Thursday, September 29, 2016

The Gender War Is The Problem

As someone who has written extensively against political correctness, I am sometimes asked probing questions such as “Why did political correctness have to happen?” I do not believe that it had to happen. It happened because some people decided to make it happen. I likewise do not believe that Hitler or Stalin had to happen either. They happened because they chose to make it happen, and people did not know how to deal with them.

I suppose the reason that it happened is that many men in 1980s acted like jerks, so there were any number of angry women. So now there are instead any number of angry men, and they listen to Eminem or follow Osama Bin Laden. Just as the feminists viciously attacked the men who had done nothing to cause the problem, so have these men been attacking the women who had done nothing to cause the problem. In both cases the wrong people were attacked. And in both cases the wrong people were empowered.

Did either situation have to happen? Not at all. Wrong people took legitimate sentiments and exploited them to sow ugliness and confusion. The likes of Catherine McKinnon and Eminem profited from people's failure and misery while making the world worse for everyone. And many others – women and men – followed both like sheep without thinking of the consequence of their actions.

I judge it wrong to take sides in the gender war. Both men and women are beings capable of choice, and anything capable of choice is capable of both right choices and wrong choices. There will be men who choose to act rightfully and men who choose not to act rightfully. Same with women. I refuse to take side of either gender; I choose to take side of those in each gender who choose to act in better ways.

I have done both in any number of situations, including ones that had absolutely nothing to do with my own self-interest. In situations when either a woman or a man is being abused or exploited, the correct situation is to side with the person being abused or exploited against the wrongdoer. I have seen plenty of examples of both; and in both cases a wrong – and an injustice – is being done. Either a man who believes that women are evil or a woman who believes that men are evil is going to be terrible to their partner, however good their partner may be. The solution once again is not to side with people who believe such things, but with people they stand to exploit and abuse.

I did at one point see women as better than men; but American feminists cured me of that error. I now see any given person for what they are. When I see malicious power-hungry harpies waging hysterias or influencing their followers to be horrible human beings or attacking the women who are pretty or kind or both, they are the perpetrators and they are the villains. Same is the case with men who like to batter women or rape kids. Neither women nor men are either evil or good. Both are capable of both.

What I advocate here is a rational solution, and one that does away with irrationality on both sides. It is wrong to see either men or women as either universally good or universally evil. Some will choose to act rightfully, and some will choose to act wrongly. Both misogyny and misandry are wrong. Some men will be good, and some men will be bad. Same is the case with women.

Did political correctness have to happen? For that matter, did Eminem? There were certainly reasons for both, and both are understandable. Understandable however is not the same thing as right. The sentiments that Hitler used to create Nazism were understandable as well; but that did not make Nazism right.

There were many men in 1980s who did in fact act like complete jerks. That does not reflect in any way on liberal-minded men nearest the liberal centers of learning and culture. It is these men that got the worst of it, while the jerks of 1980s remained comfortable where they were. Then Eminem, Osama Bin Laden and many others tapped into the anger that many men were feeling at the malicious behavior of feminists and feminism-influenced women and told their followers to treat women like dirt. In both cases a legitimate sentiment was exploited and taken by opportunists into completely destructive directions.

Reagan stated that the government is the problem, not the solution. We see the exact same thing with the gender war. The gender war is the problem, not the solution. The solution is for men to be good to women and for women to be good to men. Whereas the gender war on both sides has influenced both men and women to the contrary, while in both cases vicously attacking, respectively, the men who were willing to be good to women and the women who were willing to be good to men.

Now I have known many intelligent – and genuinely strong – women who took objection to Third Wave feminism and stated that it did not speak for them as women. I likewise do not allow Eminem or Osama Bin Laden or Michael Murphy to speak for me as a man. The two sides in the gender war deserve one another; the rest of the world deserves to be free of both.

I am perfectly willing to be good to a female partner; but I will demand that she be good to me as well. Solomon said that it's better to be alone on a roof than at home with a quarrelsome woman; and if that's all that I have to work with then I would rather be single. Fortunately I know that that is not all I have to work with, and in my adult life I have been at no shortage of attention from genuinely good women.

I have been called a misogynist, and I have been called a pussywhipped idiot. In both cases the matter is the source. In both cases we see gender warriors who seek to pit 50% of humanity against another 50% of humanity and abet and encourage all sorts of wrong on their side while oppressing the other side even in its capacity to produce good results. Once again, the gender war is not the solution. The gender war is the problem.

Neither women nor men deserve to win the gender war. The only people who deserve to win anything are men who are willing to be good to women and women who are willing to be good to men. Good behavior on the part of both should be rewarded, and bad behavior on the part of both should be confronted. This is the case with both women and men. The reason, once again, is the simply rational one: That anything capable of choice – male or female – is capable of both right choice and wrong choice.

The Germans who followed Hitler were coming from an understandable place. Their country was treated very badly after the First World War. The people were punished for the sins of their leaders when the country was not even a democracy. They can be accused of bad judgment, but not of being evil. We see the same with most women who've followed the likes of Catherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, and we see the same with most men who've followed the likes of Osama Bin Laden and Eminem. I simply advise both toward better judgment.

Do the men who follow Osama Bin Laden and Eminem really want their daughters to be punching bags for some creep? Do the women who follow Catherine McKinnon really want their sons treated like dirt by some horrible harpy? Think, people, think. Think of what world you are leaving behind for your children. Think whom your actions actually stand to hurt.

So that when Eminem, who rightfully hates his mother, treats his girlfriend as though she was his mother, he is taking out on someone innocent the legitimate anger at someone guilty. And when feminist women maliciously mistreat men who believe in women's rights and mostly wish women well, they are likewise taking out on innocent people the legitimate anger at someone guilty. In both cases the behavior is cowardly; in both cases the behavior is self-defeating; and in both cases the behavior is wrong.

The gender war is not the solution. The gender war is the problem. We are seeing every party involved influencing others to act like scoundrels; and that creates a horrible effect on society. The leaders of both sides have neither the guts nor the power to touch each other. Instead they abuse people who have done nothing to cause the problem and who, for the most part, are much better people than them.

It is in this hideous climate that it takes for people on both sides who have any amount of goodness within them to create good relationships. When such form, they attract negative attention from parasites on both sides who want to destroy them. At which point the solution becomes to build immunity to both sets of parasites and empower others in similar position.

It is toward this outcome that the thought and actions of people of goodwill – both men and women – ought to strive.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Confronting Antisemitism

The neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier movement has gotten far too big for its merits; and it is time that it be seriously confronted. I do not practice political correctness; I have fought political correctness. I believe in the First Amendment and even Nazis should not be censored. I can however use the same First Amendment to stand up to their propaganda. And I hope that more people – both Jewish and non-Jewish – do so as well.

I am now confronting several central claims made by this movement.

Claim: There is a Jewish conspiracy to take over America or the world.
Answer: If there had been such a conspiracy, I would have been invited to join it a long time ago. I haven't been, so there is no such conspiracy.

Claim: Holocaust is a hoax perpetrated by Jewish media.
Answer: The media in the Soviet Union was not Jewish, and Jews were discriminated against. However the Soviet Union media carried extensive descriptions of the Holocaust, as well as of course of the Nazi invasion into the Soviet Union that cost 20 million Russian lives.

Claim: The Jews orchestrated the economic crisis of 2008.
Answer: No, crooks on Wall Street did. There is a Jewish presence on Wall Street; there are also many non-Jewish people on Wall Street as well. If Jews are to be blamed for that crisis, they should also be credited for Wall Street capitalization growing ten times in the previous three decades. In fact both are due to both Jewish people and non-Jewish people. That's how it has been; that's how it always was.

Claim: The Jews are cowards.
Answer: People who believe in pacifism and non-violence do frequently get that label. After the Second World War, many Jews decided that pacifism does not work and that they are not safe in the world; so they created a super-militaristic state. So now the same people who have been accused of being cowards are being accused of being brutes. Europe and the white man have many examples of both cowardice and brutality. It is wrong to impugn someone for traits that one possesses to a greater extent.

Claim: The Jews are a destructive influence.
Answer: If that were true, then Poland, with 800 Jews, would be doing better than America with 6 million. It is not.

