

The intersection of meaningful specialised knowledge creates meta-knowledges that can propel human praxis in a positive direction.

This is the reason to study multiple academic disciplines – to refine meta-knowledges which guide human praxis.

The polymath thus has more relevant knowledge at their disposal.

For example, the knowledge of cosmologists that the universe is entropic means that all genetic lines are doomed and thus continuation of one’s genetic line is not ‘the telos’ or sole purpose of life.

Other corollaries or intersectional knowledge is the political knowledge that we should work less and that the vast majority of humans are over-worked, considering that in the ‘hunter-gatherer’period humans worked 15-20 hours a week. So this evolutionary insight forms a basis for understanding of some of our psychological and political needs. However, we should grasp nuance concerning this, that human needs are evolving and there is now more of a demand for sedentary cognitive labour, and that we can do more if it without becoming as tired.

Very pressing is the intersectionality of optimum human population. This requires social science understandings of basic needs of humans within civilization, and resource studies in the realm of water, precious metals, wood, plastics and electricity, minimising environmental externalities whilst reproducing complex social needs.

Intersectionality of relevant knowledge-sets is needed for genuine, holistic, and comprehensive problem-solving in society, and thus we must incentivise multi-disciplinarian scholarship on all types of human inquiry. Thus consilience is achieved, maintained and furthered!

The ambit and character of liberal consent is such that one can consent to harm, whereas with structural consent one cannot consent to harm and it acknowledges vulnerabilities an individual may have in ‘consenting’ to harm. Within the philosophy of liberal consent persons can consent in asymmetrical power relations, wherein one party or both parties can ‘consent’ to substantive harm. To correct this, there needs to be an avenue of legal redress which acknowledges a party or parties vulnerabilities and can intervene to make a contract fairer to a vulnerable party or vulnerable parties, a fair exchange and fair consideration¹, or even annulment where ethically proper. The legal system already has mechanisms in place in the event of certain incapacities of a party which are recognised vulnerabilities of a party of parties to make fully informed consent. These special circumstances are currently:

• Mental disorder;
• Intoxication;
• Bankrupts;
• The Crown;
• Minors; and
• Companies²

Further to this, we need to develop legal ethics of structural consent which gives social redress to those vulnerabilities people have in ‘consenting’ to harm.

For example, an individual act of selling one’s house through needing to pay debts would not qualify as proper structural consent, and instead people need freehold indefeasible individual land and housing rights outside of and protected from free market operations, since market transactions are inherently built upon liberal consent. Or, for example, the act of selling one’s house to fund a gambling addiction.

Contrastingly, structural consent is made where an individual makes a choice in all their broad, narrow, short and long term interests. Educated and qualified legal arbiters can determine where structural consent as been made, and in the event of falling short of fully informed structural consent, can order rectification where it may fall short of this expansive and necessity form of structural consent which is truly personalist in character, as legal address caters to realign relations to a contract based on, not only just mutually beneficial relations, but also equality of outcome(s). Informed risk would still be an individual’s responsibility, yet structural consent could intervene to diminish any exploitation in highly asymmetric power relations to a contract in addition to consenting to harm.

1. Nevett Wilkinson Frawley, last accessed 3 September 2024, “[c]onsideration [as a part of contract law] is an exchange of something that has legal value in return for a promise”,
   https://nwflegal.com.au/what-is-consideration-in-australian-contract-law/#:~:text=Consideration%20is%20an%20exchange%20of,there%20to%20be%20a%20contract. ↩︎
2. Australian Contract Law, last accessed 3 September 2024, ‘Capacity to contract’, https://www.australiancontractlaw.info/law/capacity ↩︎

Trigger warning – pedophilia.

Pedophilia is often an invisible sex crime when it happens to babies who have no conscious memory of the abuse, particularly by adult members of the family, wherein there is definitely no proof of the crime.

Human babies are very altricial, and depend upon care from an immediate family member (or members) for a number of months (or even years) until a vivid conscious memory is formed in the infant.

We know that there are overt pedophiles, of which the perpetrators are mainly men, who sexually abuse children, whether through grooming or using physical force (or mixtures of both).

However, there are also intra-familial covert pedophiles who get away with their abuse, as it remains undetected – aka not registered in conscious memory of the infant victim(s).

An often blinded cis and hetero majority, has not yet afforded social and political equality for trans people in good faith cooperation with them. Minorities are historically subjected to oppression by a bigoted majority.

Why don’t we yet have a widely and immensely popularized globally celebrated and recognized International Trans Day (also acknowledging that trans men legitimately celebrate international men’s day, and trans women legitimately celebrate international women’s day, in matching their gendered identity)? Binary folk forget, or deliberately obstruct, instigation of full social and political equality, to the detriment of the entire social and political landscape and order. An injustice for one is an injustice for all:

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” (Martin Luther King)

Re trans identity, if they choose to occupy the gender identity position of ‘man’ or ‘woman’, this should absolutely trump assignment of ‘sex’ (a social construct) at birth. This assignment, which is a changeable social process, can be and must be able to be usurped in individual gender identity election by the individual himself/herself. Trans people know their bodies the most intimately themselves, and must not have an external identity paternally imposed upon them by others.

Trans people often face discrimination in the employment marketplace, and face exclusion in myriad social spaces including over-representation in incarceration and inhumane segregation, isolation and even solitary confinement in prisons (which is an internationally recognized form of torture for a period of 15 days or longer by the U.N.).

