#MeToo Is The New Original Sin That Finally Absolves Eve


I got off my Facebook Jail Sentence yesterday, 60 out of the last 63 days. It so happens that it’s in the throes of this latest girl-fad, #MeToo, where all females are victims of all males, by nature itself, per se.

I was asked on Facebook how my 8th ban violated FB Community Standards. It doesn’t, but I’m a white male, a walking violation per se in America, now. Do the math. And then just a bit ago, someone wrote in comments to a post, “You’re going to get banned again. Criticizing feminazi’s is verboten!”

Well, then let them. I know I’m on egg shells. I’m a white male…a walking, talking, writing offense, in Original Sin proportions.

Now, ponder this as you witness the smearing of the nature of the human male, because he’s a human male.

Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not.

It does not matter who then becomes the profiteer on his renounced glory and tormented soul, a mystic God with some incomprehensible design or any passer-by whose rotting sores are held as some inexplicable claim upon him—it does not matter, the good is not for him to understand, his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligible debts, his only concept of a value is a zero: the good is that which is non-man.

The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.

A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.

Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.

What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man.

Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.

They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man.

— John Galt’s speech, Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand

That is all. Again.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. Alex on October 17, 2017 at 19:11

    Hey, congrats, Eve!

  2. Dan on October 18, 2017 at 09:00

    Can we get a source on that please? Would love to know the context surrounding such an awesome expression of thought.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 18, 2017 at 09:05

      Oh, damn. I see I inadvertently omitted it.

      It’s from John Galt’s speech, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand.

      NOW, how do you feel about it? 😉

    • Richard Nikoley on October 18, 2017 at 09:09

      BTW, Dan, SHE wrote that in the 1950s.

    • Georgene on October 25, 2017 at 09:25

      The first sentence in, I knew exactly where it came from. Attribution not needed. Even had I not recognized the words, the writing style is unmistakable, though not everyone has spent as much time with those words as I have, so not recognizing it is certainly understandable. Better late than never. (And: how did I miss this when you posted it? Just now seeing!)

      These words (and her many thousands more like them) are what changed my life at the tender age of 17. Whew, I should celebrate with a 50th anniversary of enlightenment, or something!

      There are some things, once understood, can never, ever be removed from one’s psyche. I believe I have commented more than once that the concept of original sin is the world’s most dangerous evil.

  3. pzo on October 18, 2017 at 09:39

    MGTOW. No wonder.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 18, 2017 at 11:02

      Except for the ones with kids. Even if they want to be a part of the lives, they do so by willingly becoming a slave to the mother and her new husband, father, and grandfather embodied by the state.

      The only way to go your own way is drop off the grid and repatriate to another country without legal or banking treaties with the US.

      It is now basically foolhardy for a male of means to get married and have kids, unless its basically some arranged marriage where the woman’s real father and grandfather like you and have good control over her endless emotional stupidity.

    • pzo on October 18, 2017 at 12:03

      It doesn’t have to be as extreme as you suggest, Richard. There are several possible levels of MGTOW. Not marrying and not having children, against what is evolutionarily imprinted in our DNA is the top tier.

      But it can also mean that you don’t date women. Masturbation, prostitution, and sex vacations for release.

      Of course, this is a very uphill battle against nature. What happens when you have no intentions of having sex with a female friend, but time goes on and one day it happens. And then you fall in love………


  4. Hap on October 18, 2017 at 13:20

    It was Orwell….in his masterpiece 1984 who wrote about the Big Brother tyranny…”they replace one piece of nonsense with another”.

    Perhaps I am wrong, but this is happening today, right now, on cable, print, and broadcast news.

    Apparently, they’ve acquired substantial expertise.

    • thhq on October 18, 2017 at 20:05

      Read Homage to Catalonia hal. Having his throat shot out made Orwell reconsider his Progressivism, and this is the real-life predecessor to 1984. Here’s a page of quotes.

      “All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hate, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”

      Progressivisim is the same now as in 1936. A modern corollary, for me anyway, is

      “The people that love Obamacare the most are the ones that don’t use it.”

    • Richard B on October 19, 2017 at 02:28

      Modern spin doctors do not treat 1984 or Animal Farm as dire warnings, but as instruction manuals.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 25, 2017 at 14:09

      You’re both a bit off.

      First, Richard, Rand has few true fans who are deeply religious.

      John, she has multitudes of fans who are deeply religious (about her).


  5. Richard B on October 19, 2017 at 02:26

    I think Ayn Rand is wrong about a lot of things, but in this speech she was at her best. Ironically it is her militant atheism attacking the church that her followers are the first to ignore. They want to graft her libertarian views onto the rotten root of their evangelical nonsense religion. She would’ve hated those who today profess to love her most.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 25, 2017 at 14:08

      Bret replying to Richard B:

      Richard B, do you have any examples of such people? I’ve never seen a religious fan of Ayn Rand. Most religious people I know either downplay her brilliance (to reduce their dissonance) or are unfamiliar with her altogether.

