Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Taoism, Romanticism And Societal Rules

In both Taoism and Romanticism, two philosophies that I have held dear to heart for a long time, society is being regarded as Satan, and it is thought that if rid of its influence on their minds people will be good. This is not necessarily the case. We see conflict even among animals; and I see no reason why people outside Western or Confucian society would be better than people in these societies. In fact in many cases – even among indigenous populations such as the Maoris who did not have a civilization – we see very wrong things.

The real question that needs to be asked is, Which societies are good or bad and for what reason? Some think that Christianity is bad; but Christianity replaced the Roman Empire, which had a lot of advanced knowledge. Clearly there is something here that is not evil and is in fact very good. Christ offers hope, life and meaning to many disempowered people, which is the same goal as is proposed by people in Romanticism.

Now I have seen Ken Wilbur and a number of others deride Romantics as spoiled children for militating against Rationalism, which he said had many of the same goals as Romanticism; but by that standard so are the Rationalists for rejecting Christianity, which like them has a goal of attaining at truth. In fact Christianity achieves many of the same goals as Romanticism. Love, fairness, compassion, being good to other people – all these are Christian teachings. So is the preference of divine power over secular power. The Christians and Romantics clash over sexuality and social morals; but their most important goals are similar to one another.

Hippies and “rednecks” had a similar idea – move away from the civilization into the country in order to live free lives. One set were Romantic, the other set were Christian. The “rednecks” worked out a generally more successful arrangement than did the hippies. They did a better job of providing for, defending and governing themselves. Eventually most of the hippies moved back to the civilization where they applied their creativity and intelligence toward creating the computer industry and a Wall Street boom, while “rednecks” remained in the country and used the knowledge that they got from the hippies to rise to major political power.

By the Romantic standard of freedom, “rednecks” are better than the “bourgeois.” By the Romantic standard of non-violence, culture and treatment of women, they are far behind the “bourgeois.” If society was the root of all evil, then the opposite would be the case. We will see good and bad behaviors everywhere. It is entirely not the case, as some believe, that society is “reality” or “the real world” and the Atlantic Ocean isn't. But neither is it the root of all evil.

I was attracted to some of these ideas myself and gave voice to them. I learned from experience. I did not disown the correct aspectes of Romanticism – support of loving relationships, respect for culture and the arts, better treatment of the less fortunate and respect for nature in all its intricacy and complexity. I do however disown things in any tradition that prove to be wrong, and this is one such problem. We see evil among the Maoris as much as we see evil among the English. And at this point in history it is the English-speaking countries that lead the world in human rights.

With Taoism, the claim that has turned me off of the ideology is that by conceptualizing beauty one also creates ugliness. That is completely wrong. Both beauty and ugliness existed long before I existed, it will continue existing long after I'm gone. With Buddhism we see such ideas as the law of attraction – that the like attracts like. This is also demonstrably wrong. People attract different things for different reasons, and much of what they attract – for good or for ill - is very little like themselves. I have myself attracted widely different people and for widely different reasons while remaining the same me throughout. And the New Age idea that people create their reality with their consciousness is completely wrong. They did not create the Sun with their consciousness. This attitude is not only wrong factually; it is also wrong morally. By this logic the 500,000 American soldiers who died in the Second World War caused it through "victim consciousness" or "negativity in their consciousness," and that is a damnable thing to believe.

Society is neither the god that fascists claim it to be nor the Satan that Romantics and Taoists claim it to be. It is an arrangement. And what I want to advise to those who speak in favor of society's rules is to make these rules official. Pass them into law. Subject them to visibility, accountability, check and balance. Unofficial rules create a hidden tyranny. We have rules that are not even honest enough to be made official. This is a way to sneak in hidden tyranny into nations that are intended to be free. Societies will always have rules; but for these rules to be valid within a context of democracy they have to be passed into law. They have to be made visible and official. Then people who seek to enforce them will have a constitutionally valid basis for doing so, and the people who object to them can work in a visible context to try to repeal them.

I am of an age where I see a need for structure. However it has to be a legitimate structure. For an authority in a democracy to be made legitimate, it has to be made official. It has to be made subject to visibility, accountability, check and balance. Anything else is an attempt to sneak in hidden tyranny into countries that are intended to be free.

So the correct solution is neither to deify society as “sanity” or “reality” or “the real world” nor to practice ill will toward the civilization. Societal rules have to be passed into law. Subject societies to the same standard of accountability and visibility to which you subject the government. And then avoid tyranny both official and unofficial, while achieving the correct goals that Romanticism, Rationalism and Christianity have in common.

Monday, December 11, 2017

True Cure For "Perverts" And "Sociopaths"

For a long time we have been hearing that some people – such as sociopaths and “perverts” - are incurably evil. This is a completely wrong thing to believe.

There may not be a cure for sexual perversions, but there is a cure for acting on sexual perversions. It is called self-control. There may not be a cure for sociopaths, but there is a cure for acting on sociopathic tendencies. It is called having a moral compass. The people who claim that these people are evil and can only be evil reduces people to being animals. The correct solution is not to listen to such people, but to exercise the human capacity for moral choice.

If someone is acting in a selfish or unethical way, it does not necessarily mean that he is a sociopath. Some of such people are simply lost. They do not have a moral compass. The moral compass is provided by accepting the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Doing this restores people again to the status of being people. Whereas we see many in psychology doing the opposite. Once again, they have decided that some people are bad and can only be bad whatever they do. This is irrational, this is cruel and this is wrong.

Into this fascist nightmare comes in the wisdom of God. He restores people to humanity and teaches them the rightful way to conduct themselves. At this point even the people with the worst natures learn to act rightfully and use their moral choice to overpower whatever is wrong with their natures.

Character, in my experience, makes one attractive to many more people. And rightfully so. A person with character will be much more likely to behave rightfully than a person without character. The solution is to build character; and, in my experience, the way to do so is to invite into one's life the being that had the best character of anyone known in history, who, even though He could do anything that He wanted, decided to sacrifice Himself on the cross.

Very little of merit on this matter can be learned from the man-haters. Very little of merit on this matter can be learned from predatory psychologists. But everything stands to be learned on this matter from beings that actually know what character is. If you have those kinds of propensities it does not mean that you are damned for life. It means that you need to figure out ethics and apply it. And that is something of which anyone, including the sociopaths, are capable.

This matter has been approached in a completely wrong way. It ignores the central reality of human existence – deliberate choice based on principle. We are not animals. If we have wrong propensities, it does not mean that we will always act on them. We can stop ourselves when we find ourselves tempted to do wrong things. And it is in encouraging this, and not self-esteem or anything of the sort, that we stand to become good people.

So it is time to do away with these grievous errors. The solution to these problems is moral self-restraint. The solution is giving people a correct moral compass. And then they will act rightfully whatever their nature or their psychology or their brain chemistry happens to be.