Claim: The Jews are arrogant.
Answer: While believing oneself to be the chosen people of God may indeed lead to arrogance, so can any number of other things. This would include the American doctrine of being the New Jerusalem; the German doctrine of being the master race; the Russian doctrine of being the Third Rome; the Muslim doctrine of being the true people of God; and many others.

Claim: The Jews killed Jesus.
Answer: Jesus was God and could not be killed. If the task was to spend 6 hours on the cross in order to save the world, there would be millions of people applying for the honor. As for the Jews who tried to kill Jesus, they were only following the Ten Commandments. The first commandment is “thou shalt have no gods beside me.” In claiming to be God, Jesus committed the worst crime in the books. That is why the Jews insisted on getting Jesus crucified while letting off a murderer.

Claim: The Jews practice ritual sacrifice of babies / drink the blood of Christian babies / etc.
Answer: Telling ridiculous and blatant lies discredits your cause.

Claim: The Jews are evil.
Answer: The Jews have made vast contributions to the Western civilization without engaging in genocide, colonialism or slavery at nearly the level of people who hate them. Meanwhile the Spanish destroyed three of the greatest civilizations the world has ever known – the Incans, the Aztecs and the Moores. The English took over America and Australia and took their land while treating them horribly, and manipulated the Hindus to subvert India to a very greedy rule. The Russians took over a large territory and forced it to assimilate. The Muslims, who complain about Israeli “imperialism,” are guilty of a far greater imperialism than the Israelis. The Germans – where do I start. By any standard, the Jews are far less evil than their enemies; and while the Spanish and any number of others destroyed more than they contributed, the Jews contributed far more than they destroyed.

Claim: The Jews are in control.
Answer: If that had been true – and if the 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 Jews are so good that they would even let live the people who wish them dead.

Claim: The Jews are taking over America.
Answer: In a place that does not discriminate against them, people who value education and hard work will do well. If some Jews are doing well or wielding influence, that is completely consistent with American values, and it is success or influence that is legitimately earned. If you're going to destroy the better minds in your youth by claiming that they are “nerds” or “know-it-alls” or “think they're better than everyone else,” or drive around with signs “My son beat up your honor student,” expect to be out-competed. This will in no way be limited to the Jews. It will also be done by Hindus, Chinese, Russians, and any number of others that do not do such a thing to their youth.

Claim: The Jews are whiney.
Answer: Mistaking social analysis for whining is a very bad intellectual error. Very little is owed to actual whining, but much is owed to insightful analysis of issues that impact upon people.

Claim: The Jews are greedy.
Answer: It is funny to hear people who claim to own money, or that business is the only root of prosperity, or that unless you are wealthy you are a loser, saying such things. The people who think that “money talks, bullshit walks” champion greed; and if some Jewish people do so as well they are in that way just like their critics.

Claim: The Jews are stingey.
Answer: Generally it's not the Jews but the conservatives who whine about having to pay tax. When I was making good money in the computer industry I had no problem paying taxes, and I do not see why someone who claims to be an American patriot would either.

Claim: The Jewish women are sluts.
Answer: By historical standards, so are just about all women in the West, particularly in Europe. As for the Jews, there are vast differences between the denominations. The Orthodox act like the Muslims; the Conservatives act like mainstream Americans; and the Reform act like the French. There may be promiscuity in the Reform denomination as there is in many parts of Europe and America. However the Orthodox are far less promiscuous than most Western women.

Claim: The Jews are unethical.
Answer: Tell that to Yitzhak Rabin. In fact many Jews are highly ethical, and more so by far than people who tell lies about them. There have been many Jews who foreswore monetary self-interest in order to do noble work like being scientists and teachers and innovators; and America and the Western civilization owes vastly to them.

Claim: The Jews, immigrants, etc., should assimilate.
Answer: Doing this denies one's country much useful thought and cultural practices from abroad. The countries – especially the United States – grow through incorporating into themselves things that someone else does better. An American who dines at a Chinese restaurant, drives a German car or adopts European or Japanese styles is not being “pretentious” or a “traitor” or a “snob;” he brings into the country that someone else does well and in so doing improves his country.

Claim: The Jews are protected by political correctness.
Answer: I fought political correctness ever since I knew what it was. I do not need political correctness to defend me: I can do so myself.

Claim: The Jews are socialists.
Answer: Not the ones I know. There is also nothing socialist about the Koch brothers, who financed the Tea Party.

Claim: The Jews are liberals.
Answer: Not the Israeli Jews. And among the Russian Jews, most are moderate to conservative.

Claim: The Jews are destroying America.
Answer: America was doing well enough under Clinton. It was put greatly in the hole and into an economic crisis by Christian evangelical Bush administration, not the Jews. If they claim responsibility to be an American value, the conservatives will take responsibility for this state of affairs instead of blaming the Jews.

This should cover pretty much all of it, and I hope that the people involved in a fight against anti-semitism – both liberal and conservative – make good use of what I have written above.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Romanticism and Third Wave Feminism

In 19th century there was an intellectual and artistic movement called Romanticism. Romanticism championed romantic love, respect for arts and nature, and saw feeling as a path to wisdom equal to reason and in some cases surpassing it. This movement was subverted by Marxism, which took it into a destructive direction. In 1960s Romanticism came back in America, and it was again subverted by a form of Marxism – the cultural Marxism, otherwise known as Third Wave feminism or political correctness. This movement attacked the very things that Romanticism championed the most and lead many people who had been a part of 1960s Romanticism to espouse an ideology that militated against its greatest values.

This movement has been named “feminazi” by conservative leaders. The term is quite apt. The behavior of the participants in this movement is indeed very similar to that of the Nazis. They have made a colossal and illegitimate power grab, claiming to speak for 50% of humanity without the 50% of humanity having voted for them to do so. They have been preaching a hateful and vicious ideology and influenced their followers to be horrible human beings. They have effectively vitiated democratic intent, effectively banning all speech that can offend anyone – meaning, anything controversial – meaning, anything meaningful. They have turned centers of academia from centers of learning into centers of indoctrination. They have been seeking to effectively exterminate whole sections of the population – the people whom they regard as “sociopaths” or “perverts” under an obviously false and completely irrational claim that some people are evil and can only be evil however hard they work, whatever they do and whatever work they do on themselves. They have proven themselves unwilling to listen to any rational criticism and to silence all perspectives that are not part of their party line. All this is very similar to the behavior of Nazis.

In attacking beauty and love, they have attacked the very roots of their ideology. They have also alienated many people who otherwise would have been their allies. Romanticism has encouraged men to see in women their goodness and beauty; but when both are destroyed then it ceases to exist. It makes no sense to side with someone against someone else merely because of their gender. It makes sense to side with someone against someone else because of their better qualities; and when such are destroyed then the ideology loses its appeal. Indeed, in cultures where this influence has been extensive, I have found better qualities in men than I have found in women; and in such cultures it is the men and not the women that deserve to be appreciated.

Now there was a page on Facebook, written by two “fun-loving English girls,” that stated that “we believe that there are good men out there, and we are willing to find them.” The problem has been the definition of good. If one applies ridiculous standards to men, then no man will be seen as a good guy. I am reminded of Pygmalion, who could never love women because they were not perfect. The Greeks – and other misogynistic cultures – became that way because they applied ridiculous standards to women; standards that no human woman could meet.

A criticism made of American writer H.L. Mencken is that he was “a pig who saw only the dirt.” We see this done by both sides in the gender war. They see only the dirt, and they see nothing else besides it. They fail to see in people – either women or men – their positive qualities. A rightful response to that is that everyone shits; but the fact that they do does not mean that that is the only thing that they do do.

Now I have known any number of good women – some of them exceptionally good women. If love, as Ayn Rand stated, is passionate approval of the other person, I give such to them. I am not however expected to extend the same to women who are jerks. There are both good men and good women, and there are both bad men and bad women. That is because both men and women are beings capable of choice; and anything capable of choice is capable of both rightful and wrongful behavior. A man can mean anything from Mohandas Gandhi to Joseph Stalin, and a woman can mean anything from Mother Theresa to Catherine McKinnon. It is wrong to side with either gender. It is right to side with the good ones in each.

