Sunday, November 27, 2016
The people who speak in favor of
violence – especially in favor of domestic violence – believe
that it makes people stronger.
My response is that there are all sorts
of ways to make people strong without acting like a scoundrel.
I knew a man from Texas who, when he
was a child, had every bone in his body broken by his stepfather and
stepbrother. He most certainly was a strong person, but he was also
very messed up. He had a paranoid delusion that I and my girlfriend
were going to kill him and his family, which is ridiculous, as
neither I nor my then-girlfriend had any violent thought in our
minds, much less about killing him and his family.
You want your children to be strong?
Fine, get them into martial arts, get them into playing football. Do
not think that beating up on them will make them stronger. In most
cases it will make them hate you. And in some cases it will result in
mental problems.
In rural Mexico, it is customary for
the man to come home from work to beat up his wife, who then makes
for him super-hot meals that hurt him. I ask this: What did rural
Mexico get from having such an attitude? Does rural Mexico run the
world? Does rural Mexico even stack up among powerful nations? They
hurt one another, but are completely powerless to hurt anyone else.
Does domestic violence make people
stronger? Even in situations in which it does, the negative outcomes
are far greater. People become vicious. People become hateful. People
become envious of people who have it better than they do. It does not
improve humanity; it sabotages it.
My daughter has never experienced
domestic violence or anything close to domestic violence, but she is
a very strong child. My younger brother also never experienced
domestic violence, but he has a PhD from Stanford in nanotechnology
and is working on a top-secret project for a major American
corporation. When my mother was with a conservative man, he was
telling her that she was raising a monster by not being violent to my
brother. My brother did not become a monster or anything close to a
monster. He became a responsible, hard-working, brilliant, ethical
and all-around admirable young man.
Even if some people are made stronger
by experiencing domestic violence, it is not the only nor the best
way to build strength. There are all sorts of ways to build strength.
When I was in school, I was the shortest and weakest kid in class. I
am not one now. That is because I've been doing lots of rigorous
exercise, and I am in a better shape now than most people my age –
including many people who were jocks in school.
So no, practicing domestic violence is
neither the only nor the best way to make people stronger. There are
all sorts of ways to build strength that do not involve bullying or
traumatization. If you want your child to be strong, get your child
into hard-core sports. The child will that way become genuinely
stronger. And the child will do so without growing up to hate you.
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
Rightful Treatment Of Men And Women
There was one time when someone on a
forum asked, “Does Ilya like all women or just pretty women?” My
response is that I like whom I like. Same with everyone else,
including that poster. It makes no sense to like or dislike someone
because of their gender. It makes sense to like someone because of
superior qualities.
In some places – such as the American
liberal culture – men tend to be better than women. In many other
places in the world – such as Russia and Middle East – women tend
to be better than men. In the first case, the women claim that men
are by nature destructive. In the second case, men claim that women
are evil or inferior. Neither claim has any validity.
Instead, what we see in both cases is a
game. Women in the American liberal culture merit from the efforts of
all sorts of men who have been fighting traditional Western misogyny.
Men elsewhere get all sorts of things from the woman – sex,
companionship, children, clean house, in many cases another source of
income and in some cases the only source of income. Their belief that
the other gender is evil allows them to benefit from what the other
gender offers them without rewarding them appropriately for what they
are getting from them. And that is supreme dishonesty.
Without liberal-minded men, women in
the American liberal culture would be punching bags for some idiot.
And without women, men in places like Russia and Middle East will not
reproduce or have a dinner and a clean house. If you think that women
are evil, then by all means don't be with them. And if you think that
men are evil, then don't expect men to support you or protect you.
The men who beat up on their women – and the women who benefit from
policies that were fought for the most by liberal-minded men – are
completely dishonest. Both of them benefit from the efforts of all
sorts of people of the other gender. Their attitude that the other
gender is evil allows them to gain from their efforts without
compensating them according to what they get from them.
Both misogyny and misandry are a game.
They are rackets that are used to get whatever one wants from the
other gender without compensating them according to what they get
from them. Neither has any honesty whatsoever; and both are a way to
get what they want without doing one's part of honoring the person
from whom they are getting such things.
I used to believe that women were
better than men. After getting walked all over and viciously abused
by feminists, I changed that attitude. I did not change my attitude
to actual misogyny. I changed it to a rational attitude. The rational
attitude states that anything capable of choice is capable of both
right choices and wrong choices. There will be good men and bad men,
and there will be good women and bad women.
If a woman is with a misogynist who
keeps picking on all sorts of things in her character, the correct
answer is, “Then why are you with me?” Someone who does such a
thing is not owed a self-justification. Attempting to justify oneself
is only bait for further abuse. If the man gets things out of the
relationship, then he is obligated to treat the woman rightfully
whatever he thinks of her character. Similarly, the women who benefit
from liberal institutions that protect their rights and their
liberties also owe it to the men who have had a part in this to treat
them rightfully. And if they are not willing to treat liberal-minded
men rightfully, then they are free to deal with Oklahoman or Afghani
men whom they think to be real men and who would show them just what
is the meaning of the concept.
I once had a friend from Russia who had
been a geologist and then started a business. He was good to his
wife. Then his wife told him that there were no real men left either
in Russia or in America. I told him to say to her, “Check out the
scene in Afghanistan.” She was an ungrateful brat; and that is what
ungrateful brats deserve.
There is the saying that says,
“Familiarity breeds contempt.” I have rarely seen the kind of
animosity that I have seen between people and their exes. I took a
different path. I maintained a positive relationship with my ex-wife.
And now my daughter benefits from the attention of two loving
parents.
