Do Militant Feminists Speak for All Women?

Probably the most frustrating thing I have discovered while dealing with militant feminists is their terrible attitude that, just because they are female, they speak for all other women; and that, just because I am male, I have nothing useful to say on the subject of man-woman relationships.

I am a man, but at no point have I claimed that I speak for all men. My opinions are my own, not those of David Duke, Osama Bin Laden or Joseph Stalin. That they are women, does not mean that they speak for all women any more than does that I am a man mean that I speak for all men.

The only people who think that all women are the same are the actual misogynists, and I've known plenty of those. In fact women differ from one another as much as do men. A woman can mean anything from Marie Curie to Britney Spears; and for the militant feminists to claim that they speak for all women is ridiculous.

The militant feminists are different from most women. Most women will want to have children. Most women will want to have families. Most women will want to look nice. In no way are these things incompatible with intelligence, strength or integrity. Russian women are smart and strong enough; and most are attractive and family-oriented.

And I keep hearing from these strong, intelligent, frequently professionally successful, women the same line: That Western feminism has gone too far.

There will always be women who will want to be unattached, and they should be able to live that way without encountering harassment or discrimination. But they will never be the majority of women. The world's Catherine McKinnons do not speak for women; they speak for themselves. And there are plenty of women unaffiliated with feminism – women such as Ayn Rand, Ann Coulter and Michelle Bachmann – who also speak for themselves and are doing an excellent job of it.

By no means is all feminism bad. For as long as there are men who bear ill will toward women, there will be a need for one kind of feminism or another. As a father of a gifted daughter I certainly want her to have a fulfilling life outside the home and a safe life inside the home. And, yes, I would be more upset if she wound up with an Eminem or an Islamist than if she were to become lesbian.

Most women will want to have children and families; and if feminists really want to benefit their fellow women they will do a much better job of it by making this a better experience for the women than they would by attacking family life. Bad cultural habits such as incest and violence against women have to go. There will be a need for a lot of feminist attention to these matters, and the feminists who really want to benefit women will be paying attention to these things.

As for the women who see mothers as “breeders,” family as a patriarchial institution or heterosexual sex as rape or exploitation of women: You owe your life to the things that you are attacking. Such attitudes are not life-sustaining, nor are they beneficial to most women. Most women will want to be with men; most women will want to have families; and the rightful task of feminism is to support these women instead of attacking beauty, child-bearing or family life.

Beauty and Its Abuses

I have know any number of women who said that they were physically unattractive, who described the nastiness that they endured for that reason. Many blame beautiful women, or even the concept of beauty as such.

The correct response is that beauty is not responsible for abuses of beauty by ignorant high school kids and unscrupulous individuals. That unethical plastic surgeons exploit women's insecurities to convince the already attractive women that they cannot be beautiful unless they keep coming back for more treatments, does not damn beauty any more than does Hitler's misuse of Germany's national pride to start the Second World War damn national pride.

Anything that has any appeal to people will see any number of people wanting to exploit it. That is as much the case for beauty as it is the case for such things as money and intelligence. That some people use money for wrong does not make money bad; and that some people use intelligence for wrong does not mean that intelligence is bad. The problem is unscrupulous use of what has appeal to people, not what has appeal to people in itself.

I was unattractive in school, and yes, many people treated me badly. I became more attractive as I grew older, and in my adult life I have been at no shortage of female attention. I have also known any number of women who had been unattractive in school, who later became attractive physically, personally, or both. Having seen this from both sides, I say very clearly that being unattractive when one is young does not have to be a death sentence. It is possible to become physically or personally attractive as an adult and attract attention of frequently better people than do the people who have always been attractive.

I know a woman named Louise whose family made her feel like she was the ugliest thing on earth. She never became conventionally attractive; but she became very personally attractive. In her adult life, men went after her in droves. She still has many people who love her. If you are an unattractive woman, it doesn't mean that you are doomed to a life of loneliness. There are many things that you can do to improve your lot.

The problem is not with beautiful women, and it is not with the idea of beauty. The problem is with the misuses of beauty by people who are either unintelligent or unscrupulous. It is not the creators of beauty who are at fault, and it is not the people who appreciate beauty who are at fault. Michelangelo and John Keats, or the people who go to museums and poetry readings, are not responsible for the actions of stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. The stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons are responsible for these actions.

So it is time to stop blaming beauty or love of beauty and confront the problem for what it is. Nasty school cultures and unethical plastic surgeons do not own beauty. Beauty existed for a long time before they existed, and it will continue existing for a long time after they're gone. Equating beauty with its abuses gives far more credit to the abusers of beauty than they've ever merited. They did not invent beauty; they did not create beauty; and they do not own beauty. Beauty exists, and has always existed, in and of itself.

There is certainly far more beauty in art – both Western and otherwise – than in American high schools or in the offices of plastic surgeons. For that matter there is also more beauty in nature than in either of these things. Nature is a better craftsman of beauty than even the most accomplished plastic surgeon. And there are many, many people in the world who are also fine craftsmen of beauty, for whom abusing an unattractive teenager or exploiting a woman's insecurities is the last thing from their minds.

The problem is not beauty – the creation thereof or the love thereof. The problem is exploitation of beauty by people who either don't know what they are doing or are wilfully doing wrong. Stop blaming beauty and its creators and confront the abuses of beauty by ignorant or unscrupulous people. They did not invent beauty; they do not deserve credit for beauty; and beauty itself is innocent of their misdeeds.

Is Nature Only Resources?

Ayn Rand wrote that a man sees nature as resources. I see nature as something intricate and beautiful that I have not created and cannot recreate. I respect it in its own right, not only for what benefit it can provide for me as a human being.

Is nature resources? Certainly there is nothing with wrong with using nature for mining or farming; but nature should also be respected in its own right. Nobody can yet create from scratch an animal or a plant, much less the Amazonian rainforest. Which means that destroying these things leaves the world a poorer place than one has found it. Destroyed is something that cannot be recreated. And that, I believe, is ethically wrong.

Animals eat other animals, and bacteria invade animals in nature. For this reason I am not a vegetarian. I oppose two things in dealing with nature: Cruelty and unsustainability. Skinning foxes alive, as they do in China, or clubbing dolphins to death for sport, as they do in Denmark, is cruel – more cruel than anything we find in nature. And burning rainforest in order to create farmland that turns into wasteland in two years is unsustainable.

There are some people who see civilization as evil and want to go back to nature; there are more people who see nature as nothing but resources for human consumption. Both are wrong. Human life demands both nature and civilization. We both follow natural laws and act according to our own will. The people's material requirements must be met through processes that are sustainable rather than unsustainable. And that means, moving away from resource-intensive processes to more brain-intensive processes.