There is also a chronic social and political misrepresentation, and even demonization, of trans non-binary, which is based on faulty ‘fact’-finding and/or downright slander and scapegoating. My cis and hetero consciousness was broadened recently, which has made the realisation incumbent of me to more actively support the trans liberation movement, along with the LGBT+ movement.

I would recommend watching a film, on trans women, which made such an impact on my social consciousness, broadening it significantly, “Cruel and Unusual”:

The vast majority of trans women are not a threat to cis-gender women, in prisons for example. Perhaps they could have their own showering facilities, but isolation and solitary confinement is downright socially exclusionary and oppressive. The consumption of hormones is also a human right, and not to be seen as a mere inconvenience to the cis-gender majority. Trans people actively immensely enrich society through gender diversity. This is the correct social position to adopt and to aid in our gendered praxis.

Sober and particularly adult choice to embody, enact upon, adopt, act on and/or proclaim a transgender identity must be respected, and conceived of and practiced as an inalienable human right!

Nothing is more valuable to society than ‘the polymath’ (‘the many learn’). To become a culture of polymaths will mean that society is enriched and will automatically improve social and political mores.

Multi-disciplinary tertiary education by peoples will mean we can deploy integral knowledge synthesised by great minds, and not waste their profound scholarly insights, and even improve upon them. Whether it’s political economy, formal philosophy, social science, hard science, anthropology, or ethology, all intertwine and the polymath better ascertains the connections between these fields more and more. Thus knowledge of the parts and the whole become better elucidated.

Becoming a genuinely trained polymath is being the change you want to see in the world!

Questions aside regarding preferability of direct democracy rather than the liberal representative democracy currently institutionalized, let us firstly canvas the virtue of compulsory/mandatory voting:

Voting is a civic duty and should be mandatory and encouraged. The adult individuals who make up the mature body-politic have a responsibility to elect the most competent officials and representatives of the state (state elections) and country (federal or national elections) one resides in. Just like taxation is a duty enforced justly, so is voting.

Singer has good arguments for compulsory voting. These are that compulsory voting ensures that the majority of the populace has some say in the future direction of a country’s politics; and that it establishes a culture of voting where it is seen more as an important civic duty and selects for greater political engagement. People are more likely to talk about political issues and concerns if required to vote.

Indeed, it is a pressing issue that more constituents in electorates need to become better politically engaged.

A problem with liberal representative democracy, in Australia and in the First World, is navigating ‘the two-party system (or “the two-party dictatorship” to give the hyperbole) or political duopoly. This duopoly connives to rig the electoral process in favour of their own re-election (whether nominally in power or as opposition wherein centre right and centre left switch between being in power or as the opposition party):

Regarding Australia’s two-party system, the “[e]lectoral system…encourages the bipolarity of the system. The use of a majoritarian form of voting method, combined with single-member electorates makes it difficult for challenger parties whose support base is not geographically concentrated, to garner sufficient support to win seats in the lower house” (Miraglotta, Errington, and Barry, 2010, p. 200).

Due to the corporate political lobbying rife in liberal capitalist representative democracy, the vast majority of the populace’s needs become secondary to the wants of large corporations, leading to a form of corporatism – special treatment and favouritism for large corporations, in the forms of subsidies and commercial contracts.

The mainstream corporate media is also complicit in ‘manufacturing consent’ (Chomsky). Manufacturing consent operates in a clandestine fashion in public relations promoting war and imperialism. It does this through appealing to perverse forms of patriotism and other insidious socio-politico phenomena such as jingoism, xenophobia and bigotry. In addition, it manufactures consent for pro-capitalist ideologies, generally.

To utilize the extant liberal representative democracy, we need a mass democratic socialist party in each country. This is needed to coordinate political agitations. These agitations must be against exploitation, against war, and against the impending climate catastrophe. It must have a very sophisticated political template and program to transition as smoothly as possible from regulated capitalism to ultimately an anarcho lib-com society (with all the in-between stages) engendering a radically different political socialization of its subjects. This is to realise the latent power and importance of suffrage (- the vote). Through party organizing and grass-roots activism, and engaged scholarship, reconciling gender, ethnicity, sexuality, ethics, socio-economic class consciousness will allow us to become masters of a sophisticated politics, improving voting expedience – making the vote count.

The recent debacle of sex ed videos for year 10 – 12 students in Australia has prompted me to write this post.

The milkshake and taco videos trivialise and dumb down the complex issues of consent.

I recently completed a university course on consent called Yes Means Yes.

It is a comprehensive course on consent, and there is no reason why year 10 – 12 high school students couldn’t complete this course, which is interactive and has quizzes to test a student’s knowledge of consent. It should be compulsory.

In comparison the milkshake and taco videos do not impart meaningful nor nuanced conceptions of consent and don’t provide a comprehensive knowledge of consent. They’re unlikely to prevent instances of sexual indecency and disetiquette (neologism for lacking in etiquette) currently plaguing our sexual relations, as they are highly abstract and are far removed from real world circumstances. They are confusing and confounding. The seriousness of consent issues are downplayed and the videos are insulting to the intelligence of teenagers. Consent issues are far too important to leave to condescending sex ed videos which do not address the issues head on.