Both me and my ex-wife were accused by
all sorts of people of being horrible people. But both of us have
acted in a much wiser manner than the people who have been saying
such things. When my mother was being accused by someone of all sorts
of malfeasance, she told me that her solution has been to act
rightfully, and that doing so would refute these people's
allegations. My mother has two loving sons, and she has not been in
any way a failure. If you are a woman getting attacked by your
partner – or if you are a man being attacked by feminists – I
recommend her advice as a solution.
We see two complementary injustices. On
one side of town, horrible women are being viciously abusive to men
who have goodwill toward women. On the other side of town, horrible
men are being brutal and malicious to women who have goodwill toward
men. My solution to these two complementary injustices is the
economic one. Bring together the better on each side. Let men from
the first side of town get together with women from the other side of
town. And in this way create better relationships for the two parties
than they hope to have at home.
If you are a man benefiting from what
you get from a woman, then you are obligated to treat her rightfully,
whatever you think of her and whatever you think of women. And if you
are a woman benefiting from liberties and equalities that were fought
for by liberal-minded men, then you are likewise obligated to treat
men rightfully. Neither men nor women are good or bad. Both are
capable of both. Get some sense of perspective, and then appreciate
the woman that you are with because she is not Catherine McKinnon –
and appreciate the men around you because they are not Osama Bin
Laden or Eminem.
Monday, November 21, 2016
Canon-Centric Bigotry and American Culture
Some in psychology and related
disciplines refer to anything that is not part of the canon as bias
or bigotry. This leads to a bigotry of its own. Christianity and
Hinduism are not part of the canon, but both contain vast wisdom and
one that can be of great benefit to psychology itself.
We see the same with those in feminism
and political correctness who see Western literary and artistic
legacy as patriarchial. The Western literary and artistic legacy has
had many influences, and many of them are in disagreement with one
another. To claim that, just because something is a part of the
Western literary and artistic legacy, makes it racist or
patriarchial, is ridiculous. The followers of these movements have
not come up with anything near the same quality as Shakespeare or
Keats. They are a destructive influence, and the avant garde and
postmodern rubbish that they have come up with is nowhere close to
being as good as the works that they profane.
I do not see for one moment why the
Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500
a year, would have better art than America, with 300 million people
and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year. The problem is not lack of
talent on the part of the American people. The problem is incorrect
values and priorities. If beauty is not valued in society, there will
not be demand for beauty. And this will result in there being no room
for people who would produce beauty.
The solution to this quandary is to
change values and priorities. It is to create a demand for beauty.
This has happened in American history before. It was called the
1920s. That period produced magnificent architecture, literature and
music; and there is no reason why America today should not be able to
do the same.
Indeed it should be able to do the same
to a much greater extent. Technologies of today are far more advanced
than those of 1920s, and there are more people and more wealth.
Donald Trump has commissioned magnificent architecture and beautiful
machinery; and it may very well be the case that his administration
would be in favor of making America beautiful again.
There is absolutely no contradiction
between beauty and practicality. 1920S saw both great economic and
technological progress and great cultural accomplishments. It was
also the time when America became the undisputed leader of the world.
I do not look back to 1960s, although I once did; I look back to
1920s. In 1920s economics and culture existed side by side, and I see
no reason why they should not do the same now.
Once again, I see no reason why
Renaissance Italy should have better art than America. America should
have 300 Sistine Chapels. The problem has been that political
correctness has been poisoning people against beauty; and this has
created a completely deleterious effect on America.
So now there is someone in the White
House who has the courage to challenge political correctness. He also
has an excellent taste. It may very well be possible that this person
will do something for culture in America. Maybe America will regain
its value for beauty. And maybe the result will be magnificent
architecture, machinery and artwork all around.
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
Trust and Principle
Any number of people have told me that
they do not trust me. I suppose they do not have a reason to trust
me. I am a loose cannon, and I have reversed the course of my life
any number of times.
There are two reasons however for them
to trust me. One is that I am a dedicated father. And the other is
that I care deeply about other people, and I've put in vast amount of
effort into addressing all sorts of people's concerns.
I used to have a very strong ethical
structure that was based in Communism. When I came to America that
got deconstructed, and I was left without moral guidance. I did not
accept Christian ethics for a long time because I thought that
Christianity was nonsense. It took the efforts of a number of
Christians who knew what they were doing to convince me to the
contrary. And, I believe, it also took the efforts of Christ.
I have come up with an ethical concept
that can be workable in many situations. It is called principled
loyalty. One serves the best benefits of the people to whom one is
loyal, but one refuses to do wrong things in their name. Simple
loyalty creates things such as the mafia, where people are loyal to
one another but treat everyone else like dirt. Principle by itself is
cold, out-of-touch, and lacking in realism. But principled loyalty
corrects errors on both sides and makes room both for human reality
and for ethics.
In battles of interests, I seek what I
call the positive middle path. I do not mean just any middle path, as
middle path can be found in all sorts of undesirable places. I mean
the path that sees what each side is right about and combines them
while doing away with what's wrong in each. In battles of interests –
such as business and labor, men and women, or public sector and
private sector – neither is good and neither is bad. Both are
capable of both. The correct solution in those situations is to see
what each side is right about and combine it, while correcting each
side's potentials for wrong.
One possible mechanism toward that
effect is what I call synthesis within the framework of check and
balance. Both the concept of synthesis and the concept of checks and
balances created global superpowers. Both however can go wrong.
Checks and balances by itself leads to gridlock, and synthesis by
itself leads to totalitarianism. When you combine both, the two
correct each other's wrongful potentials while working together to
accomplish what neither side can by itself.
Checks and balances stop each side from
harming the other by affirming each side's rightful prerogatives. The
potential for wrongdoing in each side is checked by the other side
preventing itself from getting harmed. And at the top, the two sides
work together to achieve what neither can achieve by itself.