That means, of course, going from oil and coal energy to clean energy. This will carry benefit all around. It will be good for the economy because it will create vast number of jobs in both white-collar and blue-collar sectors. It will reduce the burden on the oceans and the air. It will use technologies that are smarter and better than current technologies. Ultimately it will be even good for the oil companies. The oil will last longer and will be used to produce higher-end goods such as plastics and styrofoams, making more money in the long run for the oil companies than if it is burned.

Oil is a limited resource; human intelligence however is unlimited. Which means that, the more it is applied, the more benefit is realized and at a much lesser cost to the things that we have not created and cannot recreate. Nature should be respected as something that people have not created and cannot at this time recreate. And human intelligence should be harnessed to inaugurate processes that are beneficial for civilization and nature both.

It is a matter of progress; it also is a matter of principle. The most is made of both the natural and the human. The natural world is maintained in its beauty and vibrancy; and intelligence powers the civilization in a way that is less destructive to nature and carries greater benefit to man.

It is this optimal outcome that human intelligence is called upon to achieve in the present era.

Beauty Is Not Solely In The Eye

One of the cheesiest sayings of all time – and one especially popular in recent decades - is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

That's like saying that it doesn't exist.

I have known no beholders who did not regard Sistine Chapel as beautiful. True beauty takes talent and effort to create. And denigrating it by claiming it to be in the eye of the beholder is an insult to people who actually produce beauty.

Beauty is not limited to people's physical appearance, nor is it solely visual. There is such a thing as a beautiful poem or a beautiful song. There is beauty in nature; there is beauty in art. All of these things are real and are not limited to Western culture.

A long-term trend has been to claim beauty to be solely culturally relative. This has been proven false. According to a study done by Judith Langlois, a face with a particular set of proportions will be regarded as beautiful everywhere. Which means that in beauty there is a universal truth that transcends culture and taste.

Feminism has identified beauty with its abuses by nasty school cultures and unethical plastic surgeons; but beauty has existed for a long time before these things existed and will continue to exist long after they are gone. Equating beauty with these abuses insults beauty. Unscrupulous people will always exploit anything that has any kind of attraction to people. That some people use money for unethical purposes does not mean that money is evil. And that some people use patriotism for demagoguery and war-mongering does not mean that patriotism is bad.

What if you are not seen as attractive in your hometown? Well there is a hope for you as well. In another study, 500 faces were shown to 20,000 people, and each face got picked as the most beautiful at least once. In addition to absolute beauty such as demonstrated by Judith Langlois, there is relative beauty that is in fact taste-dependent or culture-dependent.

What are the implications of this? The first one is that beauty is a real thing and one that should be respected, valued and cultivated. The other is that there is someone for everyone. That stupid kids misuse beauty to bully other kids does not implicate beauty any more than that unethical people misuse money or intelligence implicate money or intelligence. Anything that has attraction to people can be exploited; and that is as much the case for beauty as it is for money and intelligence.

So no, beauty is not solely in the eye of the beholder. There should be respect for beauty that gets cultivated in art, as much as there should be respect for beauty in nature. The more people see beauty as a value, the more beauty gets produced. The better the civilization; the better the world.  

The True Curse of Poverty

My English teacher in school, who had come from the rough side of town, said that poverty affects the person inside. It appears to become a curse that stays with them through life. 

The true curse of poverty in the West is not shortage of money. There are very few people in the West suffering from absolute poverty, and the average poor person in America is wealthier than most middle-class people in China, India or Middle East. The problem is the shortage of esteem. These people grow up to believe that they are trash; and they carry that feeling around even if they have themselves been able to rise out of poverty. And of course, however high they rise and however much they accomplish, there will always be some bully to zero in on this feeling and drag them down.

This means that the solution to the problems of poverty in the West is not handouts to the poor, but better treatment of the poor. These people must be made to feel welcome in the world, and they must be made to feel that their lives matter. People from better-off backgrounds need to reach out to them and help guide them toward a more meaningful existence and a better way of life.

In case of the African-American community, I do not understand why the more successful black people do not do more to reach out to the poorer black people. They would not listen to a white man; but they would listen to one of their own who made good. I believe that it is the responsibility of the well-off black people to reach out to their brothers and sisters in the ghetto and give them the knowledge and the inspiration they need to get to a better place.

My daughter has been a humanitarian since she was 1. Her first social interaction outside the family was coming up to a little Malaysian girl and giving her a hug. If a one year old child can love a child from a disadvantaged background, then how much more should we as adults.

There are all sorts of things that people from lower-income backgrounds can do to improve their condition. The biggest problem they face is the mess in their heads. They feel that they are trash, and that prevents them from reaching out to education or employment. Which means that the true way to address problems associated with poverty is addressing this shortage of esteem and guiding these people to a life that they feel to matter.

Applications of Poetry

There are many people who see poetry as useless. It has been highly useful for me.

Poetry is the reason that I was accepted on a full scholarship to a private school. Poetry is the reason that I have most of my friends. Poetry is the reason that I have had beautiful relationships with a number of wonderful women, including the mother of my daughter.

Many people do not see practical application of poetry. In fact there are many practical applications of poetry. It can be a way to express one's feelings for the people one cares about. It can be a way to express oneself and work through one's issues. It can be a way to produce something beautiful that adds to the civilization and to the world.

In the country I come from, poetry is a big and respected endeavor. I see no reason at all why the same should not be the case in countries such as America and Australia. The Russians are no sissies, and the idea that poetry is for sissies is absolutely wrong. The Bible, for one, has lots of poetry in it. And I've known any number of poets who were tough men.

Am I a tough man? Not really; I am however in better physical shape than most people my age. For me poetry is a way to create things that are beautiful and meaningful. The same can be done by someone who is a tough man. It can also be done by someone who is not.

A large part of the problem is that much of the poetry that has been produced in recent decades has been of exceptionally low quality. Nobody wants to read avant-garde stuff that has nothing of beauty and is nothing but clever wordsmanship. People do however read Renaissance poetry, romantic poetry and early 20^th century poetry; and if poetry is again to become a major force it needs to become beautiful again.

There is no reason why poetry in the present should not be as beautiful as the poetry in the past. People today are just as talented as they were during the times of Shakespeare or Byron, and there are more people now than there were during the times of Shakespeare and Byron. We, today, can produce poetry at least as beautiful as what was done during Renaissance and Romanticism. The more people do that, the more people actually read poetry. The more poetry becomes again a force in the world.

Globalization and "New World Order"

The phrase “New World Order” was first used on a large scale in American political discourse by Republican president George Bush Sr. He used it to refer to an order based “on the rule of law rather than the law of the jungle.” The Cold War had ended, and the American statesmen in whose favor it ended sought to create an international order based on international trade and rule of law.

