Monday, February 19, 2018

Do You Really Dislike Others For Your Own Traits?

I have a good friend name Jeannie. She is a wonderful woman with a huge heart. Her father married a woman who was selfish and exploitative, and she did not like that woman. Then she attempted to make amends with her, and as she did she told me something to the effect of that people don't like other people for the traits that they reject in themselves.

No, this is wrong. This is completely wrong. People like others for traits that they like, whether or not they have the same traits, and they dislike others for traits that they dislike, whether or not they have the same traits. Sure, Hitler and Stalin, who were enemies, had many things in common with one another. But most American soldiers who hated Hitler did not have many qualities in common with him.

A similar claim is the Buddhist “law of attraction” - that like attracts like. Likewise wrong. People attract different things and for different reasons. Sometimes they attract people who are like themselves; sometimes they attract people who are not like themselves at all. The same person can attract terrible people and wonderful people within less than a month of one another. This would not be the case if the like attracts the like.

I have attracted both positive and negative attention from many people. Some of these people were like one another, and some were not. I have attracted the positive attention of a number of wonderful people. I have attracted the negative attention of a number of other people. I do not see much of a common thread that runs through both. Even among the people who hated me I have ended up seeing good traits. However they were in no way like the women whom I have loved.

Certainly there are times when people hate others for traits in themselves that they reject. But they may also hate others for traits that they have that they do not have at all. Jeannie is in no way like that woman. She is kind, ethical and compassionate. She had every right to dislike the woman who played her father for a fool, and it had nothing to do with her own traits. She never played anyone for a fool, and she never took advantage of anyone.

So it is important that this be clarified. Once again, sometimes people hate others for traits that they reject in themselves; sometimes they hate other for traits that they do not have at all. It is not about self-reflection or anything of the sort. It is about what you value as opposed to what you do not value. And this is the case, once again, whether or not you have the same traits yourself.

Obsessiveness And God

I had a friend named Linda who, after traveling many interesting paths, came to Christ. Sometimes people would ask her why she had such an obsessive personality, and she believed that the reason for this is that this is what God wants.

I think that she may have been putting the cart before the horse. She had an obsessive personality before she became a Christian. However the idea that God wants obsessive focus is correct.

Now there are many people who think that it is wrong to be obsessive. However, as any researcher would tell you, some tasks require an obsessive focus. I have been obsessive for as long as I can remember. I had many different obsessions. My current obsession is with God. I go to church a lot, I volunteer at a Salvation Army church, and I fellowship with several Christians.

I have heard a priest say something to the effect that you can be hot for Jesus or you can be cold for Jesus, but you cannot be lukewarm for Jesus. God wants our full attention. It says in the Bible that God hates divided loyalties, and in another part of the Bible it says that you cannot serve God and mammon at the same time. Now as a father I most certainly need to make mammon. However I am willing to do so in a way that is pleasing to God. As it says in the Bible, seek ye God's righteousness first and all else will follow.

Now psychology takes a completely different view of the matter. They think that it is healthy to believe in God, but not healthy to believe in God intensely. This is in contradiction to the Bible. The Biblical God demands an intense focus. Anything else is divided loyalties.

I have an education in psychology, and I have interacted with many psychologists. Some know what they are doing and some do not. But one thing that I have found interesting is that any number of atheists have become believers in God after seeing psychologists. It appears that this is the influence of Dr. Scott Peck. He was a protestant who was a psychologist, and his influence has been a big one. Another influence that I suspect in this matter is Alcoholics Anonymous, whose founder had a religious experience and who demand that people believe in something.

One thing in which religion is vastly superior than psychology is on the matter of “sociopaths” and “narcissists.” While psychology damns these people and thinks that they can never be good, religion offers all sinners a path to redemption. As for the people of obsessive temperament, religion really is the solution. They can fixate on God and His righteousness; and as a result of that they can become righteous themselves and be a force to cultivate righteousness in others.

In India, there was a poet who was passionately in love with his wife. His wife told him that if he focused on God in the same way, he would become enlightened. The result has been a path called Bhakti Yoga. The people focus on God in love, and they become gifted with enlightenment.