Vindicating Love

In America, many women – especially the feminist kind – disliked me. I came to the conclusion that the reason for that was conflict of expectations. Both my mother and my grandmother were superwomen, and I got used to female beauty and goodness without myself being especially attractive physically or personally. So many women saw me as a bottom-feeder.

However I did have things to offer the women that I was with. One was affection and passion. Another was appreciation. Another was quite good poetry. Another was addressing their concerns. And of course when I was making good money in the computer industry I had that to offer as well.

One benefit of this state of affairs is that bad women avoided me. I did not have what they wanted. The women I did attract were the artistic and philosophical kind. As such, these were frequently accused of being crazy or evil. However they were all beautiful, intelligent and exciting. Some lived in mansions and some have been homeless; but all were amazing as romantic partners. And all had experienced completely unfair mistreatment.

They, like me, were the romantic type. In contemporary society the romantic women become punching bags, and the romantic men get treated as criminals. We all had a strong influence from Romantic poetry and literature. We applied the concepts to things in our lives. It worked when we found one another. The result, besides beautiful shares, was also good poetry and art on both sides.

Now romantic attitudes have come under a lot of criticism. Apparently it is unrealistic, narcissistic or childish. It is not narcissistic; it is about valuing the other person rather than about valuing yourself. It is not unrealistic; people's convictions have a large role in shaping the reality of their lives, and people who base their actions on such beliefs make these beliefs a part of social reality. Nor is it childish; I have known marriages that started with love at first sight and were going strong when the partners were in their 80s.

Then there is the claim that it is antisocial. Do not tell that to the World War II generation. They built a very successful society while in many cases basing their matches on romantic love. Maybe such things become antisocial in societies that want to snuff them out; but societies do not have to be that way.

Another claim is that it is nature's way to get you to do its bidding. Is that such a bad thing? Is it a bad thing furthermore that such matches should lead to marriage and family? Most people will want to have families. Most people will want to have children. It is much better that this be done within the context of a relationship where people love one another than within a relationship in which people do not.

Probably the most ridiculous claim I've heard on the subject is that it is misogynistic. That claim is a Big Lie. That claim is precise inversion of truth. A misogynist is somebody who hates women. A man who writes poetry for women is not a misogynist; he is the opposite of a misogynist. He is a man who loves women, or at least the women for whom he writes poetry. To claim anything to the contrary is absurd.

Then there is the claim that the people who are attracted to such things are narcissists or sociopaths or perverts, and that these people can't love. Even ones who can't feel love – as we are told about sociopaths - can choose to act in a loving manner. Use your mind for what your heart fails to do. As for “narcissists” and “perverts,” many of them do very much love. Ayn Rand is regarded as narcissistic, but she was passionately in love more than once. And of course many of the people who were involved in 1920s and 1960s would be now regarded as perverts, but many of them were very loving, as we see for example in the Great Gadsby, the Beat poetry and Pink Floyd.

When something is under attack in society, its manifestations are at a disadvantage. This reinforces the false claim that there is something wrong with it. Especially when partners are young, inexperienced and not versed in social manipulation, their relationships can be easily poisoned or destroyed by people versed in such things. This leads to situations such as the one that I had in 1995, when I passionately loved a woman only to have her stepmother tell her that I was using her. Completely untrue, but it appears that she believed it. Some say that love is the most powerful force in the universe, but in fact love is quite fragile. Its value is its beauty, not its power, and the correct place for power is to protect the love.

One thing that I have seen in some situations is what I call the Iago behavior. Sometimes a man would genuinely love a woman, only to have his bar buddies or his family stuff his head with paranoid nonsense and convince him that the woman is doing the wrong thing or that the woman is evil. In many case these people would claim that the man owed it to other men or even to God to tramp women down. This would destroy even the most loving relationships and lead them to become abusive. Then of course the feminists would look at this behavior and say that it means that men are evil or that love is a racket. In fact the problem was neither with men nor with love. The problem was with the ugliness that surrounded them and which was more experienced than were they.

I want to see romantic love vindicated and becoming a fertile ground for better family life. This will create better family situations. As for the people with strong romantic influence, it will give them a reason to live and to excel, bringing into the civilization a rightfully disaffected constituency.

I want people growing up now to avoid situations such as what I had in 1995. To that effect I offer my arguments on the subject. Use these arguments to defend your relationships and make your relationships blossom for life.

Alt-Right: WASPs and Jews

It appears that in America there is a strong new movement that calls itself alt-right. According to them, black people are lazy and violent, Jews are evil manipulators, and Muslims are terrorists.

I ask these people: Where would America be without Michael Jordan, Eddie Murphy and Colin Powell? I ask these people: Where would America be without Albert Einstein, Mark Spitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger, Adam Sandler, Steven Spielberg and Ayn Rand? I ask these people: Where would they as former Tea Party be without the Koch brothers? All these people contribute a lot to America. And they contribute much more than they would if they had simply assimilated into the WASP culture, as some people say that they should.

Every culture has something wrong with it. That includes the White Anglo Saxon Protestant American. Now there are many things that are right with that culture, and they have the right to affirm these virtues. The stress on character, hard work, strength and ethics is right. The biggest problem with this culture is emotional repression. Apparently feelings are for the weak and the stupid, and anyone showing feelings is trampled down. For people who do such a thing, the greatest nightmare is a feelings-oriented person with a brain, as many Jews are. They are a nightmare for two main reasons. One is that they cannot be credibly portrayed as stupid and thus form a refutation by counterexample of this falsehood in their worldview. And the other is that they have the wits to be able to help other feelings-oriented people whom they want to trample down. So portray them as evil manipulators or dangerous individuals. Brand them with untreatabled disorders. Or claim that their whole culture is evil.

Regarding the black people, I am close to a number of black ladies, and from what I have heard from them I feel like punching the men who had treated them that way in the face. However this is not limited to black people, and I feel the same way about a number of people who are Muslim, Russian, Australian and the American WASP. That some black people are lazy and violent is certainly correct. However there are any number of others who are no such thing. It is correct to go after the guilty; but do not stick these labels on the innocent. I have seen a number of good efforts that the black people are doing to improve the behavior of people in their community, and these efforts deserve respect. Yes there are stupid hoodlums who are black. But there are also many black people who are admirable individuals, and they do not deserve to be blamed for the sins of the hoodlums.

One thing they are right about is that political correctness is wrong. Yes, it is completely wrong. Not only does it fail to achieve its stated goals of tolerance and respect, but it makes them impossible. For me to actually tolerate or respect you I must understand your perspective. For me to do so you must be able to express your honest opinion, however offensive it may be. If you cannot express your honest opinion because someone considers it offensive, I will never understand your actual perspective, which means that I will not know whether or not to extend to you actual tolerance and respect.

Maybe the WASP culture has been criticized too much, and it may be valid that it should remind people of the positives in it, of which once again there are many. However do not in the process bring back features that are wrong. Do not bring back emotional repression. Do not bring back coldness. Do not bring back meanness and cruelty. If you do that, it will always be only a matter of time before something like 1960s happens again.