      It’s news to me that her followers are religiously inclined. Can’t picture it for a second.

  6. fearless on October 19, 2017 at 02:45

    Richard, slightly different topic if I may. Try this one weird little trick: each time you eat, have 3 to 6 ounces of boiled potatoes first, wait 5 to 10 minutes, then eat whatever you were planning to anyway. It works wonders for me. I find it suppresses my appetite tremendously.

    I just keep a few pounds of kipfler potatoes boiled in their skin in the fridge – in an open bowl in front of all the other food so I don’t forget my one wierd little trick. Happy shredding sir. Hopefully we can find you some abs before your next book update.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 25, 2017 at 14:19

      thhq replies to fearless:

      Small boiled Finns are good for eating cold. Salted or with a little mustard, or in a salad with some pickled beets.

      Wandering further off topic, can you do this?

    • Richard Nikoley on October 25, 2017 at 14:19

      from fearless:

      Thanks thhq. Looks like I am 5 times more likely to die than I thought.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 25, 2017 at 14:20

      from thhq:

      I have an interest in longevity. I’d never seen anything like this approach. It addresses the problem of falling. You need balance, flexibility and strong legs to score high.

  7. Waltermc on October 19, 2017 at 06:54


    I find all this too funny. The teenage girls in the 1960s were the aggressive ones. We just wanted to smoke and drink beer. College 69-73, Good Lord.

    Small company in the Northeast 79-80, could have bedded a dozen women, married, single, engaged. A paradise that, in hindsight, I should have taken advantage of.

    Aggressive men? You bet. However, I will always remember one woman at the bar smiled at me and said “It takes two, you know”. Praise God and His Son, an honest female. And damn pretty. How wonderful.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 25, 2017 at 14:16

      pzo replies to Waltermc:

      No Waltermc, praise the Pussy Goddess, not your magic man/men in the sky. I hope that wasn’t your pinnacle flirting experience.

      When you worship the correct deity, things like this happen: I had a broken leg and a long cast, went up to a woman in the bar, said “Hi.”

      She, “Can you fuck with that cast on?”

      “Yes, I can prove it.”

      We left.

  8. Mally on October 19, 2017 at 08:24

    Why do you complain about this new-fangled feminism? Bare titties and ass are up 98%. No strings attached sex is, too. Women have joined the work force and are bringing home the bacon, while still performing the lion’s share of child-rearing and housework. Some are so “empowered” they willingly go to the front lines to have their brains blown out.

    Men won.

    • Hap on October 19, 2017 at 09:15

      Your point is well taken. The cost on women and society is incalculable.

      However, while I admit that the feminist movement , armed with The Pill, accrued benefits to some degree, and especially the sexual appetite of men……it has morphed into a bitter, aggressive , and confused ideology….with a shotgun aim mentality.

      slowly but surely, everyone is confused as the “rules” of engagement change like the direction of wind. relationships are paralyzed. Men….now taught to be wussified (or else shamed and shunned) are boxed in . This is what women want for their fathers, sons, brothers?

      the movies show “kick ass” chicks…..who everyone knows cannot do what is proposed/shown. I wonder what it will be like when women are portrayed in sniper head shots, as is happening in current flicks to men.

      PHilosopher and serial criminal Rodney King..”Cant we all just get along”?

    • Richard Nikoley on October 19, 2017 at 09:24

      Right on, Hap. I too took Mally’s perspective as insightful, in a “be careful what you wish for” sort of way.

      All in all, a nice exchange on the topic.

    • fearless on October 19, 2017 at 10:49

      From what I have seen, we have the lowest birth rates and more material wealth than ever because more women seem to prefer money over children.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 25, 2017 at 14:21

      David Major adds, in response to Mally:

      Any man who wants a femine woman with true values lost. Those values are honor (to herself and her loved ones); integrity, the virtue of being true to oneself and reality, particularly biological reality, which modern feminsism utterly denies; and appreciation for true masculinity, which consisits of the aforementioned values and a focused pursuit of his goals and aspitations, which must be life reaffirming.

      Modern third and fourth wave feminism has poisoned women. Whenever I start dating a woman, one of the questions I ask is if she identifies as a feminist and what she thinks feminism is? If she identifies as a feminist and proceeds to describe some version of the moral rot and vomit that is third and fourth wave feminism, I never see her again. I don’t care who “easy” her tits and ass are; easily given pussy, no matter how attractive, is a sign of a woman with no values.

  9. Richard Nikoley on October 25, 2017 at 14:26

    pzo adds:

    “Feminism” is such a multi-defined word.

    My grandmother was a feminist, she hand cranked the car her father gave her in high school and was the first licensed female driver in Brazil. (And she was a GREAT driver, right into her old age.)

    My mother was a feminist, when she found out during WWII that her bonus check was smaller than the guy’s and was told that was because she was a woman, she ruined the boss’s desk by scrawling “I QUIT” in the wood with a pen. She had a new, equivalent check before the day was out.