Right now, the term “New World Order” is used by conspiracy theorists to claim that socialists are trying to impose an international tyranny. In fact, there are many conservatives who are into globalization. Most Republicans voted for free trade; and in a conservative megachurch that I attended the priest said that “God is globalizing His world.”

Is globalization a liberal ploy? No. In fact there are many conservatives who are into globalization. For business it means access to international labor and access to international markets. Most of the people who have opposed free trade have been on the Left, not the Right. They were portrayed as socialists engaged in protectionism. And now these supposed socialists are being accused of the opposite: Forcing globalization in order to impose tyranny on the world.

I am tight with a number of liberals in high places, and I can assure you that they have no such intentions. At most they want to prevail on other countries to support human rights and extend to other countries liberty and prosperity. That is nothing like tyranny. We are not seeing labor camps. We are not seeing concentration camps. We are seeing people doing meaningful good.

People who cry wolf are not credible when a wolf actually appears. There are plenty of real wolves on the horizon, from ISIS to neo-Nazis; and distracting people's attention with irresponsible conspiracy theory fabrications detracts from confronting these real enemies. The liberals do not want to exterminate anyone. There are plenty of Muslims and right-wingers who do.

Globalization is as much a conservative endeavor as it is a liberal endeavor. The conservatives want free markets, and the liberals want world peace. Both of these are positive directions; and it is wrong to see it as tyranny.

Britain's Misguided Move

The United Kingdom has voted by a narrow margin to leave the European Union. This has been a highly self-defeating decision.

There is a reason that the European Union formed in the first place. The European countries found out that by themselves they could not compete against the much larger United States, and they came together to create a larger blok that could. Now, they not only have to compete against the much larger United States but also against the much larger rising China. Britain by itself would not be in any position to compete against either power.

There was a time when Britain was the world's greatest power; but then again so was the case with Mongolia. We hardly hear anything about Mongolia now. By itself, Britain is weak. A nation of 50 million people and GDP of $2 trillion cannot compete against a nation of 300 million people and GDP of $15 trillion. In leaving the European Union, Britain has vastly weakened its position.

Wounded national pride is a very dangerous thing. It is the emotion to which Hitler appealed in starting the Second World War, and it is the emotion that Tea Party demagogues have exploited in America to form a destructive, obstructionist Congress that has no agenda except to nullify everything that comes from Obama's desk. The people who think that they will restore Britain's greatness by leaving the European Union are deluding only themselves. Britain cannot by itself stand up to either America or China. It needs its neighbors if it wants to do either.

Patriotism can take both constructive and destructive forms. Constructive patriotism works on making one's country a good place to live. Destructive patriotism attacks other countries. The two have very little common with one another if judging by the results. The first results in peaceful, prosperous, livable societies. The second results in rape and pillage.

The Germans and the Japanese who worked to make their countries economic powerhouses after the Second World War made much better patriots than the Germans and the Japanese who fought in the Second World War. The first created beautiful, livable, respectable countries; the second killed and maimed. For Britain to leave the European Union out of a sense of patriotism was a very misguided move. It did not make Britain stronger; it made Britain weaker.

Right now, there are any number of countries that wield power in the world. Britain is smaller than most of them, and it is weaker than most of them. The British electorate has simply failed to think. And it has done great damage to their country.

Liberals and the Military

Some conservatives have been claiming that liberals produce weak men. In fact there are many liberal men who are into martial arts, and there are liberal men in the military.

Response number two: So what? America is not at a shortage of tough men willing to defend it. There are plenty of tough guys in places like Texas and South-Central Los Angeles that the military does not need to bother metrosexuals in San Francisco or New York.

And then of course there are the tomboyish liberal feminist women who aspire toward strength and toughness and are willing to serve in the military as well.

Some conservatives keep making noises about re-instituting the draft. This is a disastrous direction. Draft fills the military with people who aren't suited for military service; who make terrible soldiers and come home from the front traumatized and unable to work.

Probably the best system to this effect is the German system. There, a young person can either serve in the military for 6 months or in peaceful service for a year. That way the military types get to go into the military; and the non-military types contribute what they have to give.

I know enough about myself to know that I would make a terrible soldier. I am however enthusiastically willing to contribute to the United States. I recommend that the American government take a look at the German system. That way, both the military types and the non-military types get to contribute. And the country benefits from the efforts of both.

Liberals and Conservatives: Who Is Paying Whose Way?

Any number of conservatives claim that they are paying the way of others. They are wrong. The states that contribute more to the treasury than they get out of the treasury are majority Democratic; and the states that get out of the treasury more than they contribute to the treasury are for the most part Republican.

There are also activities that are crucial for prosperity that do not immediately generate income or are rewarded monetarily. Science is at the root of all technology – meaning, at the root of just about everything that business sells; and most scientists are liberals. The research that science practices is at the root of prosperity; but scientists themselves do not rewarded with big money.

Other activities that qualify the same way are infrastructure and education – fields likewise dominated by liberals and funded by the government.

There is a myth that conservatives own work. They do not. In science, in computer industry, and in manufacturing, Democrats dominate. And yes, scientists work hard – in many cases around the clock and for much less money than they merit.

Do conservatives own capitalism? Obviously not. Without science, which is a majority liberal endeavor, capitalism would be nothing more than exchange of basic commodities at the level it was in medieval Persia. Capitalism owes vastly to science. And that means: To liberals.

So whenever some conservative starts claiming that them damn liberals are taking his money, ask him where he would be without these damn liberals. Ask him where he would be without science. Ask him where he would be without roads and schools. Ask him how he would be able to make any significant amount of money without scientific knowledge that's at the root of all technology.

Why has this argument not been made in public discourse? I have no idea. But I am willing to make it now.

Are All Communists Evil?

There are many people who see all Communists as having been evil.

My grandmother was a Communist; but she was nowhere close to being evil. She was a responsible teacher and a strong-willed, ethical woman fully dedicated to her family. She taught me reading and mathematics when I was 3, and she was the main force behind me becoming a star student and finishing University of Virginia at age 18. The virtues that American conservatives claim to possess, she had.

Hate Stalin and his atrocities as much as you want to; but do not begin to think that this applies to my grandmother.

I am not a Communist. I find Communism very easy to refute. There is no such thing as historical inevitability; people's choices will guide history into any number of directions at any given time. The businessman is not a thief; he is someone who gets things done. And the same problems that Communist see as being redressible through class struggle, are redressed a lot better through social mobility.

I have had the Communist influence, and I have had the American influence – both from the liberals and the conservatives. I am working a positive synthesis between the two. I believe in making the best of all possible worlds. People should have the benefit of a thriving private economy and affordable education and health care. People should have the benefit of both working civilization and vibrant environment. People should have the benefit of both science and spirituality; of both thinking and feeling; of both the female and the male.

There have been any number of conscientious people who were attracted to Communism. Not all were brutes, and not all were brats. My grandmother was a Communist who was a good person.