So yes, celebrate the things that you are right about and that are right in your character. But do not portray as evil or lazy or violent or whatever people who are none of these things and many of whom are strongly contributing citizens. America benefits from many black people and many Jews. And it is rightful that these people be properly credited for the work that they are doing for America.

Sunday, December 10, 2017

Errors Of Personality Psychology And New Age

Psychology and New Age thinking both make the same error, but from the opposite directions. The first claims that, if someone is a narcissist, a sociopath or a pervert, then he can never be good whatever he does. The other claims that a child who's been run over by a car has caused it by negativity in his consciousness.

The first treats people as animals; the second treats people as gods. The first abdicates responsibility and choice to the point of claiming that people have no control over their actions. And the second saddles people with responsibility for things that are not their responsibility at all.

On this matter, as on others, Christianity offers a correct solution. Christianity says that we have choice without saying that we have control over everything. Christianity says that even a sociopath can choose to act in rightful ways. And it does so without saying that everything that happens to people is solely their doing.

This makes it the rational standpoint.

Now there are certainly people who've fallen into the whining habit who need to be told to be more responsible and proactive. But there are also people who've fallen into the persecution habit who need to be reminded that others are human beings rather than animals. Once again, anything capable of choice is capable of rightful choice. This, once again, includes sociopaths, perverts and further along the same line. There may not be cure for sociopathy or sexual perversions, but there is a cure for acting on such things. It is called choice. Choice, once again, of which everyone, including sociopaths, is capable. The correct cure for people who act like bastards is to provide them a moral compass. That is the case whether or not they have anything wrong with their brain.

Some people who do wrong things have something wrong with their brains; some do not. Some people who do right things have something wrong with their brains; some do not. Any number of major contributors in history have been diagnosed with mental illness. It would be especially present in the narcissistic diagnosis. If it is narcissistic to have original ideas or to seek great success, then most of the world's major contributors have been narcissists. If it is narcissistic or sociopathic to dislike social authority, then most Americans are descended from narcissists and sociopaths, who disliked the social authority in their countries enough to move across the Atlantic. And if it is schizoid or schizophrenic to have spiritual experiences, then the bulk of the world owes its moral guidance to schizoids and schizophrenics.

With New Age idea, we see exceptional cruelty as well as lack of ethics. Now it may very well be, as I have been told, that the Jews who got killed during the Second World War had a “victim consciousness”; however the 500,000 American soldiers who died during that war suffered from no such thing. This is something that one may believe if one has spent all his life in a protected environment. But people who've experienced trouble that was not of their making do not have the luxury of such beliefs. And it is reprehensible that such people would insult the heroic people such as the above who have made the ultimate sacrifice so that they can live in comfort and sneer at them.


Once again, both ideologies make the same error from the opposite directions. One treats people as animals; the other treats people as gods. We are neither. We are human beings. We are beings who can control some things but not others. It is rightful that people be told to make more responsible choices without holding them accountable for the phases of the moon. And it is also rightful that every human being, even if possessing a sociopath diagnosis, be treated as a human being.

Friday, December 08, 2017

Novelty And Beaten Paths

When I was a student at the University of Virginia, American conservative columnist George Will came to give a speech. One of his statements was that the past is a usable past. That is most certainly the case. I have intensely studied history, and I've learned a lot from it. I cannot guarantee that I will not make my own mistakes, but I am most certainly determined not to repeat the mistakes of the people who came before me.

There are people who want to disregard cliches; but there is a reason why cliches become cliches, and it is not that they are untrue. There are people who want to see conservatives or fundamentalists or Americans as such as stupid, but you don't rise to the leadership of the world by being stupid. Similarly there are people who claim that Americans are wealthy imperialists, but Americans were not born wealthy or rulers of the world. They had to work hard at it, and not only work hard but also work smart. And they did it in a much more humane manner than say Spain or England, which got their wealth to a large extend by conquering and enslaving other populations.

We also hear the claim that beaten paths are for beaten people. Why are the paths beaten? Because they work. Whether or not you are yourself a beaten person, I have found out, after attempting to the contrary, that beaten paths cannot be dismissed. I am most certainly happy to be a pioneer, and I have come up with a number of useful ideas that, to the best of my knowledge, are original. However I found out that there is a merit also to the work of the people who came before me.

Vladimir Vysotsky, the Soviet Union's most popular songwriter, wrote a song about how he got into a path and kept riding along in that path until the path ended, at which point he had to make his own addition to the path. He said at the end of the song that the path was only his. Well no, it was not only his. There were other people who came before him, and he extended the path. This is how the situation is supposed to work.

Many people are bored with their upbringing or see wrong things in it, so they then want to do other ways of doing things. Sometimes there is a legitimate reason for this. Many Americans are bored with or find objectionable the stress on money and are interested in Russian culture, and many Russians are bored with Russian culture and want to go to America and make money. In many cases going to other places for what the home lacks improves the home. America is improved by bringing into itself Japanese cars, Mexican food and Russian ballet. Russia is improved by bringing into itself American ideas on how to do business and politics. It is completely rightful to explore other ways than one's own and see how they can be useful in improving one's ways. However it is not valid to deny matters on which the way in which one has been raised is right. And – especially in case of America – there are many things that are right with it.

In relationships, novelty can be a source of excitement and of introduction of worthwhile things to which one has not been exposed. However it will also expose the person to whatever is wrong with the other culture as well as to value conflicts with her upbringing. I know a woman from Kansas who married a Native American man and wound up with 40 stitches in her skull. I know a woman from a royalty-descended government family who married a self-made Reagan conservative, and he would come at her with fists if he found a speck of dust on the floor. I know an American man who married a young Russian woman and got used and abused. One frequent scenario is that the person goes for someone from another world and is horrified at the differences in values and attitudes. We will see a battle between the desire for novelty and ingrained values. That will likely result in conflict. To deal with such conflicts it will be necessary to understand the other's perspective. However doing so may also lead to negative attitudes toward the other person, as their perspective would clash with one's own. Resolving such differences requires lots of intelligence and effort, and many people are not going to put in that effort. And many of those who do will end up recognizing, as they examine both their own attitudes and those of the other person, that there are things of merit in their own background that the other person's background lacks. At which point their attitude toward their own background will improve. The person will become more appreciative of what she has been given. That does not mean that she will go back to mindlessly agreeing with everything. She will however be more likely to have respect for what she has been raised with and see matters on which her upbringing was right.

A claim made by many liberals about conservatives is that they have a closed mind. Open mind is something that you want to have in order to learn new things. For getting things done, such a thing may be experienced as disruptive. Open mindedness is good at a university. In a family, it may not be such a good thing, as it may expose the child to influences that confuse or harm the child or interfere with the child's development. It may prevent the development of a stable identity or undermine the structures that the child needs in order to grow. Some influences can be appealing to the child but be very wrong. If a child is exposed to, say, Communism or chaos magic, that could be appealing to the child but take the child down a wrongful path. So it becomes understandable why many people would favor open-mindedness when they are students but choose closed-mindedness when they are parents. The two tasks require completely different approaches. And the same person may very well go both ways at different times in their life.