    My sister is a feminist, the first female sworn officer many years ago in the police department.

    My many female friends are feminists, including one beautiful companion forty years my junior, who all appreciate how I (and my ex) raised my three daughters to be confident, STEM engineers and scientists. They appreciate how I treat women, with respect and expecting nothing but achievement and confidence. Recently I was a volunteer “boss” at a big event, and (friendly, smiling) chastised a small group of 13 year old girls for saying “I’m sorry,” when there was no reason to be sorry. (Something I’ve noticed women do far more often than men.)

    The difference between my ancestors, sister, and my friends and the current crop of self-proclaimed “feminists,” is that they don’t hate men. Even my lesbian sister. The current “feminists” do not understand that there are behavioral genetic codes written deep into our DNA. That boys are not girls with dicks.

    Another trait in common in the current crop is that they run to Big Daddy (ironic, eh?) when they get the vapors. University administrators, bosses, the government. (I once had a coworker who snooped on MY computer where I some poems about a women I loved. Nothing very candid. Well, her (XXXL) panties got twisted into knots, she complained to our boss. He, fortunately, understood the dynamics, although due to policy, he had to write report to HR.)

    A solid example of a brilliant, old school feminist is Camille Paglia. I think you may have mentioned her once, Richard. She hates the current whiny bitches as much as any man.

    Amplifying a bit on what Hap said, a year ago I heard on the radio a female Marine general talking about how their experiments with putting women in combat units was faring. Hint: As you would expect. Lesseee, how about upper body strength, i.e., woman couldn’t pull their weight, literally. How about men then helping women when they wouldn’t another guy? How about simple distraction? “Hey, nice ass!” How about men naturally protecting, rescuing women instead of putting the mission first?

    All observed by the general, even if not with the reasons I give. There were two conclusions: One, Mixed combat units were less effective. Shocked, I tell you, shocked. Two, “There is more work to be done.” Meaning, PC goals overrule nature in our military.

    Gimme a fucking break.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 25, 2017 at 14:27

      Yep, have mentioned Paglia bunches of times. Been reading her stuff since the early 90s.

      She’s one cool dude. 🙂

    • Richard Nikoley on October 25, 2017 at 14:27

      pzo adds:

      Also a long time Paglia fan. I copied the first forty or so pages of “Sexual Personna” to read again and again also around 1990. I loved, and still use her observation that “Prostitutes mop up the excess semen of the world.”

      You’ve probably watched her on Youtube. I have never seen anyone who could talk so fast, not blather, brilliant observations, pulling up fact and observations like a quick draw gunfight.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 25, 2017 at 14:28

      Definitely a rapid-fire, machine-gun talker. You get the sense that her mouth works hard to keep up with her brain.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 25, 2017 at 14:28

      pzo adds:

      She was interviewed by Bill Maher a few years ago, I think they go back aways.

      I don’t remember his exact, funny observation but he made some mention of that fact, that like his brain hurt trying to keep up. On those lines.

      The aforementioned very young woman announced (of course) that she’s a feminist. I was glad to learn that she is of the old school.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 25, 2017 at 14:28

      Jen W adds:

      Yes, these Spoiled, Jerk, Whiners, should be reading/listening to more Paglia instead of bitching. Although, Paglia would probably fry their brains. When listening to her speak one has to wonder if Paglia has mastered the art of speaking while breathing through her nose, she talks so fast. Paglia had a sit down with Dr. Jordan Peterson recently, and they both actually shut up while the other was talking for the most part.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 25, 2017 at 14:29

      I’ll have to check that out.

      Jordon is one of the data points I used to initiate my Patreon thing, now at about $800 net monthly to me. He’s doing $68k per month there.

  10. pzo on October 26, 2017 at 19:11

    Tonight I came across something that a lover wrote a few years ago. What a weird woman! Intellectually, verbally the most exciting woman of over a hundred. We were long distance, got together, worst sex I ever had. Anyway, she wrote me these words which I think are appropriate for this thread.

    “Premise: Masculine is Active, Feminine is Receptive. Perfect set up for S&M, but in real life what has happened is the Active masculine has no direction and the Receptive feminine does not understand the power inherent in surrender. I think in martial arts they teach you how to fall, so you will not get hurt. Part of that training is to not resist, surrender and then you can transform the momentum to your advantage. Women need to embrace the purpose of their power and men need to realize they become more powerful with a willing partner.”

    • Richard Nikoley on October 26, 2017 at 20:56

      Worst sex ever?

    • pzo on October 27, 2017 at 06:41

      Yeah. Very fun, kinky, laugh, laugh, laugh. But totally passive and unskilled. She liked to say that no man will forget sex with her. She was right, but for the exact opposite reason she thought.

  11. Mike from MA on January 12, 2018 at 21:47

    Rand reads like somebody who half-understood Nietzsche.

Leave a Comment

Follow by Email8k