And I am sure there are plenty of other good people who have been part of Communism and should be respected for what they are.

The Family, The Mexicans And The Jews

Am I the only person who thinks it ridiculous that many of the people who claim to have family values are against the Hindus, the Mexicans and the Jews?

The Jews, for one, are highly family-oriented. So are the Hindus. In Jewish culture it would be unthinkable for a man to not take care of his family. And the Mexicans who come to America to work send all the money they earn to their families. They sacrifice greatly in order that their families be taken care of.

I likewise find it ridiculous that the “family values” agenda has been used as an excuse for family violence. I am a father, and I do not need to be violent toward my daughter. I treat her as an intelligent form of life rather than as an animal. When she does something wrong I explain to her why it is wrong, and she does not do it any more. If I can do it, then so can the next parent.

Self-control is part of character; and the men who are violent to their wives and children lack self-control. Which means that they have no business claiming to speak for – character, values, manhood or anything of the sort.

This is true with Western social conservatives; it is more true with Muslims, who likewise claim family values. The Western conservatives do not own evil, but neither are they exempt from it. The feminists who regard people in the West who are against Islam as bigots or “Islamophobes” do not know what they are talking about. The Muslims are much worse to women than Western conservatives. And if they had their way, the Western feminists would all be wearing burqa and being beaten up every day.

Nor is it true that America's greatness is due to “traditional family values.” These existed in most of the world for a lot longer than has America, and most of the world was nowhere close to great throughout that time. America's greatness is due to science, technology and superior political and economic policies; and it is these, not “family values,” that deserve credit for America.

Is family a good thing? As I have found out, it can be a wonderful thing. But good families are not affected by family values agenda one way or another. A good family is not one in which the man rapes or whips the children. A good family is not a family that anyone wants to leave. Good parents are not affected by family values; it is only when someone does something wrong that family cohesion becomes an issue. Which means that family values agenda rewards only the wrongdoer.

Well, what about “spare the rod spoil the child” or “your children will grow up wild”? That is a testable claim, and it is manifestly false. My younger brother was raised in a joint custody situation and was not subject to violence; and he has become an eminent scientist and a fine young man.

Ironically, it is the people whom the “family values” agitators attack the most that tend to make the best parents. We build workable relationships with our children and nurture their intelligence and ambition. We spend a lot of time with them explaining things to them and addressing their concerns. We do not need to use the rod; we use the brain. And that makes for true family values.

Some claims have gone unchallenged for too long, and one of the biggest one is that the social conservatives speak for family. They do not. Some conservatives are good parents; some conservatives are bad parents. In no way do they own family or parenting; in no way are they the reason for America's greatness; and in no way are they better than the Hindus or the Jews.

More needs to be done to challenge such beliefs. And more parents who are non-violent should step up to the plate and tell other parents that, no, beating their children does not make them good parents or possessors of family values.

Practical Applications of Love

Forgiveness comes from understanding where the other person is coming from. Having done this myself with any number of former enemies, I recommend it to other people.

I used to see the ideas such as that love is more powerful than hatred as mumbo-jumbo. However I have come to understanding the true meaning of this. If you understand the next person you are more effective in dealing with them than if you don't; and in most cases understanding builds compassion and even love.

This has been the case, for example, with 90s feminists. For a long time I hated those people; then while working through my own experiences of school bullying I came to realize that these people were not much different from me. They were brainy, unattractive women who came from the standpoint of being treated badly in school, and in feminism they found identity, power and meaning. We of course see the same thing with gangsters. These people get treated like trash, and they think that in gangs they will find power. Neither group is doing the right thing; but it is important to understand where they come from in order to steer them to better directions.

The brainy, unattractive women who become feminists would probably do better by becoming engineers, scientists or software professionals. And the gangsters would probably do better by joining the military. In the first case, the women will have financial and personal independence that they seek while being in a respectable, profitable field. And in the second case, the men who want to be strong and brave will be in a pursuit that cultivates strength and courage and disciplines it to create a highly effective person.

This then becomes a practical application of love. It becomes possible to relate to the next person and guide them to better places. This is good for them; it is also good for society. The people who otherwise would be destructive are guided toward better pursuits. Love does not have to be impractical; it can be highly practical, and the more this is done the better the world.

I have found that this beats hatred any day. And I fully recommend it for others.

Does Suffering Lead To Ennoblement of the Soul?

A long-term claim with vast influence on the civilization has been that suffering leads to ennoblement of the soul. This is a testable claim, and it is easy to prove wrong.

Stalin had been through a lot of suffering, especially as a child; but his soul did not become ennobled. The Interahamwe and ISIS likewise had been though a lot of suffering; but their souls did not become ennobled either.

Important is not the experience but what one does with it. There are some people in whom suffering awakens compassion for others. There are others in whom it has the opposite effect and breeds contempt and cruelty. A person who's suffered significantly may have contempt for the person who hasn't. And he may want to inflict cruel acts on the other person in order to bring him to his level.

Does suffering lead to ennoblement of the soul? No; rightful choice does. It may be necessary for the person to go through hardship in order to be able to relate to the people who suffer; but by itself suffering does not improve anything.

The belief that suffering leads to ennoblement of the soul is obviously wrong. Much more effective toward that effect is going out of one's way to do good things. This, becomes a positive rather than negative way toward self-improvement; and the results are positive both for the person and for the people around him whom his positive actions reach.

You Don't Reap What You Sow

One of the most widespread beliefs, cutting across cultures, is “you reap what you sow.” I have reasons to doubt that claim.

The reason is that I've known any number of kind, generous people who got treated very badly by – spouses, schoolmates, co-workers, neighbors or relatives. And then there's that little matter of, “Well what did the guys who died in Stalin's labor camps ever do wrong?”

Do you reap what you sow? Obviously not. That however is not a reason not to sow to goodness. The reason is that, the more people sow to goodness, the better the world. The more goodness there is to reap for everyone, including themselves.

One way that religion directs people's attention to spiritual pursuits is by tapping into their self-interest and twisting it in the direction of following the religion. Thus, Christianity tells people that if they follow Christ they will go to heaven and if they don't follow Christ they will go to hell; and similarly Hinduism and Buddhism teach that actions – good or bad – generate karma that determines the future lifetimes. In both cases, selfish motives – salvation of the soul or better lifetimes – are used to get the person to act in altruistic manner. The idea that you reap what you sow likewise uses selfish motives – wanting to reap good results – to get the person to act toward the benefit of others.

I do not believe that deception is necessary toward that effect. Sowing toward goodness improves the world; and the more people do that, the better the world becomes, and ultimately the better the lives of the people doing that. You don't reap what you sow; but the more people do good things, the better the world and ultimately better their lives. Which means that sowing toward goodness is a good in its own right and does not need to produce immediate results for oneself to be of merit.