With business and labor, this means
business and labor both affirming their rightful interests – the
first not to get slaughtered or wrongfully demanded, and the second
to be treated rightfully. With men and women, this means both men and
women protecting themselves from malicious or brutal behavior by the
other side. With private sector and public sector, this means
protecting the private sector from over-regulation and over-taxation
while making sure that the public sector has the adequate funding to
do such work as the military, the police, the Interstate system,
education and science.
Another direction for the synthesis
within the framework of checks and balance system is nature and
civilization. People need both nature and civilization, and both
worlds need to be in the best shape that they can be. People's
material needs and wants stand to be solved in a way that does not
destroy the planet through transitioning to better technologies. Both
people who see nature as only resources and the people who have no
use for science or technology are wrong. Both nature and civilization
are necessary; and both stand to remain there for a long time through
transitioning to better technologies than what we presently have.
The concept of principled loyalty can
work in both personal life and politics. One should very well be
loyal to people to whom one is personally loyal; but he should not be
hurting others in the process of advancing their best interests. And
in politics, one should very well be loyal to his country; but he
should not be hurting other countries in the process. If someone to
whom I am personally loyal wants me to commit murder, I will not do
it. If my country wants me to throw sulfuric acid into the face of a
child, I will not do it. Instead I will look for workable ways to
advance their interests without hurting others in the process.
Now there have been any number of
people who wrongfully described me as a sociopath. I am no such
thing. I am someone who came from the position of very strong ethics,
which ethics got deconstructed. I had to wander in the wilderness for
a long time before creating a better system of ethics. This is what I
came up with as a result.
Win-Win Scenarios and Implacable Enemies
Steven Covey, in his bestseller “Seven
Habits of Highly Effective People,” advocated businesses working
toward win-win scenarios. Bill Clinton applied the same mentality in
arbitrating what worked for both business entities and countries.
This is a highly effective approach; and in many cases it is the
right approach toward which parties should strive.
There are however situations in which
win-win scenarios are wrong. There is no such thing as win-win
scenarios with someone who wants to kill you. With groups such as
ISIS, the correct approach is not win-win scenarios but superior
force.
The issue here is whom one is dealing
with. If people involved in the deal seek their own best interest,
then the solution is negotiating outcomes that work for both sides.
If we are dealing with an implacable enemy, this is not the solution;
the solution is defeating them.
There are some in America who regard
anyone who's not a Republican as an enemy. This is called crying
wolf. The French, the Jews and the liberals are not the enemies of
America. They may disagree with Republicans, but they do not want to
see America destroyed. Whereas ISIS is an actual enemy and should be
treated as such.
A conservative poster once told me that
Bill Clinton stood for America's weakness. No, he did not stand for
America's weakness. Bill Clinton stood for win-win scenarios. He
wanted America to do well; he also wanted liberty and prosperity
extended to the rest of the world. We found the shortcoming of this
approach with the terrorists. Most parties out there however are not
terrorists; and with most of them it is in fact possible to seek
win-win scenarios.
I have no idea which course of action
the Trump administration would pursue. I recommend dealing with
people based on what they are and on their intentions. With most
people it is possible to seek win-win scenarios. Whereas no win-win
scenarios can be found with implacable enemies. Do not treat
terrorists as if they were Mexico, and do not treat the Jews or the
French as if they were ISIS. Seek win-win scenarios when possible,
and deal with implacable enemies through greater force.
Sunday, November 13, 2016
What Donald Trump Will Do
Since most people who read this are
liberals, they are probably not in favor of the outcome of the
present election. I however am of the opinion that it should be
possible to work with Mr. Trump.
Donald Trump embodies the qualities
that made America great – the qualities of innovation and
ingenuity. When these qualities are being portrayed by psychology as
narcissism, something is very wrong with the country. When a
profession goes off a cliff, it takes someone to check the resulting
problems; and even if it comes from a Republican it is for the
better.
Donald Trump is also probably the only
person on American scene to take on the monstrosity known as
political correctness. No, I do not want my daughter to wind up a
punching bag for some idiot; nor however do I want her to be abused
by feminists for being pretty and kind. Both men and women are
capable of wrongdoing – equally. It is not rational to side with
either gender against the other. It is rational to side with the good
people in either gender against the bad ones in either.
If Mr. Trump wants to deny global
warming or do other stupid things of the sort, it should be possible
to correct him by working within his stated values. A person who
values responsibility will not be blindly plundering the planet; and
a person who values family will not be leaving behind for his
children a worse world than he has found. Argue within his stated
values in favor of truly responsible solutions such as clean energy;
and hold him – and his followers – accountable on such matters
according to the values that they claim to possess.
Among the Russians, Republicans are
generally held in higher regard than are the Democrats. Mr. Trump
appears to enjoy a fruitful relationship with Vladimir Putin, and
that stands to work for the betterment of both countries. There is a
lot in common between American conservatives and Russians; and it
should be possible for the two countries to develop and maintain a
good working relationship.
Mr. Trump looks back to 1980s, and
Hillary Clinton looked back to 1990s. I do not see either decade as
either better or worse than the other. In both decades the economy
boomed; and in both decades the society was intolerable – for
different reasons. In one decade there was a mean-spirited
patriarchy, and in the other decade there was a mean-spirited
matriarchy. Neither in my view is better or worse than the other.
Mr. Trump will be good for business,
and I would advise more people to go into business under this
administration. I may very well do the same thing. I will however do
what I can to check Republicans in their errors on this subject. They
think that business is the only root of prosperity. It is not.
Science is at the root of most of what business sells. Education
makes people in the country employable. If idiots militate against
either, they will need to be told just that. I do not think that Mr.
Trump is stupid enough to make this error; but many people affiliated
with him will be. They will need to be told it straight just how much
business – and prosperity – owes to such things as education and
science.