So it appears valid that people with obsessive tendencies should in fact focus on God. And as they put their minds and their heart to Him completely, they would become fully people of God and be a powerful force for God in the world.

Saturday, February 17, 2018

Poetry And The Bible

My two favorite Biblical figures are David and Solomon. The reason is that both were excellent poets; and Solomon was also a brilliant thinker.

Now there is something quite fishy about how Solomon was conceived. David took the wife of one of his soldiers and sent him to die in war, which is of course not a rightful course of action at all. However if he had not done that Solomon would not have been born; and we would not have the Proverbs, the Song of Songs and the golden age of Israel.

So there are some people who think that I did the wrong thing by marrying my wife when she was at the time with another person. I have several things to say on the subject. First, they were not even married. Secondly, she had been trying to leave that person for a long time before I had anything to do with the matter. And finally, their relationship was a complete rip-off for her. She was doing many things for that man; he wasn't doing much besides beating up on her and the kids. And finally, if I had not married her, Lilian would not have been born.

I did not kill that man or send him to die in war. Far from it. I honored his parental authority over their son, and I advocated for fatherhood to my former wife. The last stance did a lot to destroy my relationship with her. So now she is with another man. I am not attacking their relationship. Instead I've maintained a good relationship with her, and my daughter benefits from the attention of two loving and attentive parents.

I want this to be an example for other people. I want to show, by example, that you do not need to become an enemy of a woman if she leaves you. I want to show, by example, that there are much better things than domestic violence. And I want to show, by example, that love can survive even when a relationship ends.

Neither David nor Solomon lived what would be known now as the traditional lifestyle. They both had any number of wives, and Solomon also had many concubines. However both have been major contributors to the Bible; and both have done a lot for Israel.

Now I would consider it blasphemy to attempt to compare myself to Jesus. However it is not blasphemy to compare myself to David; and there are many things about David to which I can relate. His family thought nothing of him; but he wrote the Psalms and became the best king that Israel had. He did commit a sin regarding Uriah the Hittite. However he also did many much better things.

So we have many people attacking Bill Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinski. However Clinton did a lot more good than he did harm. Under him American economy added 23 million private sector jobs; and he was the only president in recent history to have done anything effective about the deficit.

So both King David and King Solomon were excellent poets. And while many these days do not have value for poetry, the best parts of the Bible are poetry. I want to see poetry resurrected. And one way in which this can be done is to remind people of the Psalms and the Song of Songs.

Loving Yourself And Loving Others: What Comes First?

I have heard many people say that unless you love yourself you cannot love another. This is completely wrong. In fact it works in the opposite direction. You love another for the traits that you find lovable, whether or not you have the same traits yourself. Then you can see which traits are lovable; then you know what you need to work on within yourself; then you love yourself.

When I was 19 I had a short but very passionate relationship with a woman named Michelle. I was very much in love with her. She was kind, warm, brilliant and compassionate. I was no such thing at that time in my life. But from knowing her I have seen what such traits look like. So I have been working to develop the same traits, and the more I do so the more I love myself.

Ayn Rand said that “before you can say I love you you must first say the I.” No, that is wrong. Once again, you love the next person for the traits that you find lovable, even if you do not have the same traits yourself. And, once again, seeing these traits expressed successfully in another person, you know what traits you need to develop yourself in order to be lovable in your own eyes.

I do not understand why this argument has not been made at a visible level. I have seen many people fall for this nonsense, and not all of these people are dumb. If nobody else is going to make this argument, then I will.

No, you do not start by loving yourself. You start by seeing the traits that you find lovable expressed in another. And then you need to make whatever changes you need to make in yourself in order to be lovable in your own eyes.

Thursday, February 15, 2018

Loving Self Vs. Loving God

My mother once told me that it all starts with loving yourself. This is wrong – dead wrong. It all starts with loving God. Then God improves you; then there is more about yourself to love.

I have known a person who said that unless you have a high self-esteem you have nothing to offer other people. I have known a guru who told me that altruism is based on being three years old and your whole existence being based on the actions of people around you. I have known a naturally altruistic woman who said, following this kind of an indoctrination, that unless she could live for herself she could not live. She ended up dying at age 25. She was brilliant. She was compassionate. She was wise. And yet she ended up dying at an extremely early age because of what she was faced with.