I do favor open-mindedness in learning about other ways of doing things, and I have myself gone to many different paths and learned from them. However there are also tasks that require consistency, and in such situations some influences should not be acceptable. If a person takes an influence seriously, the process of making things work under that influence will give them an appreciation for what they came from. Many of the things that the person takes for granted will be missing in their new environment, and that will build appreciation for these things. At which point the person would have to choose as to whether to regain these things and appreciate them or go without these things. I would anticipate that most will make the first choice, although I have seen many people who made the other choice. Both the European immigrants who came to America and decided to stay, and the hippies who went to Vermont to practice organic farming, have in fact made the other choice. However more hippies decided to go back to the civilization and figure out how to live in it than stayed in Vermont. That is because they realized that the civilization had many virtues that they, in their younger years, failed to appreciate; and they came back to the civilization and appreciated it, in the process contributing creative thought that was instrumental in creating the computer industry and the ongoing Wall Street boom.

The hippies has the same idea as the “rednecks.” They both wanted to get away from the civilization and move to the country in order to have freedom. The “rednecks” had more experience at doing this than the hippies. They had to figure out how to provide for themselves, how to defend themselves and how to govern themselves. They saw the hippies, who had no knowledge of such things, as spoiled children, and many of them did in fact act like spoiled children. They failed to appreciate where they came from. Contact with “rednecks” cured many of their wrongful beliefs. They thought that society or the civilization was the root of all evil; but here were people who were not a part of their society, who were much more violent and much more hateful to them than were the “bourgeois.” They thought that people if left to their own devices would start a Communist revolution, but here were people who not only did not want a Communist revolution but were more militantly opposed to Communism than were the city dwellers. What the hippies thought people were like, and what people actually were like, proved completely different from one another. Most hippies ended up seeing their error. Some remained in the country and taught the “rednecks” the knowledge that they needed to become a major political force. More went to the civilization and contributed creatively to Wall Street and Silicon Valley. For the latter, some see them as having “sold out.” I actually find that what they did was more valuable than what was done by those who did not.


In my case, I have grown to appreciate things about both Russia and America. I have also found that Australia, where I live now, has many great things with it as well. I want to see all of the above correct whatever is wrong with them while building on what is right with them. And in all three cases, of these there is plenty.

Thursday, December 07, 2017

Mastering The Previous Level

The biggest challenges that people face appear to be in implementing what is most central to them. The World War II generation wanted peace, prosperity and national greatness, and it was challenged with a depression and a war. The baby boom generation wanted personal freedom, and it was challenged with a rigid social order. Gen-Xers wanted structure, stability and service, and they were challenged with social chaos and unchecked self-justified selfishness that told them that they needed to have a positive outlook and high self-esteem before they could do anything of merit even as it was stomping upon whatever positive things they did and put the world into a sorry shape in which positive outlook was not justified. And many in my generation wanted beauty and love, and we were challenged with toxic feminism and toxic psychology that wrongfully saw such things as narcissism or misogyny.

It appears that this is how things are intended to be. It appears that we must rise above such things or else live desperate lives. And it appears that, in order to do so, we need to rise above our own natures and do what is not in our natures.

For science, reason and democracy to come into existence during Enlightenment, they had to convince people that they would be done in an ethical manner. For a long time the reputation, as Luther stated, was that “reason is a whore.” Scientific intelligence was forbidden because it was seen as unethical and morally corrupt. So Enlightenment people had to practice strong ethical conduct in order to convice the world to allow science and discovery, as well as of course democracy.

For passion and the arts to come into existence during Romanticism, they had to convince people that they possessed an underlying logic. At the time the claim was that such things were irrational and were held in low esteem. Through the efforts of genius authors such as Rousseau, Thoreau, Wordsworth, Goether, Keats, Schiller, Mary Shelley and Blake, who knew how to reason while being passionate and creative, passion and creativity were rationally vindicated. This allowed such things to lay a claim on life. They were also seen as immoral; and it took Schiller with his concept of “beautiful soul” to show that there was in fact an ethic to them as well.

Religion, for its part, has also had to show that it is intellectually and scientifically valid. For a long time religion was seen as backward, stupid or ignorant, so it had to use scientific fact and philosophical reasoning in order to regain credibility. So there were Christian intellectuals using postmodernist arguments to validate Christianity and Christian scientists using scientific discoveries to make a credible case for creationism.

In all cases the process of bringing such things into the world improved them. The reasoning types were improved by having to act ethically. The creative and passionate types were improved by having to master reason. And the religious people were improved by having to learn science and philosophy and use both to re-empower their religion.

Similarly all of the generations listed above were improved by having to make happen what they valued in the conditions that they faced.

With such things as imagination and creativity, it took the scientific discoveries of Einstein to vindicate them. This great scientific mind said that “imagination is more important than knowledge.” We also see medical doctors and scientists such as Karl Jung and Deepak Chopra supporting things such as Eastern spirituality, that mainstream science holds in low regard, by appealing to quantum mechanics and higher mathematics. These people used science to validate what many consider unscientific and give such things greater credibility than they would have had if they did not have credible scientists speaking in their favor.

Similarly, for women to gain economic and political power, they had to convince men that they had rationality and ethics – things that many people thought that women lacked. They also had to cultivate courage and strength, which once again many people thought that women lacked. The more women were able to do this, the more they gained economically and politically. Then feminist women decided that feminine women were weak and stupid. This stereotype was overcome by Olympic champion skier Julia Mancuso, who won the competition while wearing a tiara. It continues being challenged by Russian women, who tend to be feminine without being either stupid or weak.

By themselves, most of the above can go wrong. But when they have to master the previous level in order to bring themselves into life, they improve. They then need to maintain this improvement in order to give themselves a positive reputation. Failure to do so harms others of similar propensities who follow them. Success in so doing makes their path easier.

Self-Love And Self-Improvement

Dean Blehert, a Washington-area poet, wrote about people who “love others as themselves, but hate themselves.”

This is an insightful observation. What is the correct way to love yourself, and what is the correct way to love others? Certainly if you hate yourself and love others as yourself, you will not necessarily be doing the right thing. But neither would you be doing the right thing if the way that you want to be loved is to be mollicoddled, and that you would be protecting others from understanding the consequences of their actions.

Steven Covey wrote that love is a harsher thing than mere kindness. Sometimes the genuinely loving thing to do is to challenge people or rebuke them. Certainly if I was doing something wrong, I would like to be stopped. If you are supporting others in things that are wrong, you become complicit in these things. If you feel compassion and loyalty for the mafia enough to start killing or robbing people for them, then you will not be doing the right thing. Love without righteousness enables various forms of sin, and it takes even the better people down wrongful roads.