As for poetry and the arts, these
actually stand to benefit under this administration. Mr. Trump has
excellent taste in architecture and machinery, and he also has a good
taste in women. The postmodernists, avant-garde and other destructive
cultural influences stand to lose out under Trump, and real art and
culture stands to come back. I would not advise bringing back
influences from 1960s. I advise bringing back influences from 1920s.
America produced some excellent work at that time, and it did so at a
time when a Republican was president. If Republicans think that
artistic types are a bunch of bums, they can be met with art that
appeals to them. They can be met with genuinely tasteful artwork and
architecture. They can be met with creativity that is constructive
and not destructive. They can be met with real art and real culture.
I do not know who stands to gain, and
who stands to suffer, under this administration. I do however see
positive qualities in this person, that many others do not see. Let's
see what he does and where his actions will take the country. Deal
with these people according to their stated values, rather than
liberal values. And use whatever arguments you will need to deal with
them when they fail to meet their stated values, as they do for
example on global warming.
Friday, November 11, 2016
Reason: Higher Function Or What You Are Using It For?
There are many people who have a
negative view of feelings. My question to them is, If feelings are so
bad why did they exist in the first place? On this there are any
number of schools of thought.
According to some, human nature is of
the Satan. If that is true, then it is in no way limited to feelings.
It would also include such things as reason and faith.
Then there are others who claim that
reason is the higher function. I am good enough at reasoning, but I
do not believe that there is such a thing as the higher function. A
function is what you are using it for. If you are designing an engine
or writing a program, then you are doing the right thing with your
higher function. If you are using it to attack feelings or faith,
then you are not.
I see no reason whatever to see either
reasoning or feeling as a higher function or a lower function. Both
are capable of good and bad. This is the case with reason; this is
the case with feeling; this is the case with just about everything
else that is there.
I am not against reason. I am however
against ignorance and destructive behavior. The people who use the
claim that they are rational to attack and abuse their partner are
doing the wrong thing. They get all sorts of things out of being with
the partner. But because they think that feelings are an inferior
function, they become highly emotionally abusive, and they fail to
compensate the partner according to the benefit that they are getting
from them.
There is such a thing as religious
misogyny; and there is such a thing as rational misogyny. If a man
thinks that anything with feelings is an inferior form of life, then
he is going to be abusive to his female partner. Most such men are
spoiled and have no idea how good they have it. They need to deal
with the kinds of women I've dealt with before they appreciate what
they have. A woman who has no use for feelings can be a horrible
creature. These men have no idea how good they have it. Which means
that it might work in their best interests to be given a sense of
perspective.
Are feelings bad? Some can be good and
some can be bad. Same with reason; same with faith; same with just
about anything else that is there. I see no reason at all to see
either of these as being higher or lower. According to any number of
religions, reason is bad as well. There is everything to be said in
favor of positive uses of reason. There is a lot also to be said
against the use of reason for abuse.
It's not what function you use. It's
what you are using it for. If you are using reason constructively,
then that is a virtue. If you are using it destructively, it is not.
Same is the case with feelings and just about anything else that is
there.
Once again, I see no reason at all to
see anything as a higher function or a lower function. There are all
sorts of things out there that think that reason is a lower function
as well. If you believe that reason is a good thing, then use it
rightfully. Use it for things such as technological and economic
progress. But do not pretend that using it to control people who have
use for feelings is either rational or responsible. It is no such
thing; and using reason for such wrongful ends insults the reputation
of reason.
Wednesday, November 09, 2016
Political Correctness and Donald Trump
I have heard it from many people that
Trump is a racist and a misogynist. That may very well be the case;
and it also may very well be the case that he is the attention that
these people need. Terms such as racist and misogynist have been
thrown around at all sorts of people who are neither. Crying wolf
discredits oneself when a real wolf appears. So if these people think
that someone like myself is a racist or a misogynist, they need to be
met with a real one.
My father has a unique view on the
subject. He thinks very badly of Muslims and not very well of black
people; but he has respect for Mexicans. He says that they are
willing to work hard. My uncle on the other hand has a very negative
view of Mexicans. He thinks that they have no use for learning and
culture and that they are a destructive influence.
I used to believe that women were
better than men. My experiences with American feminism-influenced
women cured me of that error. I did not replace my stance with
misogyny. I replaced it with a rational stance. According to reason,
anything human – male or female – is capable of choice and
anything capable of choice is capable of being either good or bad.
I have no idea what Donald Trump will
do. I would caution him however against expelling the Mexicans. When
Idi Amin expelled the Asians who lived in Uganda, they were gone and
they remained gone. The present Ugandan government does not militate
against Asians. However the Asians have not come back even though
they are now in demand.
With Muslims, the solution is finding
out who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. America has every
right to expel people who want to bomb it, and I would not expect
Americans to act in any other way. However there are any number of
Muslims in America who are contributing citizens and are not
terrorists; and I would caution the Trump government from expelling
these people.
Maybe the solution is demanding that
these people pledge allegiance to the flag. I do not care for one
moment whether or not they assimilate; I do however care that they do
not go around bombing marketplaces. In my family, some assimilated
and some did not. My parents assimilated, and they lived decent and
comfortable lives. I did my own thing, and my life has been less
comfortable; however my contributions have been greater.
Should immigrants assimilate into
America? This would deny America a lot of what it needs. America
grows largely through incorporating things from elsewhere. Americans
drive Japanese cars, dine at Mexican restaurants, hire Indian
programmers, watch movies made by Jews, view spectator sports played
by black people. These people do more for America than they would
have if they had simply assimilated. There is the room for those who
would assimilate, and there is the room for those who would not.
Very little is owed to Muslim thugs who
come into the West and rape girls or teach men in disadvantaged
communities to be terrible to women. Much however is owed to any
number of others. The decision that America will have to make is, Who
is the good guys and who is the bad guys. This is not decided on who
would assimilate. This is decided on who would make bigger
contributions.