So I have had a woman tell me that before you can be a good and compassionate person you had to work through your “emotional psychotic bullshit.” According to this code, there could not have been good people before the existence of therapy; and of course there have been many good people before existence of therapy. These attitudes are wrong in every possible way. And it is unconscionable that a great country could have fallen for such beliefs.

Now many people who have these convictions are of the belief that they are good people and that others are “sociopaths” and “narcissists.” In fact their beliefs are more cruel than anything that we see from the preceeding. I have once known a woman with psychology education saying on the Internet that some people will make it psychologically and that some will not. Her attitude was more cruel than anything that we see from “sociopaths” and “narcissists.”

For the most of recorded history, self-love was not encouraged and most certainly it was not coerced. In the country where I come from, people were taught to sacrifice for the greater good. When I came to America with the same values, I was called a commie and I was called an egomaniac. Then these people decided that I was selfish and that they were not. This is beyond ridiculous.

Should self-esteem and things of the sort be encouraged? Even if they are encouraged, they most certainly should not be coerced. I have come to the conclusion that self-esteem does not make people better; it makes them worse. If you have high standards for yourself, you will find it harder to feel good about yourself than if you have low standards for yourself. The person with lower standards will have a higher self-esteem; the person with higher standards will be a better person.

So I have taken a break from the attitudes of people such as my mother. I am not starting by loving myself. I am starting by loving God. And I expect God to improve me in any number of ways, so that there will be more about myself to love.

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Baby Boomer Parents And Meaning

I once was camping at a campground outside of Melbourne. There was a family there from the Middle East. I was walking around without my shirt, and I told the lady that I was “a naked infidel.” She told me, “You know that you will die.” I told her, “Yes, so live to the fullest.”

I am aware about my mortality. My solution to that is to live the most meaningful life that I possibly can. And I have been blessed with conditions that make this possible.

Now there are many people who want different things. Some want a big house and a fast car; some want sex and love; some want family; some want comfort. I have had many different good things in my life, but what interests me the most is meaning. I want my life to be a meaningful one. And I have found meaning in God.

Many of the baby boomer parents have found inscrutable why their children have gone to religion. They were of the opinion that they were perfect parents. The correct answer to that is that it is not about what kind of a parent you are. People want meaning; people will want meaning. And it is completely rightful that they go to religion for such a thing.

Once again, it is not about what kind of a parent you are. It is about what people seek. People will seek meaning, and they should seek meaning. And such is not found in many of the beliefs of the baby boomers.

So we have all sorts of nonsense about “winners and losers” or “self-esteem” or “adequacy” or other things of the sort. I refuse to live according to such beliefs. They are cruel. They are stupid. They are wrong. And if you think that this is “reality,” the correct answer is that it is not such thing. You have not created the Sun. You have not created the planet on which you live. You have not created your country. It is ridiculous to think that such things are “reality.” They are no such thing. They are an adaptation – a bad one.

Are we animals or evolving matter? I have many reasons to say that we are not. I have had many experiences with less than a billionth chance of happening whose only possible explanations are religious ones; and so have many others. Now the academia has taken a dishonest stance on this matter claiming such things as that “extraordinary claims require an extraordinary level of proof.” I see nothing at all extraordinary about something that the bulk of humanity believes in. A far more extraordinary – and far more narcissistic - claim is that the bulk of humanity are fools and lunatics, and that the only people who are not are people who have no religious beliefs.

So I have found meaning to my life in a number of places. They include contributing to culture and thought; but more importantly they include God. I seek to do what I need for God, and I seek to do what I need to do for civilization. And that is a much fuller perspective than that of the Muslim lady or of the people who think in terms of “winners and losers,” “self-esteem” or “adequacy.”

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Responsibility And "Narcissism"

I once was seeing a counselor named Nancy. Nancy's message to me was that I needed to take responsibility for my life but that I could not be “grandiose.” What she did not understand was that, for me, “grandiose” goals are realistic. I was a child prodigy, and I finished University of Virginia when I was 18.

Now there have been some people portraying me as a bum; but I have not been bumming around. During the 1990s tech boom, I produced software that, to the best of my knowledge, is still being used. I have translated five books of classical Russian poetry ( and a bunch of Russian popular songs ( into English. And I have contributed original and interesting thought ( on a range of subjects.