Romanticism is a natural evolution of rationalism, and Marxism is a natural evolution of romanticism. In the first case, the mind sees such things as nature and feeling with contempt until it has studied them enough to see in these things mechanisms more intricate than anything that it itself knows how to devise; at which point contempt gives way to respect and even awe. Whereas a movement that champions love of women can be easily usurped by bad women to push on the other women a coercion toward horrible behavior. However the world – and the Western civilization in particular – owes vastly to both rationalism and romanticism, with the first being responsible for its economic and scientific infrastructure and the second being responsible for its best art and its best experiences and relationships. Cultural Marxism rejects both and in so doing destroys its own roots.

SO it comes as no surprise that, as cultural Marxism attacks both the influence of love and the influence of reason, what comes back is the genuine misogyny that preceded both. We see this with Eminem, Osama Bin Laden, Michael Murphy and any number of others. This of course hurts mostly the women – in most cases women who have done nothing wrong. In fact both reason and love have been vastly in favor of women. A rational man will be far more likely to be in favor of women's careers and political power than a “traditional” man who sees the woman's place to be at home; and a man who champions love will be far less likely to be ugly to his woman than would a man who thinks that women are of the Satan, or that real men oppress women, or that love is for wimps. What we see here is a completely self-defeating behavior, and one that has failed women on a huge scale.

I am in favor of women being able to have a meaningful choice of lifestyles; and that means that they should not be dictated in such choices either by “patriarchy” or by Third Wave feminism. A woman who wants a career should be able to have a career; a woman who wants family life should be able to have family life; and a woman who wants both should be able to have both. Neither Catherine McKinnon nor Phyllis Schaffly should be allowed to dictate to women their ways. For that matter neither should the Ayatollah or Pat Robertson. Freedom means freedom, and that means freedom to choose one's lifestyle. A woman who chooses the career path has the right to it; the woman who chooses family life has the right to it; as does the woman who chooses both. This way is far more actually empowering of women than anything that we have seen from the Third Wave feminism, and it is a sad state indeed if such needs to be told by a man.

SO that while it is rightful that women who seek the career path should be able to take it, it is completely wrongful to demand this of all women. It is more wrong to discourage love relationships and family life. We will see different women being comfortable with one, or the other, or both. This is because women – like men – all differ from one another. Affirming this difference – and real freedom of choice – is far more empowering of women than is Third Wave feminism claiming to speak for women without women having voted for them to do so.

I have found useful things in both rationalism and romanticism; but I have found nothing of merit at all in cultural Marxism. Both reason and feeling are valid faculties, and both have produced many good things. Combining both achieves wisdom faster – and fuller – than through either acting alone; and both should be developed and instilled. Whereas nothing good is accomplished through indoctrination into a party line. Less still is accomplished through usurpation of power, vicious behavior and unelected totalitarians dictating to women how they can behave, what relationships they can have and what life they can lead.

What I offer therefore is real freedom. A meaningful choice of lifestyles, both for the women and for the men. A woman should not have to follow either the party line of political correctness or the party line of the right-wingers. A woman who wants a career should be able to have a career. A woman who wants family life should be able to have family life. And a woman who wants both should be able to have both. Once again, it is a sad state of affairs indeed if this needs to be said by a man.

When women act in a vicious manner, this of course feeds real misogyny. We have seen any number of men claiming that this behavior has shown that men have been right about women all along. This attitude falls squarely on the shoulders of all sorts of innocent women, who wind up as a result of it living in hell. Part of the responsibility for that belongs with the men who claim such things. A greater part of the responsibility for that belongs with women who have influenced their followers to be jerks.

SO that while nothing good has come out of cultural Marxism, much of good has come out of both rationalism and romanticism. Both deserve to have currency, and both deserve to be taught. The first teaches thinking and the second teaches feeling, and both are important and valid functions. A person conversant in both will achieve fuller wisdom than by using either acting alone. These are useful skills, and teaching them accomplishes far more than does indoctrination into a party line.

There is no more reason to embrace Third Wave feminism than there is to embrace Holocaust revisionism. The first is feminazism, and the second is actual Nazism. Neither is close to being right. Instead it is important to develop both thinking and feeling into mature fruition; and it is toward this effect that education and academia should strive. Doing this will actually empower people to achieve wisdom and thus make rightful decisions. And this would do more for people – both women and men – than inculcation into a party line.

"Black Rednecks" and Harlem Renaissance

A rapper in 1990s said, “You ain't never been to the ghetto, don't ever come to the ghetto. You won't understand the ghetto.”

Washington Times, a conservative newspaper in DC, once stated that the Left was wrong to see the ghetto culture as being genuine. It said instead that it was based on the Southern white culture. It called them “black rednecks.”

There are certainly things in common between the two. Both like to beat up women. Both are viciously assimilative and conformist. But the worst part about both is their anti-intellectual attitude. They think that kids who take school seriously are “know-it-alls” and “think they're better than everyone else.” So they destroy the best things that come to life there, resulting in vast destructive effect on both.

What qualifies these people to say that they speak for “everyone else” - 7 billion people, most of them nothing like themselves? Whatever arrogance they ascribe to the serious student, theirs is far greater. And it is a far more destructive form of arrogance. The “nerds” and “know-it-alls” make meaningful contributions – in science, in engineering, in culture and in thought, in all sorts of ways. Whereas very little of any good is accomplished by gangsters and the KKK.

Now many black people have a strong sense of victimization; and many of them have indeed learned all sorts of bad habits – both from Southern American whites and from the gangsters. All these habits however can be unlearned. That's what psychology is for; that's what sociology is for; that's what Christianity is for as well.

I have known any number of intelligent and articulate people from the inner city. I've been for a long time a part of a mostly-black poetry group in DC, and for the most part I liked what I saw. One significant situation involved a member of the group, who was a teacher in inner city, noticing that the kids were all afraid to be different. One day he walked into the classroom wearing yellow pants. A student shouted, “Mr. Anderson, you are wearing yellow pants.” He deadpanned, “Why are you so afraid to be different?”

Well there appears to be a good reason why they are afraid to be different. They have created a viciously assimilative culture that maliciously attacks anything that differs from it in any way, whether for good or for bad. The white man did not do this to them; they did. So now they viciously attack anything that differs in any way from themselves – meaning, anything with a chance at any actual kind of goodness or any actual kind of contribution to the world. They destroy the lights among themselves, and they live in hell.

They are not in any way the only people in the world who do that. There are any number of folks in the South who drive around in trucks with signs “My son beat up your honor student.” They attack their best minds, and in so doing they destroy their own competitiveness. So now we see China, India and any number of other places getting ahead because they do not do such a thing. America loses competitiveness because of such practices. China and India did not do this to them, nor did the Jews or the liberals do this to them. They did it to themselves.

Another practice that undermines America's competitiveness is its equation of creative and original thinking with psychopathology. If it is narcissistic to seek great success, or if it is narcissistic to have original ideas, then America owes most of what it has to narcissists. These would include its founders; most of its industrialists and business leaders; and its most influential scientists, inventors and thinkers. Both Clinton and Trump have been accused of narcissism, and the first has been one of its most successful presidents and the second has been a business visionary who has produced some of the best architecture in contemporary America. Steven Jobs and Bill Gates have been accused of narcissism as well, and the two between them have computerized the world. The idea that such things are narcissism cuts to the core of what made America great in the first place; and if America chooses to attack its best minds then the spirit that made America great would go elsewhere and make the rest of the world outcompete America.

As indeed it well should.

How can the inner city improve? Well the first thing that it can do is stop attacking the students who take school seriously. Doing so undermines education in inner city, and whatever money the government spends on the schools is money wasted if children do not actually want to learn. The problem with the educational system in the inner city is not lack of funding, but lack of interest. If the students do not want to learn, then no money spent would be enough. The parents must prevail on their children to learn, and the brutal gangs and cliques that take place in the schools must be disciplined and defeated. In Russia the way to keep students away from drugs and crime has been to create extended time programs for the students, where they are learning or playing. It has also been to assign lots of homework. I have also seen churches in America that create programs for teenagers to keep them playing basketball and learning the Bible instead of doing drugs. If either of this is done, there will be less influence of gangs and cliques and more of school; and instead of doing drugs and killing each other the kids would be learning.