Feminism and Middle East

When I was working for a Lebanese food place, I had a co-worker from Middle East named Enad. He was a good worker as well as a friendly, kind, outgoing person; but he admitted to being nasty to his girlfriend. I told him that that was a bad idea; that his girlfriend was with him because she liked him, and rewarding someone for liking you by treating her like trash sends a message to the world that you should not be liked.

Enad was not a bad person; he was a good person. However he had wrongful influences from the Middle East. If a good person like Enad behaves in that way, then how much worse must be the behavior of bad people in that region.

The Middle East has many problems; and the worst of them is the treatment of women. There are many women in America who hate men – typically because some jerk did something ugly, like raping them when they were kids. The women in Middle East have more reason to hate men than anyone on the planet; yet most of them do not hate men.

I once went to a dentist appointment, and the dental hygienist was a young lady from Iran. I asked her if she found it therapeutic to inflict pain on men. She said, “Not at all, why would I do that? You are not Hashemi Rafsanjani.” There are women in America who treat men – including men who have goodwill toward women – as if they were Hashemi Rafsanjani or worse. Here was somebody who had lived under real misogyny; and she did not act in that way.

There is a lot to be said for the Middle Eastern women. They are strong, kind and beautiful. They live under some of the most vicious mistreatment that anyone on the planet suffers and still go on doing their job and being responsible. Their men have no appreciation for them and treat them like dirt. These men need their heads screwed on straight. They have with them some of the best women on the planet. They need to appreciate these women, and they need to treat them right.

In American feminist culture, we see malicious women attacking the world's better men. These women likewise need their heads screwed on straight. If they really want to fight “pigs” and misogynists, they would be fighting ISIS. American liberal men may not all be perfect, but they are better than most men out there. And in attacking them instead of the real abusers, they are making life bad for people who have goodwill toward them while doing nothing to fight people who bear them real ill will.

In both cases, goodwill gets rewarded with abuse. And in both cases, the message sent to the world is that goodwill should not be extended to oneself and that one should be treated like trash.

The women who hate men and the men who hate women deserve one another. Everyone else deserves to be free of the both of them. The people who reward good will with ill will should not be extended good will; and incentives must be put into place for both men and women to be good to one another. Good will should be rewarded, and ill will should be punished. And then men and women of goodwill can have good relationships, and others can be inspired toward similar good conduct.

Where Keynes Went Wrong

John Maynard Keynes has been one of the most influential figures in economics. He advocated government deficit spending to stimulate demand in order to drive economic growth. His theories had a vast influence on 20^th century economics, and they have been credited with saving capitalism.

Right now we are seeing the negative results of the policies that he has advocated.

Keynes' most famous statement was, “In the long run we are all dead.” Aye; but we have our children to think about. And the people who do not do that are scoundrels who leave the world in a worse shape than they have found it.

Deficit spending has proven to be a disaster. We see that with Argentina; we see that with Greece. Deficit sucks the investment out of the productive sectors of the economy, leaving less money available for investment in business development. The result is a sluggish economy and, in case of default on the debt, a huge economic crisis.

Keynes's second most famous statement has been the argument that economy – and in particular the stock market – are governed not by “rational self-interest,” as is the premise of classical economics, but by “animal spirits.” Animal spirits is a judgmental term; but there is a truth to what Keynes said on this matter. Most economic decisions are not made based on “rational self-interest.” They are based on psychological factors. And it is important that this argument be made.

Why are most economic decisions based on psychological factors? Because, time and time again, we see superior marketing dominating the marketplace with inferior products. With VHS vs. Beta, Microsoft vs. Borland, and fast food chains vs. mom-and-pop shops, inferior product has dominated the marketplace by virtue of superior marketing. Marketing is based on psychology; and the inferior products that rise to dominance do so through a superior use of psychology.

Keynes himself was a master in playing the stock market; and his insights on what it is based on still hold truth. But his advice for deficit spending was a disaster. Deficit spending is justified in addressing emergencies such as the Second World War and the 2008 recession. But as a way of life it is a key to ruin; and we have the example of Argentina and Greece to show that.

In recent history, it was the Clinton administration that did anything effective about the deficit. The economy boomed vastly under Clinton, allowing me as a person in his early 20s to earn $80,000 a year. I have not earned anything close to that in the following decade. Clinton achieved both economic growth and fiscal sanity. The administration that followed destroyed both.

Keynes got some things right, but many things very wrong. Deficit spending is a burden that people place on their children. As a parent I have nothing but hatred for people who do that. My daughter deserves to live in a better world than I have. And it is my duty as a father to make sure she does.

Forgiveness and Feminism

I was told at any number of occasions that love is more powerful than hatred. I did not quite understand the meaning of this until now.

In addressing the bullying issue I finally found the meaning of this. As a result of working through the memories of having been bullied in school, I have been able to forgive a long-time enemy: the 90s feminists. These were brainy unattractive women who had been treated badly in school; and in feminism they found identity, power and meaning.

They were wrong to attack attractive women; they were wrong to attack men who were attracted to attractive women. In attacking family and child-rearing, they were dead wrong. But understanding where they come from gives me a much better perspective, and one more precise. Now it is possible to deal with them as human beings rather than as a mortal enemy, and hopefully guide them to a better place.

A woman on the Internet once wrote that her daughter had been bullied in school by another child; and, once she got over it, she wanted to help that person. I congratulated her on raising a child with a good heart. A Buddhist meditation instructs the reader to “forgive other people's verbal abuse by understanding it as expression of their mental anguish.” Clearly the actions of these feminists are an expression of their mental anguish. So I am being called upon to forgive them and, just maybe, show them a better way.

Ultimately a brainy, unattractive woman would probably do better for herself by becoming an engineer or a scientist than by becoming a feminist. There is more room for engineers than there is for feminists, and it pays a lot better. But if these people are understood, the society benefits as a whole; and then the need for aggressive feminism is reduced. Which also reduces the burden on attractive women and men who like them.

So yes, love can in fact be more powerful than hatred. And I hope that more people can have similar realizations and act accordingly.

Why Clean Energy Is Good For Oil Companies

Probably the most powerful opponent to clean energy has been the oil industry. They believe that clean energy will result in them losing their income. They are wrong.

Oil is a resource with a vast amount of uses. Oil is used in making plastics, styrofoam, pharmaceuticals and any number of other higher-end goods. The less oil is burned as gasoline, the more oil is available to make these more profitable products.

The longer the oil lasts, and the more money it makes for the oil companies.

Burning oil as gasoline is one of the stupidest things that a person can do. A resource with a vast amount of uses is used to power processes that can be managed a lot more efficiently with solar or hydrogen energy. The air is fouled up, the oceans are fouled up, and people leave for their children a worse world than they had found.