Now we have a lot of talk about “narcissism”; but according to the definition of the narcisstic personality disorder the world owes a lot to its narcissists. If it is narcissistic to seek great success, or if it is narcissistic to have original ideas, then most of the world's major contributors have been narcissists. This is especially the case with America. If there is such a thing as narcissism, then Rockefeller, Gates, Trump and any number of others have been narcissists. And if it is narcissistic to object to social authority, then the same would apply to the ancestors of all white people in the “New World,” who left their countries, their homes and their ways of life in order to seek freedom elsewhere. Do not claim that you are protecting your society if you are destroying what made it great – or even possible at all.

Is it wrong to be “grandiose”? While there are many people who would be better off with a humble role, there are others for whom such things are realistic. I do not seek to rule anyone, and I do not seek to kill anyone. I seek to contribute; and I have contributed in many different ways.

Does that mean that one should be – cruel, selfish, shallow? Absolutely not. It means that one should give what one has to give. Now there are any number of people who tried to convince me that what I was doing was useless; but it has been far from useless. My translations are being used in dissertations. As for my thought, it has applications in a number of pursuits, including ones as important as economics and politics.

So it is important that attitudes such as Nancy's be challenged. In my case she was simply wrong. Such people are also wrong in any number of other cases. My former wife, who was the youngest person at her time to have had her art exhibited at a major art exhibit in Melbourne, got attacked a lot for being an artist. However she has done some significant things – including a heroic thing that has cost her much danger and financial loss – for her country. She ended up contributing far more than the people who thought that they were “winners” and that she was a slut. She has done something heroic. And I have seen psychologists discourage people from striving for the heroic, when without heroism on the part of some people their country would not exist.

So then some of these people also advocate “positive thinking.” “Positive thinking” causes more problems than it solves. If you think positive, you fail to anticipate problems and you do foolish things. Being “positive” can make you attractive to other people. It will not however solve the world's problems. However positive you are, if you flood the atmosphere with carbon dioxide while cutting down the trees that absorb carbon dioxide, you will have problems. The “negative thinkers” have not caused these problems. The people who think in foolish ways have.

As for responsibility, I would not take talk of such a thing from people who've left the world a worse place than they have found. I would take talk of such a thing from people who are actually responsible. Responsibility is not correctly defined as having a huge house and a Hummer. Responsibility is correctly defined as leaving the world a better place than you have found it. And if all that is advocated is what these people see as responsibility, then we have problems.

It took me a lot of mental effort to deconstruct this person's garbage. I do not know about others, but in my case the wrong things that people say stick in my head until I refute them. I have done that with a number of things, and I hope that my efforts toward that effect also help others. We see many people with psychological skill pushing completely wrongful attitudes. And it takes someone who also has similar skills to deconstruct them and free people from their trash.

Troubled Families And Government Care

For a long time I was anti-family. I come from a troubled background, and for a long time I wanted nothing to do with family at all. Then I had a family of my own, and I realized how stupid I had been. My daughter is the best thing that ever happened to me. She loves me very much, and I love her.

Now there are some who believe that family is sacrosanct. There are others to whom family is a dirty word. I have known a brilliant physicist and astrologer named Robert. He was in favor of love, but he was against family. I am now in favor of both.

It took me the efforts of many people to come to this point. It is not an easy thing at all to get someone as rigidly set in my ways as I had been to see reason. I am now grateful for the efforts of these people, even though at the time I had not been.

What is my view of family? Simply that it is as good as the people who are a part of it. Same is the case with anything human, including things such as business and government. I have been blessed with a wonderful child who has always been a sweetheart. But then of course there are many people who get bad kids, and there are many people who are bad themselves and treat their children badly.

Now one project of some in Far Left has been to do away with family. I've known a woman whose mother attempted to kill her when she was 13. She ran, and she wound up in government care. Her view of government care was not good. They had no love for her, and they treated her and others there badly. She ended up saying that she would rather have put up with her mother and her crazy stuff instead of going through what she had gone through.