Most immigrants are highly patriotic.
They have chosen to come from Country A to Country B, and that means
that they will be very likely to have high regard for Country B.
However they cannot be prevailed upon to deny the good things in the
place that they come from themselves. The people who bring cultural
wisdom from elsewhere to America enrich America. And America grows –
and benefits – as a result.
I am not at all willing to live the
Texas way of life. I am however enthusiastically willing to
contribute to America; and even though I am now in Australia I am
maintaining the willingness to make contributions. I have proven this
again and again, even in situations that did not serve my best
interest. No, I am not willing to live according to political
correctness or anything of that sort. I am however enthusiastically
willing to make contributions to the country.
In this situation, me living in
Australia is probably the best solution. I can continue to contribute
without living according to attitudes that I detest. I may not make a
good citizen, but I make a good ally. I will advocate for interests
of America and Americans. That is especially the case in places such
as Australia, where there are many people who hold Americans in low
esteem and usually for wrong reasons.
I have encountered all sorts of
negative stereotypes of Americans, and in most cases these reasons
were wrong. There are many people who think that Americans are
violent, because all they've seen of America are Hollywood movies
about gangsters. There are many people who think that Americans are
stupid because of the weakness of America's primary education system
but do not see other forms of intelligence that Americans have. I
have the internal perspective, and I also have the external
perspective. The first allows me to understand the experience of the
participants. The second allows me to understand how their actions
impact upon the rest of the world.
Once again, I have no idea what Trump
would do. He is a loose cannon, and his actions are unpredictable.
But maybe dealing with someone like that would clear up people's
confusion as to who a racist or a misogynist is and who is not. Some
people need a better sense of perspective. And it is a sense of
perspective that dealing with someone like Trump will provide them.
Tuesday, November 08, 2016
Black People and Political Correctness
One of Martin Luther King's most famous
statements was that he wanted people to judge others not on the basis
of the color of their skin, but on the contents of their character.
I know any number of black women whom I
hold in high respect, and many of them have all sorts of things to
say about the content of the character of the black men with whom
they have partnered. I am not a racist, nor anything close to a
racist. I want black people to do well. But if the men with whom they
are dealing treat them like dirt, I have the right to say things
about the content of the character of these men. If someone cares
about someone else, he will be against people who treat them badly.
And I for one have no respect at all for a man – black or white –
who chooses to treat women in his life like dirt.
I am not an angel; I do not claim to be
an angel. But I do not want to see good women treated badly; and that
is what we see all around, in both white and black communities.
Whatever your skin color, you have no business beating your woman or
trying to kill her if she wants to go with someone else. Maybe the
gangsters have sex appeal; but they do not have personal appeal. I do
not want my daughter to be treated like dirt, nor do I want black
women to be treated like dirt either.
Black people come under the protective
umbrella of liberalism; but many of them do not practice liberal
values. The most central liberal value is treating people rightfully.
If you think that your girlfriend is a “bitch” or a “slut,”
then by all means steer clear of her. Get together with a woman whom
you can respect. And then build a real relationship that is not based
on contempt and violence.
In the politically correct cultures in
America, it is fashionable to treat horribly the man in your own
culture while supporting other cultures in their actually
misogynistic ways. These people need to have their heads screwed on
straight. They have no idea at all how badly women elsewhere are
being treated. They expect ridiculous things from their men while
expecting nothing at all from themselves. In fact a conservative
American Christian is a much better partner than is a man from the
ghetto or the man from Middle East; and if these people actually
believe what they claim to believe they would be acting accordingly.
My response to these people is, I want nothing at all to do with you
or with people like you.
Is the Western civilization the root of
oppression of women? Only an idiot would believe such a thing. The
Muslim civilization is far worse to women than the Western
civilization has ever been; and so are any number of others. I do not
deserve to be claimed a misogynist or anything of the sort because I
do not agree with political correctness. You could ask my ex-wife
about how I treated her as compared to her previous men; she would
tell you who a misogynist is and who isn't.
That Andrea Dworkin or Catherine
McKinnon is a woman no more qualifies them to speak for women any
more than that Osama Bin Laden as a man qualifies him to speak for me
as a man. To hell with the both of them. To hell with Osama Bin
Laden, and to hell with the third-wave feminists. None of them begin
to deserve to claim leadership for 50% of humanity. They are the
worst in their respective genders; and neither have the right to
claim any kind of leadership at all.
If Martin Luther King was alive today,
he would in no way be happy with the way in which the black people in
inner city treat their wives and their girlfriends. So what if you
are black, it does not qualify you to act like a jerk. If you
actually have respect for black people, then treat your black sisters
accordingly. They are black people too. You will be judged based on
how you treat them.
And if you're a Christian? Then look at
what Christ actually demands that people do. Christ demands that you
love the next person, and that means especially the woman in your
life. If you are using Christianity to control your wife while not
doing your part to treat her rightfully, then you are misusing
Christianity. You become that way a Pharisee. And yes, I am
completely certain that Christ will judge you.
What we are seeing here on two sides of
town are two complementary injustices. On one side of town horrible
women are being malicious to men who have goodwill toward women. On
the other side of town horrible men are being brutal to women who
have goodwill toward men. Neither situation is anywhere close to
being right. Maybe the solution is a large-scale cross-cultural flux
to correct two complementary injustices.
To hell with the men – black or
otherwise – who think it their right to be terrible toward women.
To hell with the women who think it their right to be terrible toward
men. Neither one or the other deserve anything whatsoever. The only
people who deserve anything are the people who are willing to be good
to their partners. And that is the case with both men and women of
any race.
I am totally sick of the gender war.