Another thing it can do is do away with assimilativeness. Most of the people who make meaningful contributions are people who aren't like those around them, and the inner city – and other places – must stop attacking people who differ from themselves. They have to stop acting like pigeons and start acting like human beings. The inner city gains nothing from attacking those who are different from them and in the process loses its best minds. The result is disastrous for the inner city and for the black race.

Furthermore, if they think that studying is “acting white,” they will need to see more Chinese and Koreans among them. These people are not white, but they study harder than either the black people or the white people. The greater presence of such people will puncture the lie that these people claim – that they speak for “everyone else” and that the Chinese or the Koreans don't.

And since many of these people are actually more racist than the white man, and many of them have complete contempt for American blacks, they will be shown that their problems are not only due to the white man, and whether or not they are due to the white man they are theirs to fix.

Now there are any number of actual racists out there who claim that black people are inferior. I claim no such thing. I do however claim that inner city is inferior, and much of the reason for that is these people's doing. You do not outcompete the white man or any other man by attacking learning. Nor do you do such a thing by attacking your better minds. Once again, the problem is not the lack of funding for education. The problem is refusal to learn – and vicious abuse against those who do.

They do need to unlearn the wrong things that they've learned from the South; they also need to unlearn the wrong things that they've learned from the gangsters. Neither influence is a good one. One came from the white man, and the other came from the black man. The black man – and woman – stand to rise to a much better place by rejecting both influences. Then they can create a truly genuine culture, one that is neither based on the customs of their enemies nor parasitical.

It so happens that this has happened in American history. It was called Harlem Renaissance. The contemporary black cultural leaders stand to improve the inner city far more by looking toward that than toward the gangsters and drug dealers. There have also been black inventors and scientists who got respect of the white man. The black man will get much better respect by looking toward such influences and encouraging instead of attacking the better minds.

So this, then, is the most important solution for the inner city. Stop attacking the students who are willing to learn, and stop making everyone copy one another. Both practices are completely ruinous, and they sabotage the black man. Instead encourage learning and encourage also individuality. And see more black people rise to respect and improve the inner city.

Monday, September 26, 2016

"Them Damn Jews" And Your Honor Student

There are many people in America claiming that “the Jews are taking over.” My response to that is that, in a place that does not discriminate against them, people who value intelligence, education and hard work are going to get ahead. This is completely consistent with American values and is indeed their best manifestation.

Another American value is responsibility; and here such can likewise be addressed. You go around beating up your honor students, honor students from elsewhere are going to rise to powerful positions. You destroy ambition and intelligence in your youth, claiming those who seek it to be “narcissism” or “arrogance” or “thinking they're better than everyone else,” the people who do not do such things to their youth will see their youth rise to a better place. This will include the Jews; this will include the Hindus and the Chinese; this will include many others. You traumatize and oppress the better minds among yourselves, the people who do not do such a thing will overtake you. Rightfully.

Is America run by them damn Jews? Well, if that had been the case – and if the Jews were evil – then the people claiming such things would be facing a firing squad. That they are not, shows either that Jews are not in the running of America, or else that the Jews are so good that they would even let live the people who wish them dead.

Now I see no reason at all to give credibility to those who state that Holocaust never happened. The correct response to that is, “Oh yeah, so why are you trying to orchestrate another one?” Now I am a full believer in the First Amendment, and even the Nazis should not be censored. They can however be met with a rational refutation, protected under the First Amendment. Which I am seeking to do myself, and which should be done by any number of others, Gentile or Jew.

When liberals complain about any number of states of affairs, rightfully or wrongfully, they are seen as losers and whiners. When conservatives complain, they think that they are doing the will of God or the will of America. If blacks or Russians or Michigan manufacturing workers are losers for having a bad state of affairs, then so are the conservatives when they likewise have a bad state of affairs. Complaining about Jews taking over is inconsistent with the values that the conservatives claim to preach. As is complaining about having to pay taxes; as is complaining about China or Russia rising; as is complaining about any number of other things.

Do Jews have a strong presence in America? Yes, and they well should. They got there by practicing the values that Americans claim to espouse – the values of education and hard work. They make much better Americans than do their enemies; and people on both the Right and the Left have noticed that. So now we see Republican politicians starting organizations to combat anti-semitism; which they do while being fully American and as such mindful of its actual values.

If white Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans do not want to be outcompeted, they will implement better cultural practices. They will support instead of attacking ambition and intelligence in their youth. They will stop beating up your honor student and raise ones of their own. They will likewise stop attacking creativity, ingenuity and original thinking. Instead they will nurture such things and guide them into productive fruition that benefits the country. It is to these things that America most owes its greatness; and those who attack such things sabotage America.

As for Israel, its overly militaristic policy is a result of a lesson having been learned too well. Their ancestors had been liberal pacifists who worked hard and peacefully for betterment of other countries only to wind up in gas chambers. So they decided that pacifism does not work and the Jews are not safe in the world; so they created a super-militaristic state. This does not make them evil or anything close to evil. They have learned their historical lesson too well.

In America, some Jews are liberal and some aren't. The Koch brothers, who financed the Tea Party, were Jews, as was Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense under Bush. Among my own constituency – the Russian Jews – most vote Republican. Reagan made a brilliant move by inviting the Russian Jews. Here were people who were for the most part moderate to conservative, who then went into mostly liberal American Jewish communities and have been influencing them toward the Right. I, for myself, am moderate to left, as I have seen the Clinton policies produce vast benefit for America – and I have seen the Bush policies being totally destructive.

DO Jews, as some claim, not possess American values? Many of them possess the best of American values – ones far more viable than those of their enemies. Jews disagree among one another on many things, but one thing that they do all value is education and hard work. This creates truly winning habits. And these are the habits that win – rightfully and fairly and in a fully American way.

If White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans do not want to be outcompeted by Jews, Chinese, Hindus or any number of others, then they will likewise cultivate winning habits. They will stop attacking ambition and intelligence in their youth or originality, ingenuity and creative thinking in their adults. They will stop seeing students who take school seriously as “arrogant” or “know-it-alls” or “thinking they're better than everyone else” and instead encourage education. And they will stop seeing creativity, ingenuity and inventive thinking in adults as “narcissism” or “sociopathy” and instead allow such qualities to do the work of making the country great.

The Jews who do get ahead in America deserve all the credit that they can get. They vastly contribute to America, and America owes them greatly. Whereas America owes absolutely nothing to Nazis or anti-semites – with possible exception of Bobby Fischer, who did his work before he became an anti-semite and before he went insane.

American people need to decide what are in fact their values. If they value responsibility and hard work, then the Jews, the Chinese, and the Hindus should do well in America. And if they are not comfortable with such people doing well in America, then they cannot claim to value responsibility and hard work.

It is not American in any manner to complain about them damn Jews. It is American to take responsibility. If you abuse and destroy the best minds in the midst of you, then you will be out-competed by people who do not do that. Stop beating up your honor students. Raise ones yourselves.

Responsibility And The New Age

An idea that has been made popular especially in the New Age movement is that everyone is responsible for everything that happens to them, and that nobody can either help or hurt anyone else. I find this idea to be morally wrong as well as factually wrong.

I do not “whine” about my life; my life has been an enviable one, and I know it. Instead I place credit where credit is due. I had a wonderful mother, excellent teachers, and the influence of all kinds of good people. Similarly the New Agers have also had the influence of all kinds of good people – the teachers who educated them, the police and the military that protect them, the scientists whose work is at the root of most of business sells, and both the businessmen and the laborers who have produced their prosperity. People have all sorts of effect on all sorts of other people, both for good and for ill, and denying this is not responsibility, it is blindness.