So we are seeing some in conservatives saying that, according to liberal policies, government is going to be raising many of the children. That is certainly undesirable. Even if the parent is a bad person, children love them and care for them. I have known people who were raised with abusive parents, and I have known people whose parents left them. The children raised in abusive situations both love and hate their parents. The children whose parents left them hate them, period.

Is family something that deserves to be honored? Yes, it is. It is however not something that should be deified. Anything human is capable of being good and bad. There most certainly need to be laws – and credible enforcement of laws – in place to prevent some of the situations that I have known, such as when a person kills his child, rapes his child since he was 3 or breaks every bone in the child's body. However that does not mean that families should be broken up or that children wind up in government care.

Some things should be illegal. There needs to be a real-world reason for parents to treat their children rightfully. However it is not right at all to break up families, especially for minor reasons, such as minor violence or verbal abuse. My former wife's boyfriend before me did wrong things to his son, but I ended up concluding that they were not grave enough to disqualify him from being a parent. That as opposed to the father of her daughter before him, who did things that were grave enough. So that while, as is typical in such situations, I and her former boyfriend do not get along, I never attempted to replace him as a father, and I never attempted to keep him from being the boy's father or from having a meaningful relationship with the boy. This stance did a lot to destroy my relationship with my former wife. However I believe that this stance is the rightful one.

Now many people who end up working for such things as government care start out with idealistic considerations. But many of them end up quite nasty. According to the person I listed, they treat the children as criminals even though they have not committed any crime. And these children, having had it drilled into their heads that they are trash, do in fact become criminals.

So I believe that family really is something that should be respected. However once again it is not something that should be deified. Nothing human deserves to be deified. It is composed of sinful people. We see this with things such as business and government; we also see this with family.

Do not break apart families, even in case where there is abuse. Instead punish the people who do genuinely bad things with significant prison terms so that people know that a crime behind closed doors is still a crime. Domestic violence is a crime – rightfully. So are such things as incest. But do not deny children the attention of loving parents. And do not let significant numbers of children be raised by people who do not care about them and see and treat them like trash.

Monday, February 12, 2018

Bunnies, Turtles And Wolves In Sheep's Clothing

One common metaphor is that of the turtle and the bunny. The bunny has faster legs; but the turtle overtakes the bunny through consistent determined effort.

What does the bunny do when this happens? In many cases, I have seen the bunnies copying the turtles. We see women copying men. We see Asian, Hindu and black people copying the white man. In many cases these people become successful. And in many cases, we see them lose their best qualities.

We see this for example with the Brazilian soccer team. For a long time they had the flair but not the discipline. They would play scintillating soccer, but they would lose. So then they had a coach who decided to get to the root of the problem. Under him the Brazilians would play boring soccer, but they would win. In the last World Cup they had neither the dicipline nor the flair; and they played boring soccer and went down in flaming defeat.

We have seen similar things with feminist-minded women. They started to act like men. Many of them did in fact become professionally successful; but they lost their best qualities. I do not want to be with a man. If I wanted to be with a man, I'd be gay. I want to be with a woman. And I have in fact been with some amazing women, most of whom experienced attack from feminists for being the way they were.

This process has lead to a widespread use of the term “wolf in sheep's clothing.” A wolf in sheep's clothing is a bad person who pretends to be a good person. In this situation, the wolves have copied the sheep. They have learned to act like the sheep in order to fool the sheep. We see salesmen pretending to be nice people while wanting your money. We see players pretending to be nice people in order to get you trapped in a bad situation. Here, the wolves have learned from the sheep and have been using the sheep facade to prey on the sheep.

Now there have been people portraying me as a wolf in sheep's clothing; however I have proven by my behavior again and again that I am no such thing. First of all I am not interested in sheep. I like gazelles – artistic women. Secondly I am not interested in preying on anyone. In my relationships I have been giving, and even though my former wife is now with another man I remain good to her. What we see here is stereotypes that are correct for some people being used wrongfully. I am not a sheep and I am not a wolf.