The gender war teaches everyone involved to be assholes. That is the
case both with women and with men. The only solution is for men to be
good to women and for women to be good to men. And it is for the
people of all races to strive toward that solution.
I do not want my daughter to wind up a
punching bag for some idiot. Nor do I want her to get abused by
feminists for being pretty and kind. The only possible solution to
this situation is for men to be good to women and for women to be
good to men. There is no other possible solution. And this has to be
the case across all races.
Saturday, November 05, 2016
Confronting Both Feminism And Misogyny
There are two major toxic influences in
society at this time. One is women who hate attractive women. The
other is men who hate women as such.
When I was in love with a very
beautiful woman, I was told that I was thinking with my penis and
that I was a sham. In fact there are any number of women friends in
my life whom I do not regard to be physically attractive, but whom I
respect as people. At one point or another, a very bad meme was
introduced. It is the claim that there is something incompatible
between physical beauty and inner beauty. I do not see why the two
should have any relationship to one another at all. Some will have
both; some will have either one or the other; and some will have
neither. Having known any number of women who were both physically
beautiful and good people getting maliciously attacked by
feminism-influenced women, I have every right – and I also believe
it to be my duty – to stick up for such women to those who would
attack them.
Then there's the claim that there's
something wrong with loving women at all. A person professing such
beliefs claimed that I was in love with women's genitals. I have no
sexual attraction at all to my daughter. I will however do everything
in my power that she does not have to deal with people who have such
beliefs. And I will also do everything in my power to make sure that
the world in which she grows up is free of such poison.
My daughter has always been kind, and
she has also always been very beautiful. Her first social
interaction, at age 1, was coming up to another little girl and
giving her a hug. I tell her about yuckie people, and she says,
“There are no yuckie people.” Here is someone with both outer
beauty and inner beauty. And no, I do not want her sexually.
When women who are both physically
beautiful and good people get viciously attacked, this is a problem
not with them or their consciousness or their karma. This is the
problem with the world. And it then falls up to people who care what
world new life is brought into to stand up to the people responsible
for either monstrosity. No, I am not thinking with my penis when I
make a stance for beauty. I make a stance for a reality that is in no
way limited to women. I also make a stance for great art and beauty
in nature. All things that carry legitimate and rightful appeal, and
will continue to do so to people throughout history however much
either the feminists or the misogynists want to brainwash people
against them.
I respect any number of people –
including women – who are not usually regarded as attractive. I
however have no respect for vicious abuse of people for their
positive traits. Both physical beauty and inner beauty are values,
and ones that deserve to be rewarded. Anything that militates against
such a thing is evil. And anything that militates against such a
thing is wrong.
From science, we know that there is
both absolute beauty and relative beauty. A face with particular set
of proportions will be regarded as beautiful cross-culturally. In
another study that showed 500 faces to 20,000 participants, each face
got picked as the most beautiful at least once. The first affirms
that beauty is not only taste-dependent or culturally relative, and
that there is such a thing as absolute beauty – the beauty that
will be recognized as such independent of taste or culture. And the
second affirms that there is someone for everyone, even if one's
parents or school culture did not regard them to be attractive. The
first invalidates the abuse against beautiful women; and the second
invalidates the abuse against unattractive teenagers. There should
not be room for either form of abuse.
There is absolutely nothing
incompatible at all between physical beauty and inner beauty. The
claim that there is such a thing allows women who have neither form
of beauty to abuse women who have either or both. I do not want my
daughter to get abused by feminists for being pretty and kind, and I
will fight this kind of feminism. I will also fight misogyny. Both
are abominable, and neither deserve to have currency in society.
I am in no way driven in this by sexual
considerations. I care about the women I've loved, and I care even
more about my daughter. For this reason I will do everything in my
power to reduce in society the influence of the gender war. The
gender war teaches everyone involved to be the very worst thing that
they can conceivably be. It creates toxic social conditions, and ones
in which the very best things are viciously attacked.
I did not choose this set of
conditions, and my daughter did not choose this set of conditions.
This means that I will do everything that I can to change this set of
conditions so that she does not wind up abused either by feminists or
misogynists. Neither side is anywhere close to being right, and
neither side deserves to win. The only people who deserve to win
anything at all are the people – both men and women – who are
willing to treat their partners rightfully. And it is this approach –
the opposite of the gender war – that can provide nurturing soil
for the raising of new life.
It is wrong to take sides in the gender
war. The gender war is not the solution; the gender war is the
problem. The gender war has created a toxic society in which everyone
is taught to be jerks. This makes the world worse for everyone. I
will confront both sides, and I hope that other loving parents do as
well.
It is wrong to attack women for being
beautiful or men for loving beautiful women. Beauty is a positive
quality, and it deserves to be treated as such. At the very least it
does not deserve to be discriminated against. There is nothing at all
incompatible between beauty and spirituality or being a good person.
I know any number of women who are both beautiful and good people;
and I refuse to see them abused for having such traits.
The ironic thing is that, in most of
these situations, the woman who's being attacked has absolutely no
ill will toward the people who attack her. She does not generally
become hateful even though she's being subjected to absolute hate.
Her attackers consider themselves spiritual, but they come from
position of hatred. The woman is being accused of not having
spiritual or personal qualities. Yet she shows a much greater
presence of both than do the people who attack her.
So no, there is absolutely nothing
incompatible between being beautiful and being spiritual or a good
person. My daughter is both beautiful and a good person, and so are
most females in my family. I will stand up for them, and I will stand
up for the women I've loved. This becomes the duty of love and
integrity. And it also becomes the duty of what it means to create a
nurturing soil in which to raise future generations to be free of
such grievous errors and be able to have wholesome life.