Is responsibility a virtue? Of course it is. But externalization of costs and misplacement of credit is not. When the Texas Oil poisons the oceans and the air, or when the Brazilian farmers burn down Amazonian rainforest, all sorts of people and all sorts of conscious life suffer or die. It is not the fault of those who die; it is the fault of Texas Oil and Brazilian farmers. The claim that everyone is responsible for everything that happens to them enables these people in the crimes that they commit, and the material and political success that they achieve through wrongful methods gets rewarded under the false claim that it is their responsibility.

True responsibility presupposes knowledge. Without knowledge people do things that they regard as being responsible but are not. They drive Hummers. They poison the oceans and the air. They destroy countless treasures that they cannot conceivably recreate. They beat up on the “nerds” and the “sluts.” They credit themselves for their temporary prosperity while denying the role that science, education, and government infrastructure and government protection of property rights has had in making it possible. None of these actions are remotely responsible.

A family member of mine had a sign on her fridge that said, “You are responsible for everything you are. That is not the truth; it is a place to start.” If something is not the truth, then it is definitely not the place to start. Anything that is not based on the truth is going to come crashing down. This is likewise in no way a responsible behavior. It is a behavior that creates false starts that work for a while, then turn into a turkey.

Nor is talking about social issues “whining” or “blaming” or anything of the sort. The first step toward solving a problem is articulating it. Real solutions do not come from acting like a grade-school coach; they come from real insight and real understanding of the issues involved.

In “Goodbye Lenin,” a person from West Germany was telling a person from East Germany that his mother was a whiner because she was talking about social issues. His response was that she was not whining; she was offering constructive criticisms that people could use in order to improve. I do the exact same thing, and I am continuing to do so with all sorts of places every day. That likewise is not “whining” or “blaming.” That is actual responsibility.

This, then, becomes the actual place of the intellectual. America has a long history of hating intellectuals; but it owes its nationhood to ones. Without them damn intellectuals like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, most Americans would be serfs under one or another European monarchy, and they would be taking responsibility for a life of tilling a two-acre plot of land, living till age of 30, and having their sons drafted into the military and their daughters into domestic servitude.

Instead this attitude fails to place credit where credit is legitimately due. These people owe greatly to scientists, teachers, the military, the police, business, labor and many others; and they take credit for a privileged position that is owed, not to them, but to many others besides them. Many of them had a role in getting to where they are, but they do not begin to deserve the full credit for it. Much of it is owed to many other people besides them. And in claiming that nobody can either help or hurt another, they are failing to credit all sorts of people to whom they owe what they have.

The baby boomers started out wanting to change the world. Then they were met with a greater force; at which point they went totally into themselves and created a religion of self. For this they are hated by many, especially Generation X and any number of people in my generation. Some of them did in fact become effective people, and they do deserve credit for that. But their parents were likewise effective, and they believed in no such thing; and their reputation has been far better.

Once again, I do not “whine” about my life. My life has been a privileged one. I do not credit for this my “consciousness” or anything of the sort; I credit for this the influences that I have had. I have had both successes and failures, both for all sorts of reasons of which I am well aware. At this point my concern is neither my happiness nor my freedom nor my peace of mind. At this point my concern is leaving a better world for our children than we have found it.

Which, in fact, demands a far greater amount of responsibility than does merely seeking one's freedom or peace of mind.

If all you care about is your freedom or peace of mind, then do by all means take the advice of the New Agers. But I have other concerns. I do not want my daughter to grow up in a toxic hell or to be prey of Muslim or right-wing cultures that want to treat her as a punching bag. Nor do I want to see her being maliciously attacked by Third Wave feminists for being pretty and kind and unwilling to practice their vicious party line. You may get a better degree of personal freedom and peace of mind by not putting yourself in harm's way; but sometimes it's necessary to put oneself in harm's way to protect what one loves. I am not “whining” about this; I am taking responsibility for correcting wrongs and addressing social issues.

Is Bradley Manning negative because he is in a military prison? No, he is a true hero who informed the American voter of what the military was doing with his taxpayer money. He is far, far more responsible than any yuppie; and he has done far more for the world. He did so while being fully aware of the consequences, and his courage and heroism deserve full respect. He is not where he is because of “unconscious guilt” or “victim mentality.” Any more than did the 500,000 American soldiers who died in the Second World War bring it upon themselves with such things. These are people who have done heroic things for what they rightfully believed in; and they deserve respect for having done so.

Now I see absolutely nothing wrong with people examining their beliefs or their character, and such pursuits should be encouraged. But at no point is it rightful to encourage misplacement of credit or externalization of costs. There are all sorts of people who have contributed to the world in which we live, and some of them were compensated appropriately and some were not. A teacher or a scientist may not make very much money. And yet many people – and many countries – thrive as a result of the work of both.

Now I feel personally close to any number of people who have been a part of the New Age. Many of these are artistic and intellectual types who did not like it in the academic establishment, so they decided instead to learn from life. Some of the knowledge that they got that way was very useful, and many of them used it to achieve financial and personal success. This deserves respect and acknowledgement. But ideas that are blatantly false do not.

So that while I have respect for any number of people in the New Age, I do not have respect for this idea. It may have helped them to get where they are; but there have been all sorts of people who got to good places using anything from Christianity, Islam and Sikkhism to Communism and even Nazism. They do not own responsibility, they do not own success, and they do not own freedom. We have seen people get to all of the preceding using all sorts of methodologies. For that matter there are successful “skeptics” as well; but that does not make skepticism right.

Doing things that are actually responsible therefore presupposes finding truthful explanations rather than false ones. It presupposes actual knowledge. “We don't need no education” has been a disaster, and one that has hurt mostly the very same types of people who were a part of the movement – the artistic and intellectual types. Meanwhile the country has been denied some very important perspectives. So we are seeing all sorts of conmen telling people all sorts of lies and people falling for them. This is weakening America; it is also hurting the world. We are finding ourselves in a toxic hell and in a toxic society. Once again, there is nothing responsible about this at all.

Generations are judged, not on their beliefs, but on their legacy. Right now the baby boomers are being hated by many, who say that they have left the world a worse place than they have found it. If all you care about is your freedom and peace of mind, then do by all means take that methodology; but do not expect that others will agree.

A much more viable idea has been stated to me by someone in my generation who said that she wanted “a better world for people and better people for the world.” This is a much wiser standpoint. That way, the world benefits at both the individual and the collective level, and both the world and the people improve. This I recommend as the new direction in thought and psychology. One that is fuller; that is more viable; and that is more ultimately responsible.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Russia, China, Political Correctness and Player Cultures

I once had a conservative poster on the Internet tell me that Clinton stood for America's weakness. That is entirely not the case. Clinton stood for win-win scenarios. He wanted America to do well; he also wanted the rest of the world to do well. And for quite some time, his policies worked very well in both directions.

I advocate this approach: Dealing with people based on what they are. If someone is an implacable enemy – such as people who see America as the Great Satan – they should not be accommodated; they should be met with a greater force. Whereas with others, an entirely different approach is necessary.

With France, Russia, China, India, and Latin America, we see all sorts of things. Some are quarrelsome allies; others seek their benefit whether or not it is the same as that of America. This requires dealing with them based on what they are. France may be critical of America on a number of fronts, some of which are legitimate; but it does not want to see America destroyed. India does not want to destroy anyone; it wants to win on the power of its spiritual ideas. This requires a brain-intensive rather than a one-size-fit-all approach, dealing with each place based on what it is.

Probably the biggest wrong to have come out of recent American policy has been their treatment – respectively – of Russia and China. The Soviet Union elected a noble-minded leader named Mikhail Gorbachev who sought to make the place more democratic and more humane. The Communist hardliners put him under a house arrest and sent in tanks to shoot at the people gathered in the Red Square; the military made the noble choice of refusing the orders to shoot; and the country was rewarded for its noble and rightful decisions by having the country plundered and its people treated like dirt. Whereas when the Chinese government sent in tanks to shoot at people gathered in the Tiannanmen Square, the military did obey the orders to shoot, and America and China remain best friends. This has made Americans look like scoundrels and hypocrites to the rest of the world; and when Iranian people elected a moderate leader named Mohammad Khatami the Islamist hardliners had success in thwarting his reform agenda by claiming that he was the Gorbachev of Iran. This is not only bad ethics; it also is bad politics.