So what then is the correct way to love yourself, and what is the correct way to love others? On this matter it appears that people in India have a rightful arrangement. They are strict with their children, but they are also loving with their children. They both nurture and challenge. This comes across to me as the best combination among the quadrant of:

Loving and strict;
Loving and not strict;
Not loving and strict;
Not loving and not strict.

Loving and not strict would create a good childhood, but not necessarily prepare the person for life. Not loving and strict would be an absolute nightmare. And not loving and not strict will create criminals, where children are running wild while having it been reinforced in their heads that they are dirt.

So there are many people who take this saying to mean that they should be indulgent toward others. That, I have found, is wrong. This approach not only allows others to get away with wrongdoing but makes one an enabler of the wrongdoing. It corrupts good intentions and kind natures and uses them for wrong. Once again, compassion for others does not mean sympathizing with and supporting the mafia. You need to see what the other side is actually doing and then decide whether to support them or to rebuke them.

The description of the codependent character is basically someone who treats an adult as if he was a child. The result of this is that the other person becomes too comfortable and turns into mush. Sometimes he also becomes abusive. I have known a situation in which a woman did everything that she could for the man only to have the man keep grinding her down with verbal and physical violence. The adult love is not only about kindness, it also is about getting the other person to be their best. That is how God loves us. He does not only show us kindness. He also challenges us to be our best and rebukes us when we are wrong. And in some situations such as the one above, someone very much needs rebuking.

When faced with this state of affairs, some people decided such things as that before one can love another one must love himself. In the words of Ayn Rand, “Before one can say I love you one first has to say the I.” That is also wrong. The Russian culture does not encourage people to love themselves, but it has a strong romantic influence. I did not love myself when I was 19, but that did not keep me from passionately loving Michelle Renfield. The claims such as that romantic love is search for external validation are totally wrong. What I felt for Michelle had nothing to do with what I felt about myself. It had to do with what I felt about Michelle. She was much more lovable than I was at that time, being kind, compassionate and beautiful. My feelings for her had nothing to do with anything to do with myself. It had to do with passionately valuing the lovable qualities that she had and that I did not. She was lovable in my eyes because she possessed these fine qualities. I did not possess them, and I was not as lovable in my eyes.

I have also heard that loving oneself is the start. No, it is not. In many cases one's self is not lovable until it improves. In many cases loving God is the start. As Solomon said, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. And in many cases the love of God is the beginning of love for oneself as well as for others. Even more importantly, it can be the beginning of being a good person. I used to be denounced by many people as a bad person. But my walk with Christ has been changing me. So now most people I know see me as a good person. This transformation did not come from me loving myself. It came from me being exposed to the wisdom and goodness of someone much greater than myself. The better I get, the more there is a reason to love myself.

So many people who believe such a thing are putting the cart before the horse. Loving oneself does not precede improving oneself. It is the other way around. The more you improve, the more there is a reason to love yourself. And it is this direction that I would recommend for others. Once again, in many cases the self is hard to love. It becomes easier to love the more it improves. And teaching self-love instead of self-improvement is in many cases completely unproductive. Love follows improvement, not the other way around.

And it is this direction that I will recommend for others, as it has certainly been working for me.

We see the exact thing with self-esteem. Good self-esteem does not make good people. In many cases it works the other way around. If you have higher standards for yourself, then you will find it harder to feel good about yourself than if you have low standards for yourself. Rewarding self-esteem does not reward personal good; it rewards low standards. In many cases people in either category need to be brought to reality - either that their self-esteem is too high or that it is too low. In either case, working on self-esteem does not improve people. Improving one's character creates more valid reasons for positive self-esteem.

The correct question to ask is therefore, How do you want to be loved, and why? And is loving yourself – and others – the same way going to make the world better or worse?

Do not start by loving yourself. Start by improving yourself, and then there will be more to love.

Business And Christian Values

There are some people in business who think that business is the sole root of prosperity. It is time that this arrogance be challenged.

That business has a large part in prosperity, is most certainly correct. However in no way is it the only part.

We also need the scientists, whose work is at the root of most of what business sells.

We also need the teachers, who educate both the businessman and the worker.

We also need the military and the police, who protect the country and enforce property rights.

And of course, we also need the worker.

Most of these people do not make very much money, and many in business would see them for that reason as being losers or irresponsible. However without them the businessman would have nothing. And I consider it wrong to treat like cattle the people whose work you need to prosper.

Many of the same people claim to have Christian values. A true Christian would treat other people well. That is even the case with people whom he would regard to be losers; and it especially true with people whose work he needs for his prosperity.

I do not militate against business. In no way do I militate against business. Some of my best friends are businessmen. However they are businessmen with a conscience. They practice the conservative virtues of responsibility and hard work. They also are willing to go out of their way – in some cases far out of their way – to do things that benefit democracy or to do things that help people to help themselves.

When faced with wrongs done by business, any number of people flocked to Marxism. Marxism however is a completely wrong ideology. There is no such thing as historical inevitability; people's choices have taken people into different directions through history, and I expect that to remain the case. The history is not driven by the dialectic, and even in the situations of the dialectic there is nothing at all inevitable about it working out for any kind of good. It can work out in any number of possible ways. History is not driven by class struggles; there have been classless societies throughout history, and that remains the case. Religion is not the opium for the masses; it started among “the masses” and converted both the public and the rulers. And people, when freed from their chains, will not start a Communist revolution; and in America in particular it is the people that lead the charge against Communism even when many in the “elites” were warming to the concept.

I do not advocate Marxism or anything of the sort. I advocate the Christian values that many in business claim to have. I advocate treating people better. Yes, for a long time I did not do that myself. I have learned better. I am not saying that I am better than these people. I am saying that I have been shown a better way, and I would like to show it to others.

Once again, business needs many other things besides business. It needs science, teachers, military, police and the worker. Even for its own sake it needs to treat these people well. And it is completely rightful for everyone else to demand that it treats them – and others – well.

Marxism should be dispensed with entirely. However we should never dispense with the Golden Rule or any number of other rightful teachings. Loving others as yourself does not mean mollicoddling them; I for one think that me loving myself would demand me challenging myself. It would not however demand that I spend my life doing back-breaking labor in order that someone else make tons of money from the work that I am doing while treating me like dirt, or send me to die in a war driven by corporate interest. And this is what we see on the part of any number of people in business.

So if the business world is true to its stated Christian values, it will need to understand their implication. They need to treat people well. This, once again, is likewise the case with people whom they regard to be losers. According to some such people, scientists, teachers and suchlike are losers. However, once again, they need them. And if you need something, you better appreciate it. If you do not, it should be taken away from you. Then you should decide whether to go without or to keep it and appreciate it.

Of course there are some who have no appreciation for business, in some cases for the civilization. These people should be asked to go without such things until they are ready to value them correctly. However the people who benefit from science, education, military, police and any number of other pursuits must likewise appreciate them and reward them accordingly. Failing to do so makes one an unappreciative pig.