One thing that happens of course when another species learn turtles' tricks is the turtles crying bloody murder. We have many people howling for example about the Jews. They are being accused of such things as being greedy. I consider it funny when people who think that “money talks bullshit walks” or that unless you are a multi-millionaire you're a loser claiming such things. They are being accused of being brutal. I consider it funny when people who think that unless you are strong and cruel you're a coward saying such things. They are being accused of being manipulative and dishonest. Once again, I consider it funny when people whose ancestors have fooled much of the world and broke numerous treaties saying such things. There were many brainy idealistic types who worked very hard at being scientists and teachers, only to see science get defunded, educational system get gutted and people who were a part of these systems portrayed as losers. So any number of them went into business or technology; and the same people who claimed them to be losers are now howling that they are taking over.

Should bunnies learn the ways of the turtles? Yes. But they should not stop being bunnies in the process. I do not want to see a world full of turtles. I like bunnies and any number of other species. I want to see richness and variety of life. So by all means learn the ways of the turtles. But do not stop in the process being what you are.

Thinking And Feeling: Mutual Virtue Or Mutual Sin

There are many people who take a negative view of feelings. To such people the question to ask is, Why are the feelings there at all?

If we have evolved, then feelings and thinking alike have evolved for the benefit of the species. If we have been created, then both are there by divine design. And if our nature is fallen and corrupted by the sin of Adam, then that extends to feelings and thinking alike.

In either case the two are equal – either in mutual virtue or in mutual sin. So for example we see Luther saying that reason is a whore.

Both feeling and thinking can go right, and both can go wrong. Feeling is capable of nurturing life, forming loving relationships and producing excellent art, priestry and literature; it is also capable of doing many stupid things. Thinking is capable of producing science and technology; it is also capable of coming up with things such as Marxism and logical positivism. In either case, we see something that can go right and something that can go wrong.

With two capacities that are capable of going either right or wrong, the correct solution is not to side fully with either capacity. It is to have a strong use of both capacities. That way both check one another where they are going wrong; and both can come together to produce something that neither is capable of producing by itself.

To people who think that feelings are a “lower function” or anything of the sort, the scariest thing in the world is a feeling-oriented person with a brain. So their solution is to demonize such people. Keep making cases that they are evil. In fact it is these people who come up with the most insightful observations. That is because, once again, they have use of two capacities rather than one, and the two can come together to achieve what neither can accomplish by itself. This is a model that I've articulated for other matters: Synthesis within the framework of check and balance. Let feeling and thinking form check and balance upon one another in their capacity for wrongdoing; and let the two synthesize with one another to accomplish what neither can accomplish by itself.

So the correct solution is to encourage both thinking and feeling. Train children in both sciences and arts. And arrive at more full, more integrated, people, who have use of two capacities that can work together to accomplish what neither can accomplish by itself.

Saturday, February 10, 2018

Insecurity And Domestic Violence

Once there lived a great man named Julius Nyerere. He was the president of Tanzania; and while most other African leaders were spending their time in office conducting civil wars or enriching themselves at the expense of their people, Nyerere worked hard to create the most peaceful, stable and socially responsible country in Africa.

Nyerere had a son who was nothing like him. He was an asshole. Julius Nyerere's son married a woman named Leticia, who was running a printing press in Tanzania. Leticia was beautiful and intelligent. She came from the country, and she got higher education in the former Soviet Union. The man however was violent and abusive. So Leticia was finally able to flee with her children to the United States, where she worked as an accountant. Leticia and I became good friends, and at her request I wrote her biography in poetry. Then she went back to Tanzania, where she became a member of the parliament. Eventually she died at a young age from causes I do not know.

Julius Nyerere liked Leticia, and he told her that his son was insecure. Now many people blame men's insecurity for things such as domestic violence; however I do not believe that cause to be correct. I do not consider myself an especially secure person, but I was never violent to women in my life. So I do not see Julius Nyerere's explanation for his son's behavior as valid.

Instead it appears to be an issue of ethics rather than psychology. Some people think that they are justified in beating their wives. My former wife's father is a successful businessman and does not have reasons for being insecure; however he used to beat her mother and told her boyfriend that it was OK to hit her. I find that behavior to be despicable. This is not the right way to treat one's daughter.

Now some people in America have seized on that and been attacking people whom they regarded to be losers or insecure. As if those men weren't suffering enough already. Meanwhile they have been going for people such as Rob Porter, who most definitely is not a loser. And from these men these women learned what actual reasons there are for domestic violence.