There are many people in Russia who look up to America, and there are many people in Russia who hate America. This conflict has been ongoing since 17th century – between the people who look toward Russian tradition and the people who look toward the West. Russian people looked up to the West, and many now believe that the West has betrayed them. There is nothing evil on the part of the Russian people about this; this is a perfectly understandable sentiment. You look up to the West only to see your country plundered, guess who will become more credible in the country?

I have read that the Chinese business approach is to make themselves indispensable to the companies for which they work, and to get power over them by so doing. This likewise requires to be met based on what it is. Get rid of the people who do such a thing and instead build real loyalties. Move manufacturing either back to America or to places like Africa, Latin America and Bengladesh that do not have this agenda. In the process, create reasons for workers to have a real loyalty to the companies for which they work. I have seen this done successfully by companies both small and large. One huge corporation for which I worked became highly successful by involving people at all levels in the decision-making process. This made the workers feel like what they did mattered, and they became very loyal to the company. There were some smaller companies for which I worked which went to the bother of building personal friendships with their employees; and these people likewise became loyal to the companies and went above and beyond the call of duty to do excellent work.

If China wants to become a global superpower, it will have to do so through honest practices rather than through manipulation. Once again, I see no reason why a country whose military obeys the orders to shoot at the people should be doing better than a country whose military does not. This is against everything that America claims to be about; and treating the Chinese better than the Russians makes Americans look like scoundrels and hypocrites to everyone – in Russia, in China, and everywhere else.

Which, of course, gives credibility – and power - to America's real enemies; both in these countries and in the rest of the world.

France is not an enemy of America; it is a quarrelsome ally. It is wrong that the French be seen by many in America in the same way as the Taliban or regarded as an enemy. They are not an enemy; they are an ally that does not agree with everything in America, but they do not want to see America destroyed.

In Russia, there are people who support America; people who oppose America; and people who support some things about America while condemning others. Many people from Russia – myself included – have respect for America's political and economic systems, but have no use for the American media culture or social attitudes. America's political and economic practices are superior to those of Russia; its social attitudes and primary education system aren't. “Political correctness,” “avant garde” poetry and the art that NEA funds are absolute abominations; and on these matters Russian culture is vastly superior to that of America. My solution has not been to whine about such things but to either confront or improve them: In case of third-wave feminism show its absurdity, destructiveness and hypocrisy; and in case of arts and poetry translate five books of classical Russian poetry into English and publish three books of actual poetry that people actually want to read.

Ultimately, my agenda is the same as that of Bill Clinton. I seek win-win scenarios. I seek to improve every place with which I am working, either through introduction of better ideas from abroad or by improving upon their own. Russia benefits from American political and economic ideas, and America benefits from Russian culture, science and educational practices. Both places exist, and I expect both to continue to exist for a long time. The matter is, in which form.

I have no interest in ruling anyone, and I have no interest in killing anyone. I seek to influence culture and I seek to influence thought. I seek to confront the wrongs in every place and replace wrongful practices with superior ones, while supporting what's right in every place. This is the case with Russia; this is the case with America; this also is the case with Australia, where I am presently living. I have no dictatorial pretensions, as some people have claimed falsely. I seek to influence culture and thought.

I have known real artists and poets in both America and Australia, and they were women. I have respect for them, but I do not generalize that respect upon all women any more than does a Third Wave feminist generalize a respect for Martin Luther King or Mohandas Gandhi or Ward Churchill upon all men. Most people who claim respect as their value are conmen. They only pretend to be respectful to people from whom they want something. Then they treat everyone else – especially people closest to them - like dirt. I have known any number of salesman and player types in both America and Australia who did just that to their wives and their girlfriends; and I have no respect for a survival adaptation that is manifestly dishonest. Any more than I do for the Chinese practice of making themselves indispensable for the companies for which they work in order to get power over these companies. The rhetoric about respecting everyone is a racket. Nobody actually respects everyone – especially not the American feminists. Most pretend to respect those from whom they want something, while showing absolutely no real respect for the people who are actually close to them and over whom they wield real power.

Does this make me a rude Russian? Yes. I would rather know what people actually think and feel instead of having them pretend to be nice to me while actually wanting to kill me. Then I know what I am dealing with. In suppressing what people actually thought and felt, political correctness – and the Southern culture before that - has created a population of conmen. These people mouth a pretend respect while thinking and feeling something completely different. If someone believes that Jews or Russians are evil, or that I am a sociopath, or anything along the same lines, I would rather hear that than having them put on a front and pretend to be good to me while hating me and wanting to kill me. Then I know what I am dealing with; and I can find out workable ways to deal with it.

I believe that the rest of the American population deserves the same actual respect – instead of a pretend respect disguising the core of deceit.

Islamic jihadism has probably been the best real-world refutation to political correctness. Here are men who are not a part of the Western civilization, who are far worse by the standards of liberalism or feminism than anyone in America, and whom the feminists have welcomed under the banner of multiculturalism – only to see them infiltrate the disadvantaged communities in America and teach the males there to be even worse to women than they had been before. So that while the feminists are out there hunting “sociopaths” and “perverts” among the white liberal American population, real brutality and real misogyny grows up in their own constituencies and puts the women who live there under a yoke much worse than anything done by any American “sociopath.” I am not in the academia or any official media organ, nor am I taking taxpayer money for what I am writing. Which makes it possible for me to reveal this as much as it is possible to do so for Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is wrong about any number of things. He is completely wrong about global warming especially; but in confronting political correctness he is doing a great service to America. He is fighting real fascism and real dishonesty. He is fighting a party line that has taught everyone who's been a part of it to be dishonest and insincere. He is fighting ugliness draped in a false front of tolerance – something that American feminists, for one, believe to be the essence of sociopathic character. The character that they claim to be fighting; but that they themselves embody far more.

Respect is a value when it is genuine. It is not a value when it is a pretense. The salesmen types only pretend to respect you; but they want your money. The player types only pretend to respect you as well; then they turn into brutes when you are theirs. One needs to cut through such things as with a sword. Genuine rudeness is more respectful than fake politeness. It treats you like a human being rather than a pawn to be played.

In fact, women are far more empowered by being able to see such things than they are by political correctness. They can then see people's actual character rather than their fronts. I have heard it said by a black American woman that sometimes nice people are worse than mean ones. She is correct. The world is full of conmen and players who put on a front in order to get what they want or whom they want, and then use the same player skills to convince everyone else – from the courts onward - that they are the good guys as they bash the woman and the children and treat them like dirt.

These people must be seen for what they are and for what they do and dealt with accordingly. In the same way as the Chinese who make themselves indispensable in order to get power over the companies for which they work need to be seen for their tactic and likewise dealt with accordingly.

I have never been considered a nice guy, nor do I seek that label. But when I was with a gorgeous older American artist, her children told her that it was great that she was with someone nice for a change. The previous men with whom she had been were regarded by many as nice guys, but they treated her terribly. Whereas I am normally regarded as a freak and have been falsely portrayed as a sociopath or a predator or a misogynist, but I treated her well. That is because I actually respected her, and I actually loved her – which those men only pretended to do in order to make her their trophy wife.

Evil is very rarely found where you expect it to be. It knows how to hide and pretend, and I for one have found it in all sorts of totally unexpected places. I have also found good in all sorts of completely unexpected places, as well as people with aspirations toward good who simply did not have the knowledge or the encouragement or the skill that they needed to make it matter. I continue finding such things every day – once again, in all sorts of places, many of them completely different from what one would normally expect. Some of the best people I've known are people who are normally regarded as dangerous. As Bono said, “You are dangerous cause you're honest.” An intrinsically sincere person will always be dangerous to people practicing a culture of insincerity and fake respect. I hope to know more such “dangerous” people, I hope to have more of them in my life, and I hope to see more of them having the power in society – in America, in Russia, in Australia, in India, in China, in Japan, everywhere.

Conman cultures and player cultures will be torn to shreds by actual sincerity, as they well should. Doing that actually improves the lot of the women in them. They can then see people for who they are, and they can make better choices in relationships. Political correctness empowers only the insincere. And a healthy dose of traditional Russian rudeness will go a long way toward improving these cultures – in the same way as real art and poetry, Russian-style, stands likewise to improve America and the West.

