Domestic Violence and Building Strength

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.