Thursday, November 03, 2016
Children's Character and Children's Parenting
A few weeks ago, some teenagers broke
into my place while I was sleeping and stole my wallet. I do not hate
them; I feel sorry for them. These kids come from bad backgrounds,
and many of them actually want to get caught because they would have
it better in jail than they do at home.
There are some people who believe that
children are “tabula rasa” (“a blank slate”) and mirror the
behavior of their parents. There are others who think that everyone
comes to the world with their own karma and that they choose the
circumstances of their lives according to that. I do not think that
any of the above is true. Children come with their own propensities
that often differ vastly from those of their parents. And of course
their upbringing also has a large role in them becoming what they
are.
When I was a child, I was very unhappy
and did not care what I looked like. My daughter has always been very
happy, and she's been a fashion princess since she was 3. She got the
best from both sides of her family. She is a very beautiful child,
and she is also very intelligent. The people who think that races
should not mix are refuted by her case. She is part-Jewish,
part-Irish and part-German; and she has the best genetics of anyone I
have known.
What is the child's basic character and
what is her influences? It appears that both have a large role. The
role of the parent is to create the best manifestation of what they
are given with in a child. It is to find ways in which her
propensities can take place the best way. And it is also to make sure
that the child does not go wrong.
I have heard it said that the world
would be a better place if people acted in accordance with such
theories as Confucianism. I do not see why that would make the world
a better place at all. Children frequently differ from their parents
in many respects. This is the case for example with me and my
daughter. If a child has gifts in a different area from where their
parents have gifts, then the solution is to allow the child the
fullest expression of these gifts.
I would not dream of telling my
daughter what she could do with her life. The only two things I do
not want her to become is a criminal or a punching bag. So far she
has shown no propensities in either direction. I do not even have to
punish her. When she does something wrong, I explain to her why it is
wrong, and she does not do it any more.
I've always been tortured, but my
daughter hasn't been. Yet she has all the intelligence that I do if
not more. She also has a lot of innate wisdom. Her first social
interaction, at age 1, was coming up to another little girl and
giving her a hug. When I talked to her about yuckie people, she said
that there are no yickie people. It is rare to see such wisdom in a
child. She is definitely not a tabula rasa. She has her own character
that differs from mine in many ways.
Did she choose me as her father? I do
not know if she did. Did these teenagers also choose their parents as
well? Was it their karma to do so? Or is this something that simply
happened?
With Christianity, we see different
explanations. There is the claim that personality resides in the
flesh, and there is the claim that personality resides in the soul.
Now many Christians say that the flesh comes from the Satan; but they
do not say where the souls come from. Did God create the souls? Or if
not then how come they came about?
Any parent knows that children come in
with all sorts of propensities. And most people know that upbringing
also has a large role in children becoming what they become. There is
the innate character, and there is the parenting. Both are
significant. Be a good parent, but do not expect that the child will
be like you.
Wednesday, November 02, 2016
Removing the Beam From One's Eye
As someone who's written in favor of
goodwill between men and women, I am asked such questions as “what
if you've found terrible things in your partner's character?” The
response to that is, By what code? If you are using Adler or Freud or
self-esteem psychology toward that effect, then your analysis is
going to be wrong. You may find things that these people think to be
terrible that are not terrible at all. If you are applying a wrong
reference point, you will come up with wrong conclusions.
I have seen such conclusions made by
contemporary psychology. Someone may be genuinely altruistic and like
helping people, only to be told that this is a product of low
self-esteem. Someone may want to love and be loved, only to be told
that this is the product of narcissism. I take issue when good things
are presented as bad things. And we see plenty of that in psychology.
When people have wrongful expectations,
usually as a result of wrongful beliefs such as the above, they are
going to find nobody whom they would find of good character. When
expectations are absurd ones or incorrectly informed, nobody will be
able to meet them. There will be people pretending to meet them. They
are known as players. One would have screened out most of what is out
there and wound up with absolutely the worst.
The Greeks made a similar mistake. They
applied ridiculous standards toward women. No human woman could meet
the standards they set. Then they decided that women were inferior or
evil. They became misogynistic, and they passed that attitude to
posterity. Women are still suffering today as a result.
Similarly, the misandrists became that
way because they applied to men ridiculous standards – standards
that no human male could meet. So they decided that men were bad –
an error mirroring that of the Greeks.
Now seeing all this, some men are of
the opinion that one should not love women because they are not
perfect. Barring the issue of what it means to be perfect, this
opinion is wrong. A woman may not be perfect by one's definition, but
she still may possess good qualities; and she would be lovable,
whether or not she is perfect.
Probably the worst approach to
relationships that I have found is in that of the perfectionist.
These people see only the dirt. However good the partner may be, they
will still find all sorts of things to pick on in their character.
They make everyone miserable, including themselves. They only see bad
things and they see nothing else. This is not only a recipe for
misery but complete ingratitude. They get all sorts of value out of
the relationship; but they only see the imperfections in the partner
and treat them accordingly. This is not only destructive, it is
dishonest. If one really thinks that the partner is bad then he
should not be with her at all. And if one gets things of value out of
the relationship, then he is obligated to treat the partner right.
This behavior is more common in men
than it is in women; but there are women who do this as well. They
justify themselves in their behavior by claiming that men are evil –
in the same way as men who behave this way justify their behavior by
claiming either that women are evil or that their partner is. In both
cases, the solution is to call the bluff of the person doing this.
Say simply, “If I am so bad then why are you with me?” Let them
find someone else whom they think is perfect. In most cases they will
wind up missing what they had.
Another approach is the Christian one.
“Remove the beam from your eye before removing the splinter from
your brother's.” Now I do not necessarily understand how one can
remove a beam from one's own eye, seeing that it is in his eye; but
maybe such thing is possible with the help of mirrors. Of course most
mirrors are convex and contain their own beam. The more mirrors –
and especially the more cross-cultural mirrors – one finds, the
more one can decide what is the beam in one's eye and what is the
beam in the mirrors. This process works toward removing the beam in
everyone's eyes, if they don't kill one another first.