Saturday, September 24, 2016

To Hell With Gender War

I have heard it said that relationships are about equality. My question: Which relationships are about equality? Relationships are about no such thing. They are about whatever the people involved bloody want them to be about. Most relationships are about Christianity, or Islam, or Hinduism; many are about children; any number are about shared values and interests; and some are about romantic love. So why in the world should relationships be about equality?

The closest thing I've had to an equal relationship was with Melanie, my former wife; and that's not the relationship that I keep remembering the most. The relationship that I remember the most was my first one, when I was 19, with a slightly older woman named Michelle whom I loved hugely and still do, even though we were together for only a short period of time and she is now dead. It was in no way an equal relationship. I was absolutely in love with her, and she had all the real power. And she used it for good, getting me into exercise and classical music and motivating me to improve myself in all sorts of ways.

The idea of gender equality was tried in 1990s; and for the most part it was a failure. Most women did not like that way of life at all, nor did it give them power. Women were put in a race where they were second and could only be second, while denying them the place where they were first. So I heard from a butch Lesbian feminist graduate student a number of years ago that the women in traditional cultures had more real power than contemporary women, as they were in control of reproduction and sex whereas the women these days are under complete control of what she called a “male-dominated business culture.” Is that true? I do not know if it is true. But I did not invent this, nor did I get it from the patriarchy. I got it from a butch Lesbian feminist graduate student.

So what I've seen a number of smart women do is not take part of the rat race. Instead they got together with men, whom they treat nicely, who in return love them and take care of them. Their children love them as well because they are good to them. Whereas feminist women have bred a bunch of Eminems who hate their mothers – rightfully – and then wrongfully generalize their hatred on the whole female gender and treat their non-feminist girlfriends and wives as if they were their feminist mothers. And this is where we find the world at this time.

What is the solution to this? Not equality – no, to hell with the damn equality, it's been a massive failure. The solution is for men and women to treat one another right. Not men's violence toward women nor women's verbal and legal viciousness toward men should be tolerated. Women should be taught to be good to men, men should be taught to be good to women, and both should be confronted in case that they are not.

I refuse to let scum like Eminem or the Ayatollah or Michael Murphy claim to speak for me as a man. And I also refuse to let scum like Catherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin claim to speak for my daughter, my sister or my grandmother. The gender wars are run by the worst in both women and men; and there is absolutely no reason in the world why any man – or any woman – should listen to either side. They are scum. They are trash. They are pulling a power trip. They have no right to speak for 50% of humanity, nor is there reason for 50% of humanity to name them their leaders. To hell with the whole lot of them.

Neither the men nor the women deserve to win the gender war. The only people who deserve to win anything are women – and men – who choose to act rightfully toward their partners. Both men and women are capable of choice; and anything capable of choice is capable of both right choice and wrong choice. It is wrong to side with either gender – and thus abet all the people within it who choose to act wrongfully while oppressing the other gender even in its capacity for good. It is right to side with those who choose to act rightfully – both men and women – and not only assist them in making positive relationships with each other but also in making these better values count in society.

Right now we see the worst possible behavior being rewarded in both women and men, and better attitudes punished. Men nearest the liberal centers of learning and culture, who for the most part believe in women's rights and wish women well, get maliciously mistreated by the worst women in the history of humanity; and women in the “traditional” or disadvantaged communities, who for the most part like men and are willing to be good to men, get brutally abused by Eminem-influenced or Osama Bin Laden-influenced or Michael Murphy-influenced scum. In both cases, goodness gets punished and ugliness gets rewarded. In both cases, we see a horrendous injustice. And in both cases, we see a horrible wrong done.

What is the solution to this? Well there are several. One is for more women – and men – to have the guts to stand up to the usurpers who falsely claim to speak for them without them having voted to do so. I've done a lot to stand up to misogynists – real ones – and I've faced all sorts of harassment and slander for doing that. I do not give a damn about that; I know I'm doing the right thing, especially by my daughter, and I am willing to face the consequences. I've also stood up to misandrists – something for which I was ridiculously branded a misogynist – and I advocate that more women who are actually independent, strong and intelligent – as opposed to merely indoctrinated into the party line that falsely claims to speak for them without them having chosen for it to do so – stand up to these assholes as well.

Another is for more men and women who are willing to be good to one another to get together. This can be done especially through a lot of men from feminist cultures getting together with women from non-feminist cultures. That way men who are willing to treat women right will get together with women who are willing to treat men right and will create better relationships than what they stand to have at home.

Meanwhile the stranglehold of the usurpers on both sides will be broken; goodwill will be rewarded and incentivized; and the offending gender in either culture will have a real-world reason to improve their ways.

I want to see a death blow done to both actual misogyny and the so-called “political correctness.” I want to see such attitudes wiped off the face of the earth. I want the future generations to grow up in a world free of such convictions, where they can love and be loved and not fear brutality or malice. I want the usurpers on both sides disempowered and shamed out of all influence. And I want to see men and women come together in love and mutual goodwill to create better relationships and a better family life.

Is this too much to seek? No. There have been any number of people for whom this has worked – especially in the World War II generation – and it is up to my generation and the millennials to rebuild relationships from the sorry place in which baby boomers and gen-Xers have put them and into a blossoming. So far, I have seen any number of situations in my generation in which very fruitful man-woman relationships have been affectuated. It is wrong that women in such situations be patronized by the feminists and denied the right to their own conscious choices. A woman who chooses a “traditional” role consciously has as much the right to this choice as does the woman who wants a career; and a person who truly believes in women's right to choose for themselves will not stand in the way of such choices.

Thursday, September 15, 2016

"Strong Black Sisters" and Feminism

I used to attend a poetry reading in DC that was lead by some brilliant young black folks. One recurring skit consisted of two young men rapping “What I want is a strong black sister, the only thing for me is a strong black sister,” and there was a young woman walking around playing the part.

I have known any number of black sisters of all ages, and all of them were strong. Most however did not have an in-your-face attitude. At that poetry reading, there was another black sister. She was a complete sweetheart, but when someone tried to mess with her boy did he get it. I can respect that kind of strength a lot more.

Every sister I've known from India was strong; but most did not have an attitude. Every sister in my family is strong; but most are kind. Was that sister strong? Maybe. But I don't think she could have been stronger than Russian and Jewish sisters who've lived through the Second World War.

There are many women, especially in America, who mistake attitude for strength and gentleness for weakness. They think that they are the only strong women in the world. Quite simply, they need to get out more. The world is full of women who are genuinely strong. And most of those women do not have an attitude.

One major premise of martial arts is cultivation of strength in order to keep the peace. The person is taught real strength, and he is also taught to control it and only use it when necessary. As is said in a movie, “Fight not good, but if you do fight, win.” American third-wave feminism has created a bunch of aggressive, malicious, mean-spirited women who think that they are strong and that all other women are weak. I would like to see them go up in an argument against an older Russian woman, or against an older Southern woman, or against a woman from India or Saudi Arabia or Tanzania. These women will show them who is really strong.

Some people find strength in themselves. Others find it in other things. The person who finds strength in Christianity, or in Hinduism, or in family, or in patriotism, or in service, is often stronger than the person whose only source of strength is herself. Women who've been mistreated are often taught to be strong in themselves and only in themselves; and that is a very wrong approach. There are bigger and better sources of strength than oneself, and many women – and men – find greater strength in such things than they do in their immediate selves.

Should people be strong in themselves? If that rocks their boat, fine. But let's not be mistaken enough to think that the self is the only, or the best, source of strength. It is neither. A person whose source of strength is himself will be less willing to do actually brave things than someone whose source of strength is patriotism, service or Christianity. Self-esteem does not win wars. Real strength does.

I have heard it said by a woman who works at the University of Chicago that women have always been the stronger gender. I have heard it said by a Lesbian feminist graduate student in Maryland that in “traditional” societies women had more power than they do now in America, because they were in control of reproduction and sex, whereas contemporary women are under control of male-dominated business culture. I have heard it said by a number of women that feminism fails to represent women, as many women would much rather stay at home with children than pursue careers. I hear it said repeatedly by women – strong, successful women – that feminism has gone too far. I did not invent these ideas, nor did I get them from the “patriarchy.” Strong, intelligent women told me these things.