Meanwhile less of this resource is available for making much more profitable products, such as plastics and styrofoams, and the oil companies as a result of this make much less money in the long run than they otherwise would.

Clean energy is good all around. It replaces less efficient technologies with more efficient technologies. It reduces the burden on the atmosphere and the oceans. It uses brain-intensive practices in place of resource-intensive practices. It creates a vast number of both white-collar and blue-collar jobs.

Do oil companies stand to lose out in this? They think that they do, but they don't. They will have a much longer use of their resource, and they will use it to make much more profitable products.

Ultimately even the oil industry will benefit from clean energy.

I believe that time for this argument to be made in public debate has come.

Is Bullying Antisocial?

There are many people who regard bullying as an antisocial behavior. They are wrong. In most cases bullying is highly social; and it is engaged in, not by a narcissist or a sociopath, but by groups of regular people.

In school situations it is the same story repeated time and time again. Someone starts picking on someone else; he gets away with it; other people join in. Soon it becomes the thing to do – a form of “cool” if you'd like - and it draws in all sorts of children, including the better-natured ones.

So far my little miss sunshine has avoided that scene; but her stepsister has not been so lucky. She got bullied by her whole class. The administration blamed her for the problem; so we had to take her into homeschooling and then enroll her into a different school. Right now she has no such problems in the school that she is presently attending. Which means that the problem was not with her but with her previous school.

I have a friend named David who got bullied badly when he was a child. At one point he'd had enough, so he grabbed one of the kids who were picking on him and started smashing his head against the school bus window. He was no longer bullied after that. Kids were afraid of him. Now he was a dangerous, antisocial individual. Which brings me onto the next topic.

The people who are described as dangerous and antisocial are typically the people who normally would be bullied who refuse to be bullied any more. Case in point: Hurricane Carter. He was seen as a dangerous individual since he was a child. Why was he a dangerous individual? Because he was a black person who was not a loser. Specifically, he was a black person with strengthening qualities; and that was dangerous indeed to those white people who wanted their children to grow up believing that black people are an inferior race.

The people who describe bullying as an antisocial behavior blame it on people like David and Hurricane Carter. This is the case of a criminal hiding his tracks. These are not the people who are responsible for bullying. These are people who choose to fight it.

Bullying is not an antisocial behavior. In many cases it is a social ritual of which many perfectly normal people partake. Only when this is acknowledged can anything of merit be done about bullying; and only when this is acknowledged can this ugly problem finally be solved.

School Bullying: Is It Really Human Behavior?

An Australian schoolchild, Taylor Sekhmet, has started an international petition to get her school to address the vicious bullying that she receives daily.

My response is: It's about bloody time.

In the school I attended, there was a student named S. who had a congenital abnormality. The other kids were vicious toward him. But because he was the one with the problem, the school attacked him rather than his tormentors.

Since then my school has taken a different course. They are now taking bullying seriously, and they are working with the students who are guilty of it to get them to stop. That does not help S., but it helps the current students.

The school should be a place of learning, not a place of torment. The claim that bullying makes kids stronger is patently untrue. According to USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/17/childhood-bullying-impacts/7838225/), school bullying affects people long after it has happened and in many cases scars them for life.

This causes – brain drain, reduction in functioning, mental health disorders, and other negative effects on society. Which means that it is in public interest to confront school bullying before it has these effects.

Bullying takes place across cultures, and there are some who see it as normal human behavior. By that standard so are theft, rape and murder; but we are not seeing people justifying such things. Quite simply, we have to be better than chimpanzees. Human beings are also capable of self-control and discretion. And it is this human behavior, not monkey behavior, that should be encouraged in adults and children alike.

The nation and the society benefit from children learning what they need to learn in school without being subjected to lifelong trauma. School should be safe for children to learn. The monkey dynamics that develop in some schools must be confronted as not worthy of being called human behavior. The better human qualities such as self-control, discretion and compassion should be supported. And the children must be taught and held to these better human qualities.

The Antichrist and the Skeptics

In 1990s, an American tele-evangelist named Jerry Falwell stated that Antichrist was a Jewish person of foreign extraction, in his 20s, living in the United States.

That does not fit Barack Obama, and that does not fit Ronald Reagan. But it does fit someone else with whom I bear a more than passing acquaintance.

If I knew the Antichrist, I would advise him to simply not do his part. That way, if God still wants to destroy the world, then He will have to find other ways to do that; but more importantly the Christians would have to stop hoping for the end of the world in our lifetime and will have to focus their efforts on fixing the planet and making the world better for their children.

Talking about my spiritual experiences has mostly gotten me attacked. It got me labeled as crazy, but it wouldn't be crazy if it happened to you. Nor, if it happened to you, would it be “anecdotal.” I know what I have experienced, and I know what I have seen.

In no way do I militate against science. Science is a supremely valuable pursuit. I militate against materialistic bigotry that has some people professing scientific worldview claim that there is no such thing as spirituality. There have been any number of scientific studies registering positive results for spiritual reality. And being acquainted with a number of real scientists who have had spiritual experiences, I know for a fact that the “skeptics” do not begin to speak for science.

The leader of the skeptic movement, James Randi, has challenged people claiming possession of spiritual powers to vie for a million-dollar prize if they demonstrate a 1 in a million result for possessing spiritual powers. The problem with this is that not even the most skilful psychics can reliably demonstrate a one in a million result. These kinds of powers are difficult to study. They work according to their own logic, not according to that of the person who studies them. And in many cases these powers have no reason to reveal themselves to the next person; nor do they want to be categorized and controlled.

The people who address such things by such claims as that we must live “on earth” have an inadequate understanding of what living on earth means. The earth is not just the planet's crust. It is also the atmosphere, the water, and the sunlight, all of which are necessary for life on earth. The people with earth values fail to see the value of all these other aspects of living on earth. Spiritual experiences take place on earth as well. And a person possessive of true scientific approach will recognize this and honestly study these aspects of living on earth instead of scoffing at them.

Right now we see two competing fallacies. One is the people with scientific worldview who militate against spiritual experience. The other is people with religious worldview who militate against science. Both are wrong. Science is at the root of just about everything that people have. And spiritual experience happens to people all over the world every day.

Whatever explanation is proposed will have to pass two tests. One is that of scientific fact; the other is that of spiritual experience. The result will be a more complete and more honest worldview; and that has a chance of actually making the world a better place.

Feminism and Family

There are some who see the nuclear family as the best social arrangement ever invented; and there are others who see it as a patriarchial institution designed to oppress women.

It can be both, either, or neither.

The family is as good as what goes on inside of it. If the parents and children get along, family is a beautiful thing. If the parents and children do not get along, it is hell.

For a long time for me family was a dirty word. I changed my mind on the subject when I myself had a daughter. She and I enjoy a very close and very loving relationship, and she is the best thing that ever happened to me.