Business is a rightful pursuit, and one that has my support. Ignorance and unappreciativeness however are not right at all. When Margaret Thatcher said that the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money, she failed to ask what was the source of other people's money. Its true source is not only entrepreneurship. It also is the work of the people involved in the process, from scientists and teachers to military, workers and the police.

Once again, business has a large part in prosperity. But so do any number of other pursuits. And it is time that people in business – and people claiming affiliation with business – have rightful appreciation for these pursuits and treat, and reward, people involved in them rightfully.

Religion, Occultism And Psychology

According to some people involved in the occult, magic is for the smart and religion is for the stupid. This is completely untrue. There is nothing stupid at all about Jesus Christ, and reliance on Him is reliance on someone wiser than yourself. Which means that the religious will make wiser decisions, even if they themselves do not have a high IQ.

There is also the claim that religion is for the weak. In fact the strongest people out there are religious. Even if you start out being weak when you turn to God, in many cases you become much stronger as a result. If you believe that you are on the side of the greatest power in the universe, then you are more likely to act with genuine courage than if you do not. Many people want to see people find strength in themselves; but I find strength in God to work better. A person who is strong only in themselves is less likely to be courageous and less likely to be willing to do hard things. Whereas a person who is strong in God is more likely to be able to do that.

I have written about four modalities: Intellect, common sense, wisdom and faith. All of these have merit. I see faith as the most important one of these and one least likely to cause harm. Intellect can lose touch with reality and ethics. Common sense can become oppressive and mean. Wisdom tends to become arrogant and self-satisfied. All of these can be used for wrong. But faith is reliance on the wisdom of someone higher and wiser than ourselves – wisdom that He choose to reveal to those He would reveal it and for purposes that suit Him. There is a need for all these modalities; but faith appears to be the superior one of these.

When you are on a walk with Jesus, sometimes He would reveal to you His reasons and sometimes He would not. You may not be ready to hear the reason. You may disagree with the reason. The reason may not make sense to you. You end up finding out the reason later. And in many such situations you become grateful that the reason had been kept hidden, and if you had known it at your level of understanding you would not have followed through.

Now certainly there is a need for intellect, common sense and wisdom. We benefit from science and mathematics. We benefit from business and technology. We benefit from politics and philosophy. However belief in God and reliance on the wisdom of God achieves more perfect results and with less capacity for error – indeed, in case of correct faith, with no such capacity. Even if you youtself are lacking in intellect or common sense, you can rely on Christ to help make better choices. So that any number of people who've struggled or floundered in bad upbringing, drugs or worse have become happy, productive and honorable citizens after they accepted Christ. The best results toward that effect that I have seen were done by Salvation Army, which started with a man who had a vision. They were able to get people off of drugs and on a good path without using any taxpayer money; and I recommend that more such efforts take place in the world.

In my case, the learning has been vast. I started out as someone whom most people saw as a bad person and became someone whom most people see as a good person. I have been learning:

Carefulness
Responsibility
Honesty
Humility
Consideration
Goodwill
Physical discipline
Courage
Ethics
Consistency
Self-control

and, the hardest one for me,

Faith.

I was told at one point that my only chance is to take responsibility for my life. If I had taken responsibility for my life before I had lived it, I would have been bound all my life to some uninformed plan that I would have made as a youngster and without adequate experience or knowledge of the world. Instead I traveled many paths and found my home in Jesus Christ. Is God using me for one or another purpose? I think that He is. Maybe I'm meant to use my skills to explain to people what they need to know about God. If the process I've been put through rigorous physical discipline, doing over 1000 pushups a day, holding my breath and taking cold showers.

Then there have been some situations in which God appears to have intervened. And when God intervenes, it appears that He would accomplish two things. One is correct whatever is wrong with the parties involved and put them on a rightful path. And the other is bring them to have compassion and kindness toward one another and lead them toward better solutions. This, being done for free, far exceeds the efforts of armies of lawyers, psychologists and social workers.

With psychology, a claim thats is made by some is that some people are sociopaths or narcissists and that such people can never be good. This contradicts most basic reason. If people are responsible for their actions, then anyone can choose to act rightfully; and if some people cannot act rightfully whatever they do, then people are not responsible for their actions. This mentality is irrational, it is cruel and it is wrong. The wisdom of the world is indeed foolishness in the eyes of God; and this way of thinking should also be seen as foolishness in the eyes of the world. Once again, it is completely irrational. Anything capable of choice can be righteous.

Many of the world psychologies are exceptionally cruel. Something went wrong when you were 15, you are a loser for life. You have borderline disorder, you cannot have a loving relationship. You had a trauma that disconnects you from empathy, you are a parasite and a criminal for life even if you are not committing any crime. There is something wrong with your brain, you can never be a good person. You fall in love, you want your mommy. You are kind to your men, you are a codependent. You are not good at one thing, you are inadequate even if you are more than adequate at any number of other things. The cruelty with which these theories are held and practiced approach, and in some cases exceed, what they see as sociopathy and narcissism. This is Soviet psychologizing. It is irrational, it is cruel, and it is wrong.

Christ gives a chance at a life even to these unfortunates. He will accept them, then He will teach them what they need to learn. He will not always be nice; in some cases He would get angry at you if you are doing or thinking something wrong. In my situation, He has been getting me to overcome various defects of character as well as doubts and bad thoughts as well as to do lots of excercise. He has been teaching me the things that under other circumstances would have required me going to jail in order to learn. I am no longer afraid of going to jail. Some think that religion is for the weak. Even if you are weak when you adopt a religion, you become stronger as you follow it.

I used to have involvements in the occult, and I decided that the powers are too risky for me and probably for anyone else. Some of what can be done with such things is scary. If you have those powers and you get a bad thought, it is dangerous. Not only are these, once again, dangerous, but they appear to be against God. Better rely on the guidance of Jesus and let Him take to whatever places He wants me to be. That way if what you want is right you get it, and if it is not then you do not.

I have known many people messing up themselves and others with magic; and I have come to the opinion that such powers do not belong legitimately to anyone except God. Once again, Christ is wiser than you are. If you invite Him into your life, He will guide you toward rightful places. If you feel powerless and think that magic is the only way to power, turn your life over to Christ.

The people – especially ones involved in the occult - who identify Christianity with bigotry or brainwashing or stupidity are dead wrong. Some people are Christian because they were raised Christian; but that can happen under any ideology. Early Christians were not bigots. They were radicals fighting a powerful empire – empire that had lots of knowledge, including lots of knowledge of magic. There must have been a very good reason why they became Christians, and it is not because they were bigoted or stupid.

With things such as will and consciousness, the correct response is dealing with them for what they are. If your will, or your consciousness, can influence people on the other side of the planet, then we cannot be merely evolving matter. We have to come from divine intelligence. The will, by itself, seeks freedom and self-assertion. That is its nature. However the will has not created the universe and, if left to its own devices, seeks to take over and do wrong. As for everything being consciousness or everything being mind, if that was true there would not be in the universe stars of which we do not know and which are not a part of our consciousness. What are the implications of any kind of occult things working? It is that there are non-material powers. And that means the existence of the greatest non-material power in the Universe – God.