I used to be with a magnificent artist named Julia. Her former husband was a millionaire, but he was severely violent toward her. Once again, this is not a loser, a sociopath or anything of the sort. This is a man who has bad values.

This goes on and on. Some people decide that it's the people who have been bullied in school or at home that are the problem. They call them such things as sociopaths and narcissists. Meanwhile they have created an unbelievably cruel culture in which they portray anyone who is not like them as losers and freaks. This is beyond hypocrisy. This is people believing a Big Lie. Their entire perceptions are completely wrong. Not only that, they are precisely wrong. Precisely the wrong people get rewarded, and precisely the wrong people get attacked.

So we are seeing here a precise inversion of reality. We are seeing here reward for precisely the wrong people and attack against precisely the wrong people. I took a strong stance against domestic violence – at huge emotional expense to myself - since I was 3; but these people have accused me of being a misogynist. Once again, this is beyond hypocrisy.

Why would Rob Porter or Julius Nyerere's son or Julia's ex-husband not be confronted on their wrongful behavior, while all sorts of innocent men are mistreated? Probably the people who have these beliefs do not have the guts. It is much easier to take it out on young men nearest the liberal centers of learning and culture who are the least misogynistic men out there than confront real abusers. And so we are seeing these self-proclaimed feminists be vicious to all sorts of innocent men while submitting to real abusers.

Is the reason for these men's behavior insecurity? No, it is bad ethics. Even an insecure man is capable of self-control. And the solution is not to attack the men whom they regard to be insecure, but to have the courage and will to confront real abusers, however powerful they may be.

Romantic Love And Family Values

A common situation that keeps cropping up is that of people falling in love with people whose families are hostile to theirs.
One semi-solution to this has been found in Romeo and Juliet. I regard Romeo and Juliet to not just be a play about romantic love, but rather a metaphor for Europe’s transformation from feudalism to civilization. Through the lovers’ sacrifice the families realize the pointlessness of their feud and come together to work on building a civilization. This happened during Renaissance; and the result has been a continent turning from one of the worst places in the world to the lasting centrepiece of a great civilization – a great civilization that continues to dominate the world to this day.
Another semi-solution has been found in Huckleberry Finn. The feuding families kill one another off, while the lovers swim the river to build a life for themselves. This thinking has been a major influence in American art and American thought, and it continues to influence many people around the world to this day.
The problem with the first arrangement is that the lovers get sacrificed. The problem with the second arrangement – besides the families killing each other off – is that it results in rootlessness, in which the partners are disconnected from the people from whom they have come. When there are problems in the relationship, there is nobody to support them. Often the love turns bad, and people have nowhere to turn to. Meanwhile the parents lose touch with the children whom they have raised. So we see many very unhappy people.
I propose a better solution than either of the above. I propose a solution that benefits both the lovers and their families. The solution that I propose is for partners to get together and bring their families together, so that both the love and the family can persist.
I have seen this done successfully – for example by my former wife and her new husband. But also from her example I have seen a situation in which her former boyfriend’s mother poisoned him against her and brought her to treat her like dirt, however hard she was working on the relationship and however much she was doing for him, which was a great deal. Sometimes families’ influence can get poisonous. Sometimes also the lover’s influence can be poisonous against the family, as when a partner convinces the other partner that their family are trash. However when this works, this works wonders. And it does not only work wonders for the lovers. It works wonders for the civilization. It creates genuine, lasting peace in which both family love and romantic love can triumph. And this, I regard as the full solution.
I expect such situations to keep cropping up. I do not expect human nature to change, and I do not expect people to cease having either family relationships or romantic attractions. So this is the solution that I propose. Let lovers get together and bring their families together.
Allow both family love and romantic love to triumph.
And, by doing this on a large scale, do much to help create real peace.
The 1960s ideal of peace and love has been largely discredited. But here is a practical way in which this ideal can actually be achieved. Allow romantic love to persist, while also maintaining family relationships. Bring families together so that they can coexist peacefully. Allow both romantic love and family values. And thus create a wholesome and beautiful life.
I am not saying that this would be easy. I have listed some of the possible problems. However it is a valid thing to strive for. And I hope that many people around the world take this path.