Conflict in relationships is
inevitable; what says things either for or against the partners is
how it is handled. Same with all sorts of conflicts all around the
world. People are attached to whatever is in their eyes, whether it
is a beam or anything else. The process of which I am speaking is
dangerous. It is however necessary if any kind of actual clarity is
to be achieved.
When I write on social issues, some
people claim that what I am doing is evil. It is not anything of the
sort. I strive to make clear all sorts of matters on which all sorts
of people are confused. If someone has a legitimate criticism of me –
as opposed to a wrongful one – I would listen to it. If there is a
beam in my eye, I am open to removing it. I will not however remove
my retina and become blind.
In all cases, the question to ask is,
What is the eye and what is the beam in the eye? What is there
legitimately and what is not there legitimately? What inhibits vision
and what is vision? What does one need to get rid of? What does one
need to keep? If psychology thinks that there's something wrong with
helping people or with loving people, then that is the beam in the
eye of psychology. In such a situation, one is doing a good thing by
helping to remove such a beam.
I would remove the beam in my eye, but
I would not remove my retina in order that I look good in a convex
mirror. I would scrutinize myself, but I would also scrutinize those
who scrutinize me. In both cases the process works toward the clarity
of everyone involved; and for as long as they do not kill one another
in the process this is what needs to happen whenever cultures – and
perspectives – conflict.
So when one talks about bad things in
the partner's character, one needs to specify this: By what code? If
one's code is wrong, then one would see good things as bad things and
bad things as good things. If one's perspective is based upon wrong
theories, then the problem is with one's perspective. Specify the
nature of the mirror. And then one can see what is the beam in one's
eye and what is the beam in the mirror.
Tuesday, November 01, 2016
When Your Profession's Standards Do Not Apply
There was one situation in which
someone came to the Internet talking about how artists are arrogant.
He then went on with, “Can they program Java? No. Can they program
PL/SQL? No.” My question is, who is being arrogant?
This person was judging another
profession by the standards of his profession. He claimed that his
profession was the universal judge of what people should strive to be
good at. The correct response to such a statement is, “Can you fly
an F-23? Perform heart surgery? Argue a case before a court?” It is
not an artist's job to program Java. It is an artist's job to produce
art.
I made the same mistake when I was
younger, and it was a very bad mistake to make. When I was maybe 14,
I was talking to another student about how many people are not good
at academics, and she said correctly that they may be good at
something else. Many people believe that their professions are the
most important ones. They are part right and part wrong. They are
right to say that what they do is important. They are wrong to say
that nothing else is.
I find this attitude all around, and it
is a very bad attitude. Yes, engineering is important; but so are any
number of other things. Yes, medicine is important; but so are any
number of other things as well. You do not judge other people
according to how good they are at your profession. You judge them
according to how good they are at theirs.
Then there is the attitude that some
professions should not be there at all. This is something from Pol
Pot. He thought that only manual workers were real workers and that
everyone else was an exploiter or a parasite. His people didn't gain
very much from such attitudes. They wound up in labor camps that did
not produce much of anything at all.
Among engineers, there is all sorts of
rumbling about some professions being supposedly parasitical. Many of
them think that they are the only sane people in the world. What
would the world be like if it was run by engineers? That actually has
been tried. It was called the Hoover Administration. It did not work
out as well as advertised. I find it ironic how many of these people
have contempt for creative professions but worship Reagan, who had
been an actor. Many of them also are in favor of Ayn Rand – another
creative professional.
I do not think that it is possible to
get rid of arrogance. It is however possible to get rid of
groupthink. When people who think the same way get together, they
frequently do stupid things. When I was in school, two women who were
English teachers got together and started to act in a very nasty and
snobbish manner. They thought that they were better than others –
an attitude of course that is in no way limited to them or to English
teachers.
It is valid to see what you do as
important. It is not valid to think that nothing else is.
Confucianism does not apply in the Western countries. If you are a
doctor and your daughter wants to go into sales, that does not mean
that she is bad or disobedient. She has the right to her own choices.
Let her go into it but encourage her to be good at it.
I have no idea what profession my
daughter will choose, and I am not pushing her in any direction. I
will however tell her what she stands to expect in any given case. I
will inform her about the world enough that she knows what she would
be dealing with.
It is valid to see what you do as
important; not at all valid to think that nothing else is. And on the
software engineers' forum that is the Internet, I find such attitudes
all around. They think that psychology and sociology are
pseudosciences or worse. They have no use for the arts. They think
that religious leaders are conmen. I would like to see what the world
would look like if they had their way.
Intellectuals are also frequently
targeted; and it is here that the real error is made. Business and
engineering – as well as such things as democracy – owe vastly to
the intellectual. It is intellectuals like Voltaire and Locke that
provided the intellectual basis for Western democracy. It is
intellectuals such as Adam Smith that articulated the philosophy of
capitalism. And it is intellectuals like Ayn Rand that these people
read.
The engineers are of course not the
only people who make this error, and we see plenty of others making
them as well. When I was in school that was mostly educating lawyers,
they thought that academic learning was worthless and that the only
thing that mattered in life was common sense and social skills. That
may be the case if you are a lawyer; it is not the case if you are an
engineer or a scientist. Lawyers made universally binding the
standards of their profession. They were just as wrong to do so as
are engineers when they do the same thing.
I do not necessarily see the values of
lawyers or engineers as being either superior or inferior to the
other. I find completely inferior their attitude that they are
important and that nobody else is. Neither lawyers nor engineers by
themselves would be able to create a livable country. A livable
country would require both. And it will also require many others,
including such people as artists and psychologists.