I want what exists between me and my daughter to be a reality for more families. And this requires the parents to deliberately choose to be loving to their children – and, if they don't know how to do that, there need to be resources to help them learn.

Some in feminism militate against the nuclear family and refer to married women as “breeders.” This sells short the majority of women. Most women will want to have children; most women will want to have families. Feminism would do much more for the women by working to make family life a better experience for them rather than teaching them to avoid marriage and children.

How is that to be done? On the part of men of conscience, it is by teaching other men gentlemanly behavior. On the part of women, it is by having goodwill toward their spouses. Both violence by men and nastiness by women should be confronted. Instead people should be inspired toward compassion and wisdom.

The best parents, I found, are ones who remember their childhood. They can empathize with the child and understand the child's concerns. Whether they come from good backgrounds or from bad backgrounds, they themselves do a lot for their children. Their children grow up to love them and be their best friends for life.

Family should be neither coerced nor avoided. Instead family needs to become a better experience for both the children and the parents. This requires knowledge and effort. The results however, as I've found out, are more than worth it. Family can indeed be a beautiful thing – if people choose to make it so.

Wrong Lessons from Trojan War

While Greek thought is not as dominant now as it once was, it still remains influential. I would like to analyze one of the foremost literary masterpieces of ancient Greece – the Iliad – and show where it has gone wrong.

One of the major claims of the Iliad is that Helen brought the war. Helen did not bring the war; Menelaus did. And of whatever hubris she may have been guilty, he was guilty to a far greater extent. He thought that his possessive interest over his wife justified destroying a whole city and leading a whole nation into war. If I was in his position, I would never do that. At most I would meet Paris in person and have a man-to-man.

Paris is seen as a coward; Helen, as a cold brainless bimbo. Rather the two were international lovers who knew that love knew no boundaries. They were the world's first internationalists – the world's first universalists – and they paved the way for people in other times to likewise form loving matches, whether with partners inside the country or partners outside the country.

The story of the Trojan Horse paints trickery as heroic. Odysseus tricked the Trojans. He claimed that the Greeks were about to leave and left as a gift a wooden horse, which turned out to be filled with soldiers. When the Trojans accepted the wooden horse into the city, the soldiers came out and burned Troy to the ground. It is seen as a heroic act; but it was in fact an act of deception, and it is just as wrong to paint it as heroic as it is to claim that Helen brought the war.

The “lessons” from Trojan War – that women are evil, that man-woman love is corrupt, and that trickery is intelligence – have been absolutely poisonous, and we are still dealing with the aftermath of these wrongful “lessons.” Misogyny and oppression thrive when such beliefs are in vogue. The lessons from Trojan War need to be redefined. It is Menelaus, not Helen, who is at fault for the war. And there is nothing rightful about the actions of Odysseus.

On Self-Esteem

A number of years ago, I had the experience of taking a self-esteem test. My score was moderate. There were two other people taking the test with me. One was a sweet little fellow from Alabama who was always ready to help out and treated people well. His score was very low. The other was a horrible woman who kept making false accusations against people. Her score was very high.

In Russia, there was a very popular singer and songwriter named Vladimir Vysotsky. He wrote in one of his songs, “I have no trust in faith, in myself even less faith.” According to the practicioners of self-esteem psychology, the man should have been an absolute loser. Instead he became one of the most successful singers and songwriters of all times. That is because he did not need self-esteem. He was in touch with a vast and powerful presence that was the feelings of Russian people. And he became far more successful than any self-esteeming yuppie.

I do not care if you have high self-esteem. I care who you are, not how you see yourself. There are plenty of jerks with high self-esteem and plenty of good people with terrible self-esteem. Self-esteem is no predictor of either success or personal goodness. And coercion toward self-esteem does nothing of merit.

I say this as someone who can be accused of neither too high a self-esteem nor too low a self-esteem. My score on the test was moderate. I've had in my life both periods of success and periods of failure. And there have been people seeing me as a good person as much as there have been people seeing me as a bad one.

I am of the conviction that coercion toward high self-esteem is a misdirection of psychology. Clearly, if someone keeps getting screwed, then it is for their benefit to see themselves as not worthy of being screwed. But there are plenty of people with high self-esteem who are jerks; and reinforcing their self-esteem will not solve their problem.

There are any number of situation in which self-esteem is indeed the solution. But it is no panacea. It is important to see things for what they are. Some people really do need to learn self-esteem. But there are many others whose self-esteem is just fine, and who are jerks in spite of it.

The Working Classes and Winning Qualities

A long long time ago, when I was arguing in favor of NAFTA, a person from “that” side of town told me, “You just don't like the working person.”

Well that is a strange thing to say. I work as well. So does the guy in China or Mexico. I do not see why one social set should be claiming to speak for “the working person.”

I've been accused of being classist; but the people accusing me of such things are the very people I want to help. The problem with lower-income cultures – both “white trash” and the ghetto – is that they destroy in their children their best qualities. If you are smart you are a “nerd,” “Mr. Know-it-all” or “acting white.” If you are ambitions you “think you're better than everyone else.” If you are creative you are "pretentious" or "trying to be something you're not.” If you are beautiful you are “arrogant.”

I went to a private prep school on a full scholarship; and certainly there were problems there as well. I was seen as a “nerd” possessive of no “common sense” or social skills, and people were saying that my academic intelligence counted for nothing in the “real world.” They did not however attack the winning qualities. People were encouraged to proceed with higher education. People were encouraged to be their best. Ambition was nurtured and given the tools it needed in order to thrive.

If people from the other side of town want to be successful, they need to do the same thing. They need to stop attacking positive qualities in their youth and instead nurture them. It is the people who cultivate winning qualities that will win in the long run; and if these people want to rise to equality with the wealthier people, then they will have to do just that.

I do not seek to tromp down on the disadvantaged. I want them to do what they need to do so that they are not disadvantaged any more. First step toward that is stopping their attack on the winning qualities and instead cultivating these winning qualities.

Once that is done, they will have what they need to rise out of the underclass and achieve the most of what they can achieve in a free country.

Blaming the Women; Blaming the Jews

Historically in the Western civilization, two populations have been blamed for the world's suffering. One is the women; the other is the Jews.

Today we are seeing a resurgence of blaming of both these populations. And it is imperative that both trends be checked before they lead to something like Inquisition or the Second World War.

The Jew-haters claim that Jews are in control, and that the Jews are evil. This is very easy to refute. If Jews were in control, and if Jews were evil, then people saying such things would be facing a firing squad. That they are instead free to spread their propaganda shows either that Jews are not in control, or that the Jews are so good that they would even let live the people who want them dead.

With women-blamers, the question to ask is, Which woman, Gloria Steinem or Phyllis Schaffly? Or Britney Spears? Or Sandy Lerner? Or Angela Merkel? Or Marie Curie? Women differ from one another as much as do men and do not constitute a homogeneous force.