Is it rightful to teach women strength? Yes. But it is not rightful to instead teach attitude and arrogance and mistake these things for strength. They are not strength; they are stupidity. A woman who wants to be strong stands to learn a lot more from “traditional” women than she does from the feminists. The feminists are not the only strong women in the world; in any number of meaningful senses many of them are the weakest. Wrong qualities are being taught, and women suffer as a result.

Monday, September 12, 2016

Military's Accountability To The Voter

We see many conservatives militating against the Wikileaks project. They are not being true to the ethic of conservatism. Conservatives believe – or claim to believe – in making the government accountable to the voter. The military is a part of the government. Which means that it, too, must be held accountable to the voter.

Now I can think of any number of reasons why somebody may dislike Julian Assange. But I see no reason to dislike Bradley Manning. In many respects he is a true American patriot, who informed the voter about what the American government was doing with his money – and faced dreadful consequences as a result. So that while Mr. Assange remains living comfortably in an embassy, Bradley Manning is getting the worst of it. He is the true hero in this situation.

The conservatives need to decide whether they want the government accountable to the voter or whether they do not want the government accountable to the voter. They need to decide whether to apply to the military the same scrutiny as they apply to the Department of Education and the EPA, or whether to deny scrutiny of the Department of Education and the EPA as they seek to deny the military. It is either one or the other.

As for the American libertarians, if they truly believe in liberty, they will be protecting people's liberties from all entities that infringe on such things, whether these be public or private. There are any number of private entities – from organized crime to corrupt networks in law and medicine to communities where men like to rape their children and batter their wives – that violate people's rights in America to a far greater extent than is allowed the federal government. While the libertarian sees all-too-well the potentials for corruption and tyranny in the federal government, he overlooks similar potentials in private entities; and that makes a mockery of his efforts.

The military is a part of the government; and if the government should be scrutinized, then so should the military. No gain is achieved by torturing people or shooting unarmed civilians from gunships. The military must be disciplined so that it does not do such things; and if it itself fails to correct for such potentials, then the voter must do the job instead.

Any organization – and any group – is capable of a phenomenon that in psychology is known as groupthink. They all start thinking the same way and reinforce one another in their errors. One possible error that comes from this is deciding that it is above the law. I have seen this done on the Internet; I have seen this done in small towns; I have seen this done everywhere. If the military gets so isolated in its groupthink that it thinks it rightful to slaughter unarmed civilians at taxpayer expense, then this potential needs to be checked from entities external to the military; and if some socially conscious hackers do this, then they are doing the right thing.

Is Julian Assange a jerk? Probably. But Bradley Manning is not. He is a much truer American patriot than anyone howling for the head of Julian Assange. He realized that the military was in the wrong, and he has been facing horrible punishment for his patriotism and courage.

The military was sent to Iraq to dispose of Saddam Hussein. They betrayed the voter's trust, and made Americans look like jerks around the world, by doing things that are wrong by any standard. It is legitimate to fight enemy combatants; it is not legitimate to kill more civilians than were killed by Saddam Hussein.

These kinds of situations can be avoided – and should be avoided – by having ombudsmen in the military. These people should be there to check whatever ruinous groupthink develops in the military and remind the military of what it is there to do. The military is there to accomplish a mission. It is not there to go hunting innocent people or act like a bunch of creeps. And if it chances to forget such a thing, then there need to be people to remind it.

I do not care what happens to Julian Assange. He is not the hero in this situation; Bradley Manning is. If the military forgets what it is there for and goes out hunting civilians and killing more people than Saddam Hussein, then the voter and the taxpayer deserve to know about this. These are far greater violations than anything we see with anything done by EPA, Department of Education or FDA. And a person who truly believes in government accountability to the voter and the taxpayer will recognize this and act accordingly.

Sunday, September 04, 2016

Communism and the Rest of Human Nature

I once read a poster from the former Soviet Union stating that Communists had attempted to remake human nature, and that that was wrong.

In fact Communists did what everyone else does: Elevate one aspect of human nature to universal legitimacy while condemning all others.

Communists believed service to humanity to be the true human nature. Other aspects of human nature – anything from monetary self-interest to spirituality – they condemned. Every other belief structure on the face of the planet does the exact same thing.

Capitalism believes monetary self-interest to be the true human nature and sees anything else as an attempt at one or another kind of a theft. Patriotism believes serving one's country to be the true human nature and sees anything else as weakness, cowardice or betrayal. Different kinds of psychology see different things as being true human nature and anything else as an attempt to cheat at these things. We see this with “erotic striving” and Adlerian “adequacy striving.” We see this with Maslow's hierarchy of needs. We see this with personality psychology. We see this with self-esteem psychology. And on and on and on.

And of course religions teach us that the true human nature is submission to God or spiritual growth, and that everything else is “flesh,” “ego” or “sin.”

While service to humanity may not be a part of the nature of everyone, I have definitely known any number of people who were not Communists who were naturally altruistic and were happy doing tasks that did not bring them much money but that resulted in benefit for many other people. Scientists, educators and social workers do not make very much money, but their contributions to prosperity are vast. Someone else makes money out of the knowledge that they produce and out of the work of the people whom they make employable and law-abiding. Many of them do not mind this state of affairs. When they do revolt – rightfully - is when people decide that their work is useless, that only business creates prosperity, and that everyone else – including the scientists whose knowledge is at the root of the things that they sell and the teachers and social workers who make people employable and law-abiding - is a parasite.

In 1960s, the naturalistic hippie ideal – to be a part of nature and to live naturally – was seen as the true human nature. In 1980s, that changed, and human nature was thought to be family life and economic self-interest. Both appeared to appeal to the same people at different stages in their lives. Both obviously speak to a part of the human nature. But neither has the right to exclusivity.

In fact, everything that we see – both the desirable and the undesirable – is an outcome of one or another aspect of human nature at work. There will be ideologies favoring all of them, and there will be ideologies condemning all of them. Communism is merely one of such ideologies.

As for the psychological theories, I have found all of them lacking. Adler would pathologize everything that has taken humanity from caveman to man on the moon. Maslow was obviously wrong; there are any number of people – especially in religions – who put their higher needs first and either have the lower ones fulfilled as part of striving for higher needs (“Seek ye the righteousness of God and all else will follow”) or denied as contrary thereto (overcoming the “flesh” or the “ego”). There are plenty of people – especially nuns, monks and ascetics - who live well enough without sex. There are plenty of people who live happily enough – and frequently successfully enough and kindly enough - without self-esteem; and there are plenty of people with high self-esteem who are horrible human beings. As for personality psychology, it claims that some people are evil and can only be evil whatever they do; which is of course contrary to most basic reason. And given the definitions of some of these disorders, the world owes vastly to people whom they accuse of having them.

The error in Communism was not seeing service to humanity to be human nature. The error in Communism was claiming that that was the only legitimate aspect of human nature. There are any number of people who are naturally altruistic, and that is a legitimate aspect of human nature. It is a valid aspect. It is an important aspect. But it is not the only one.

I have found that all aspects of human nature can go right, and all can go wrong. We have plenty of historical examples of all of the preceding. Capitalism can mean anything from Oracle Corporation to fracking and predatory lending schemes. Natural life can mean anything from the happy Pacific Islander tribes to the cannibalistic Maoris. Patriotism can mean anything from Eisenhower to Hitler. Psychology can mean anything from Rollo May to the lobotomy man. All human phenomena are capable of both good results and bad results. And none deserve to speak for the whole human nature.

Was Communism wrong to see only one aspect of human nature as the legitimate one? Yes. But that aspect of human nature exists all around the world, and it will continue existing, Communism or no Communism. This aspect needs to be recognized, and mechanisms need to be put into place that it be legitimately fulfilled. It is wrong to give Communism the credit for something that has existed for as long as the world has existed, or to equate it with Communism. It is a part of the human makeup; and the rational solution is to allow it to do its work without making fallacious equations with a vanquished ideology.