Russia's greatest poet Alexander Pushkin wrote a poem about a fisherman whom God asked to decide to have what he wanted. He kept wanting more and more, and God kept giving him more and more. Then he decided that he wanted to be God; at which point God took away from him everything that He had given him. This is absolutely correct. God will give us quite a lot; but He would never tolerate us challenging Him. Nor should He. When people act as if they are God, they turn into Hitlers and Kim Jong Uns. They try to replace someone who will always be wiser than ourselves and, predictably, do a terrible job even if they are brilliant people. However cruel the priests were during the Inquisition – and in this I do not believe them to have been inspired by Christ – they could not begin to approach Stalin's atrocities.

Magic and the occult appears to be a way to have godlike powers. And, once again, this appears to be the single thing that God may not tolerate at all. Once again, our will – and our consciousness – have not created the universe. Nor can we re-create the universe. Both will and consciousness are there by the will of God, and both are there to serve God. They are not there to serve Stalin or Hitler or Kim Jong Un or occultist feminism or personality psychology or anything of the sort. If people get possession of these things, they can do very wrong things with them. And many of the people who have come into such powers have in fact done very wrong things.

I, too, used to think that religious people are stupid. I discovered that many of them were wiser than me. These people have availed themselves of wisdom that we do not see in the merely logical. They have received their instruction from someone who could walk on water and who, even though He had the power to do anything, died on the cross for us. I was once told by one of these people that sometimes intelligence leads to a closed-mindedness, as you could refute what people said and learn nothing from them. That is certainly correct. It is possible to dismiss the Bible for statements such as “the clouds are the dust of His feet” and “there is nothing new under the Sun,” but doing this discounts a vast body of wisdom that can be helpful in any aspect of our lives.


Now the evidence for God is, to me, irrefutable, and I would like to influence people who have been involved in such things as occultism to come to Him.

Tuesday, December 05, 2017

Existentialism And New Age

The same people who embraced existentialism and the idea that we are victims of life later embraced the New Age and the idea that everything that happens to us is our doing.

Both were wrong.

In some cases someone really is an unwitting victim. A child who dies of famine is not responsible for what has happened to him. In case of adults – especially in America – they very much can do something to improve their condition, and “professional victims” require an attitude adjustment. However even they are limited in some ways, and some things – such as flying to Mars – they cannot do however strong or responsible they become.

The existentialist fails to practice responsibility, and the New Ager fails to practice compassion. Once again, some things we can control, and others we cannot. We are neither animals nor God. We can control some things but not others.

Both existentialists and New Agers fail to have an ethical perspective. Whether you see yourself as a victim of life or whether you blame others for everything that happens to them – or everything that you are doing to them - you will do wrong. I see no valid reason for either ideology. Once again, some things you can control and others you cannot control. By all means encourage responsibility, but do not blame people for things that are not their doing or claim to be God.

Does positive thinking create positive reality? I do not believe that it does. However positive you get, if you are burning the rainforest, the rainforest is burned. However positive you get, if you poison the air, the air is poisoned. Nor are all “negative thinkers” evil, although some are. I see no reason at all to embrace either positive thinking or negative thinking. Both create more problems than they solve. The first fails to see where things could go wrong, and the second capitulates to whatever problems are happening without doing anything to solve them. Neither is right.

If you are a teenager, existentialism is appealing because you are not in control of your life. If you are an adult, the New Age is appealing because you are. However deciding that everyone is responsible for everything that happens to them is both cruel and unethical. Once again, some things we can control, others we cannot.

I do not come in with the attitude that I can do everything. I come in with the attitude that I can do some things, some of them meaningful and important. I cannot fly to Mars. However I can deconstruct false beliefs, which I am doing with two of them now.


So I would not recommend either existentialism or the New Age. I would recommend Christianity. The Bible acknowledges that God is the maker of reality and that we have been given some powers but not others. And it provides a real ethical structure that both existentialism and New Age lack.

Monday, December 04, 2017

Some Thoughts On God

Oh God how absolute art Thou
I hide in the dark but You find me
I hide in false logic but You refute me
I hiede in drink but You make me sober
I hide in sleep but You awaken me
I try to argue You away but You win every argument
All exists to serve Thee and perfect are Thy ways
How glorious art Thou the Lord My God
Thou dost not reveal Thy wisdom except as instrument of Thy will
Thou art unknowable lest we misuse the truth and seek ourselves to be God
Thou art everywhere and rightfully beyond understanding
All that is understood is what Thou wants us to understand
All that we know is what Thou wants us to know
To rely on Thee is to reach for wisdom greater than ours
Thou may or may not give the reason, but we find out the reason of Thy intent after the deed.
How glorious art Thou the Lord our God, how vast and absolute is Thy wisdom.
Thou improves us all through the trials.
Thou takes away from us all that distracts us from Thee that we be naked before Thee.
Thou makes those who love Thee what Thou seeks them to be.
Thou art the author of wisdom and righteousness.
How glorious art Thou the Lord our God, how vast and absolute is Thy wisdom.
Thou punctures false knowledge and false reason and shows their errors and incompletenesses.
As soon as we think we know everything, Thou showest something new and a new way of thinking consmmating and refuting the last.
As soon as we think we have worked out a way to live without thee, Thou bringest us to our knees before Thee.
Thou unravels all intelect that is not Thine.
Thou shatters kings and magnates who are blinded by arrogance.
Thou bringet love to serve Thee.
All our reason, our wealth, our love and our power are Thine to put in Thy service.
If it is not, it is either corrupted or taken away.
You break us and re-assemble us into Thy servants.
All that exists, exists to serve Thee.
How glorious art Thou our God, how absolute is Thy wisdom.

All that leads us away from Thee fails.
All that brings us closer to Thee makes us better and happier.
Thou givest and then Thou takest away if we bcome full of pride.
Thou makes us and breaks us if we take credit.
A mind that does not serve Thee becomes insane.
A love that does not serve Thee runs dry.
A wealth that does not serve Thee is lost.
But those who serve God find true happiness.

I often have doubts about Thee O God; but Thou dispels them.
I want to hide in the darkness, but Thy light is everywhere.
How much I want to disprove The, Thou find me and show me Thy truth.
Lead me to righteousness God, put me in Your service.

All human power can be misused. But true power comes from God. The order of God is perfect; people are imperfect. Imperfect people will corrupt even a perfect order. People will use power for wrong. People will mistake their wrongful desires for will of God or inflict suffering on one another. We must love without enabling, correct without bullying, be loving and righteous at once. We must put all our power in service of God. The purpose of power is enforcement of purpose, or else we live in a world of might-makes-right; and there is no greater purpose than serving God. The misuse of power will always breed hatred aand bring down orders that do it. God will find people to change or confront them, to prove to people His reality. Then the order will choose to follow God or be taken apart from within or invaded from without.