Even if there was a person such as Eve, so what? What do Jane Fonda and Eve have in common? Contemporary women are no more responsible for the actions of Eve than I, as a man, am responsible for the actions of Osama Bin Laden. My daughter, my mother and my grandmother did not eat the Forbidden Fruit. And if someone treated them as if they did, believe me he would hear from me.

The men who advocate hatred of women are the Iagos of the contemporary world. They influence men, including better-natured men, to be horrible to women, including women they love. They make life horrible for women, and they also fill men's heads with paranoid nonsense that makes them miserable as well. I found a way to stand up to this nonsense. I forgave my ex-wife the things that she had done, and we now enjoy a fruitful friendship. I recommend that other men likewise dismiss the Iagos of the world for the creeps that they are and operate from the position of goodwill and compassion – which incidentally Christianity demands, and the lack of which when demonstrated by a person shows him to not be true to God.
\
Certainly there are women who are jerks; but there are men who are jerks as well. In the gender war, we see the worst on both sides. On one side we see abusive paranoid scumbags putting poison into men's minds and motivating them to treat their women terribly. On the other we see malicious harpies influencing other women to be as bad as themselves. Have your pick: Iago or The Shrew. Neither is anywhere close to being good.

Neither the Jews nor the women deserve the blame for the wrong in the world. Suffering, for one, pre-exists both the Jews and the women by millions of years. Dinosaurs suffered too. And in the human societies, suffering is much worse in places such as Afghanistan that have neither feminism nor the Jews than it is in places such as the USA that have both.

The real reasons for suffering are far removed from blaming either the women or the Jews. There is suffering that is man-made, and there is suffering that comes from natural causes. The solution to man-made suffering is making better decisions. The solution to natural suffering is protecting people from it. In neither case are the women or the Jews at fault; and in neither case is the problem solved by attacking either.


As more people challenge political correctness, we are going to see much ugliness come out; and the solution is not to attempt to censor it but to refute it. I hope more people join me in doing this. That is what is supposed to happen in a democratic context.

Competitive Pressure Toward Better Relationships

My response to the gender war is as follows. Both sides are wrong.

On one side we see malicious harpies viciously attacking the better women and men who love them. On the other side we see abusive, paranoid scumbags influencing other men – including the better-natured ones – to be as nasty as they are, including toward women whom they have loved. Both are the worst elements in their respective genders; and it is outrageous that either of them claim to speak for one half of humanity that is their gender.

Neither men nor women deserve to either lead or follow. There are good and bad women, and there are good and bad men. Good men and good women deserve to lead. Bad men and bad women have no business claiming to speak for their gender or influencing the rest of their gender to be as bad as they are.

I embrace neither male power nor female power. I want men and women to do the right thing by one another and treat each other right. This happens when men who are willing to be good to women get together with women who are willing to be good to men. Thus, get an American liberal man together with an Iranian or Brazilian or Russian women, and see created a positive-sum relationship in which each side is willing to treat one another better than they stand to be treated in their home cultures.

This will create a competitive pressure upon the people in each culture to be good to the other gender. When left to their own devices, people will pursue situations that will be good for them; and this will in turn reward those who are willing to treat the other gender right. Women will gravitate toward men who are willing to be good to women, and men will gravitate toward women who are willing to be good to men. This will result in the best in each gender being rewarded without there needing to be any large-scale government effort or social movement toward that effect.

Women who are willing to be good to men: Know that you're better than the politically correct harpies and embrace the good in yourselves and share it with men who would appreciate and reward it. Men who are willing to be good to women: Know that you are better than misogynists and likewise embrace the good in yourselves and share it with women who would appreciate and reward it. Get together with one another and create positive-sum relationships. And show the rest of the world just how man-women relationships should be done.

Types of Atheism

I have discovered that there are two types of atheists. The first type focuses primarily on attacking organized religion such as Christianity and Islam. The second type focuses primarily on attacking disciplines such as astrology, zen and paganism.

The first tend to be free spirits who don't want people telling them what to believe and how to live. The second tend to be control freaks who do not want people to have an existence or an identity outside of what they can control. The creed is the same; the character cannot possibly be more different.

What about the atheists who are against both organized religion and these other disciplines? They tend to have features of both. I know someone who does not work, is bisexual and lives a very free-wheeling existence, but has called me reading poetry at a restaurant “aggressive panhandling” and called my former girlfriend a syphilitic ho. I know someone else who has called divorced women “brood parasites” and stated that the problem with the world is that “the freaks don't know their place” but wrote passionate essays in favor of sexual freedom. These people are free spirits in some ways and control freaks in others; and the mix can be rather difficult to predict.

What this shows is that in atheism, as in religion, there is potential for both liberating and controlling practices; and the fact that someone is an atheist does not mean that he is going to be solely either or both. Just as Biblical religions can mean anything from “kill all the Amalekites” to
“love your neighbor,” so can atheism mean anything from a fascist to an anarchist. And of course I have known both.

If atheists want to organize themselves into a political force, they have a lot of work on their hands. They include people who are characterologically nothing like one another. It will be a ragtag alliance of people who include everything from medical students and scientists to anarchist writers and radicals to feminists to engineers, and they will have to be both disciplined and creative in order to stay effective as a political group.

As for me, I started out as an atheist but have had spiritual experiences that have proven me wrong. Call me a loony if you want to; but I know what I've seen and I know what I've known. I encourage people of atheist persuasion to investigate what else is out there. Chances are, they will find their lives vastly enriched.

Who the Misogynists Really Are

There have been people on the Internet who described me as a misogynist. I want to tell them just how ridiculous that is.

I have known misogynists. The men who think that women are Satan. The men who think that women are stupid or pathetic. The men who think that women should be obedient to men. I believe in no such thing.

If anything, I see women, for the most part, as being better than men. They tend to be kinder, warmer, more compassionate. This does not however extend to women who have destroyed in themselves all the good feminine qualities and have been comporting themselves like the worst of men.

If women want to have equality of rights and powers with men, I support them in that. I do not however support women becoming malicious harpies and attacking, not only men, but also kind and beautiful women. Everything with a capacity of choice is capable of both good and evil. And it is rightful to stand up to wrong that is done by women as much as it is right to stand up to wrong that is done by men.

With equality comes accountability. A man who does wrong gets rightfully criticized for it; and so should the women who do wrong. The women who influence other women to be malicious harpies deserve as much criticism as do the men who influence other men to be misogynistic brutes.

Ultimately, I want to see everyone get along and do the right thing by one another. This is the case both with women and with men. Getting along is a two-way street; and men and women need to work out the relationships with one another in a way that does not involve abuse and family violence. Both men and women are capable of both good and evil. And that requires dealing with both according to what it is.