One man's trash is another man's treasure. All that is not appreciated should be taken away until one appreciates it. Truth of God is the greatest treasure that gives us what we need to live good lives. The greatest gift is wisdom, as it empowers you to get what you seek leading you to seek right things. And faith is reliance on wisdom greater than ours that leads you to do the right things whether or not you yourself have been given wisdom.

Logic is a method, not a worldview. The logic of God is absolute. It is beyond linearity and dialectic; it is all of these things and more. It is by purpose unknowable. When a pattern is apprehended, it is taken apart because the will self-asserts. The nature of will is to seek freedom and autonomy. But will did not create the universe. Will is made happy when it is, despite its own tendencies, put in service of God. Pluto revolves around the Sun, and though it thinks itself cooler than other planets it still orbits the Sun. Love under will is not the law; will and love under God is the law. Eating the forbidden fruit of choice has taken man away from God. Putting the choice in service of God restores the rightful order.

What God demands is rightful and absolute. His wisdom is vastly greater than ours, as He made clear in Job. God will prove His point, then it is up to us to remember and apply it. Jesus saves by delivering from sin and its exploiters and then teaching us rightful conduct. We then save ourselves using our own choices as directed by Him. When people err from righteousness or love of both, God corrects them. When people are in sin but do not think that they are in sin, God shows them and others how wrong they are. When people are cruel and think themselves righteous God reminds them of love. When people are immoral and think themselves loving God reminds them of righteousness. God works through many people to bring people toward rightful conduct and rightful attitude. The mind of the flesh fails, replace it with mind of God.

God knows us better than we know ourselves, and He understands our needs better than do we. His judgment is vastly superior to ours. He is a loving father who will give us what we need if we do not challenge Him. Do not try to replace God or compete with God; be man in service of God and be risen to glory.

God wants us to be our best and to go through challenges. He gave us the tools, it is up to us to wield them correctly.

God uses everyone, including people who do not believe in Him, to make His point. Some of these people have rightful things to say. Then as they build their own orders, errors in them accumulate, until people start hungering again for God's guidance, which He is often happy to provide. Sometimes people rebel against God and do something else. Sometimes they come back to God. Many of us are ungrateful brats in this regard, and it definitely takes a very patient and loving God to put up with us.

God teaches us His ways and then puts them into place. Occasionally we would forget or move away from them. Sometimes He would remind us, or reach our children if we are set in our sins. All deserve the opportunity to know about God and follow God. God makes not credible the case of those who deny Him so that they – and others – be saved.

Some people say that the mind is God, but the question is Whose Mind? My mind did not create the cerrebellum. You who think that we construe reality, did you give birth to the oceans? Then how can you say that reality is construed?

Mind is real. But so is the world. God is the author of both. Minds would not have the power that they do if they were evolving matter and nothing else. Stars that we don't know would not exist if all was our consciousness. Mind is there because of God, and so is the world.

Some say that people make their reality. They say that people are God. Some say that the mentality of the society or the corporate world is reality. They say that society or the corporate world is God. Some say that reality is construed by academic consensus. They say that academia is God. But God is God, and is superior to all these things. All these things and more exist to serve God. None of these things is God and none of these things is Satan. They are things that people do, for rightful or wrongful reasons, and deserve to have power appropriate to their role but never to have godlike powers or be called reality. They are part of reality, not reality itself, nor the maker of reality.

The logic of mindsets is used to change the mindset and show its inadequacies. The logic of science is used by romantics to bring in imagination, passion and creativity that the merely logical condemn. The logic of morality is used to convict orders that claim morality but are cruel and hypocritical. The logic of compassion and love championed by Romantics is used to bring in ethics that Romanticism lacks. The logic of realism is used to restore man's role as creator of manmade aspects of reality using his beliefs and pursuant that things that realism fails to correctly value. Any mindset that is not of God will have flaws, and it is only a matter of time before someone finds them.

Man's actions pursuant his beliefs have a vast role in shaping social reality. This means that many things thought unrealistic – such as arts, love and especially God – become completely realistic when people use their actions, guided by their beliefs, to make them a part of social reality. The more people believe in such things and act accordingly, the more they become a part of what is regarded as real world. Some things are there because they are given. Some things are there because people choose to put them there.

There are many logical reasons to believe in God. Some people think it logical to argue away their experiences of the transnatural or say that “an extraordinary claim requires an extraordinary level of proof.” That is not logic, it is dishonesty.

Ordinary people or extraordinary people means nothing to God. The disciples of Christ were ordinary people who worked extraordinary miracles in His name. Do not be wise in your own eyes, but strive to be one in God's. We will rarely know whom God will choose and for what. David was thought inadequate by his family but he slew Goliath and became king. “The stone that the builders rejected became the chief cornerstone.” God will choose whom He will choose. He rejoices in upsetting our commonsense, which thinks that it knows everything but does not. Sometimes He will side with the disadvantaged to confront the cruelty and arrogance in the rulers. Sometimes He will side with the rulers or business to confront lawlessness or immorality in the people. Whether bullying or unrighteousness takes place for the rulers or for the people, God will dislike either and do something to change the attitude.

People often have a good reason for taking the stance that they do and wanting to change the world in one or another direction. Then they often themselves do wrong things. Kings come in for a reason; they do wrong, so people want democracy. Business comes in for a reason; then it does wrong, so people want socialism. Government comes in for a reason; then it does wrong, so people want to limit it. Feminism comes in for a reason; it does wrong, so people become misogynistic. Anything human is capable of error, and none deserves to be God. They exist to serve God and do their purpose rightfully.

Psychology damns some people, saying that they are evil and can only be evil whatever they do. But God offers redemption to all sinners. God is far wiser and kinder than psychology, and the wisdom of the world is indeed foolishness in the eyes of God. As we see with personality psychology, for a good reason.

As soon as people think that they know God, they want to become God. The do an inadequate job. God will give us the knowledge of Himself that we need in order to do what He wants us to do. We may then mistake the aspect of God that we have been shown for the whole of God. Some people will do that with love; others with righteousness; others with compassion; others with unselfishness; others with work, others with the law. They will create orders that have their chosen aspect but none other. Then God will work through other people to re-introduce the aspects that we have forgotten. God inspired Salvation Army during Victorianism that practiced morality but not compassion. God inspired Alcoholics Anonymous when people were status driven and had no pity on the alcoholics. God has inspired the Christian Right when people thought that they were loving but were immoral. In all these cases, He corrected the errors of those who knew Him partially but thought that they knew Him whole.

Did God allow Communism to exist in order to punish the arrogance and meanness of business at the time? Did God allow Nazism to shock the world out of decadence? Did God use the New Age movement to show miracles to people who otherwise would have been atheists and guide them to Him?

Would God have used Christ to undo, through virgin conception, a curse that has been passed down through sexual reproduction and, as human sacrifice, to end practice of animal sacrifice?

God, please use me to tell the truth.