Feminism and Exploitation

My solution to the gender war is as follows. Take neither side.

Anything human - male or female - is capable of choice. Anything capable of choice can be good or bad. It makes no sense to take side of women against men. Nor does it make sense to take side of men against women. It makes sense to take side of good men and good women against bad women and bad men.

I was once with a very good woman who had for 15 years been with a terrible man. She had a brother who was a good man, who was married to a terrible woman. I was just as willing to support him as I was to support her, even though as a straight man I had no attraction to him.

Recently I had a conversation at a bookstore with an economics professor who had a very kind look on his face. A very mean-looking woman came up glaring at me - obviously his wife. Why do so many good women wind up with bad men? Why do so many good men wind up with bad women? I have no idea as to why. My tentative explanation is that nasty types learn since a very early age how to get their way, and they use these skills to con better people of other gender into being with them.

With Third Wave feminism, what we have seen is women taught to be horrible people. These horrible women then appropriate for themselves the attention of men who have goodwill toward women. This attention is then denied to women who actually merit it. The horrible women then lord it over their betters, as they have the good men, while the better women are stuck with brutes and scumbags. They then teach other women to be like themselves, while attacking in other women better personal qualities.

Whether your idea is that men are abusive or patriarchial or destructive, or if your idea is that women are stupid or evil or immoral or wild or of the Satan, you are going to be a scoundrel as a function of those beliefs. You will get whatever you want out of the people of the other gender without compensating or treating them according to what you are getting from them. You will justify yourself in disgusting behavior by claiming that your partner - or other gender - is evil. Whether or not your partner is evil, they have ways to go before they can be as evil as you. A person who is good will treat the partner according to what they are getting from them; and whatever you think of the other gender in general - or of your partner in particular - then you are obligated to be good to them whatever you believe them - or their gender - to be.

Imagine the situation of a person of good intentions who winds up with someone who has such beliefs. The person loves the partner; yet the partner goes on being nasty or brutal. The partner attacks the person, whatever the person does. However good one seeks to be to the partner, one is under attack. What kind of hell and confusion does one live in?

I've had such situations in my life, as have any number of women I know. And in all such situations, the correct response is to say, Fuck you. If you get things out of the relationship, you are obligated to treat your partner rightfully whatever you think either about them or about their gender; and if you are not, then you are exploiting your partner.

And exploiters have no right to moral arguments.

More people - men and women - of good intentions should say fuck you to the people who treat them like garbage. Let nasty types be with one another. And let the rest of us be free from them.

Defending and Restoring Poetry and Philosophy

I was born in the Soviet Union. In that country - and in Russia before that - poetry and philosophy were respected pursuits. I started writing poetry at age 10 and was recognized for it.

When I came to America, I found quite a contrary situation. Most people did not give a damn about such things as poetry and philosophy. There were some who did. They became teachers in arts and humanities. They imparted good values and good ideals to their students, who then went into the world and either were told to "grow out" of such ideals or kept them and got torn to shreds.

I took an oppositional stance to that state of affairs. I decided that it's not enough to practice poetry and philosophy. It was also necessary to counteract all the forces that militated against such things. I've done this in all sorts of ways, some better than others. Immature manifestations of things always are injurious; they get better as they mature.

I had a lady friend named Michelle who majored in philosophy at Harvard. She came away talking about how worthless their philosophy department was. She continued her interest in poetry and philosophy and became a widely accredited yoga teacher. While at Harvard she attempted to start a poetry club for people who wanted poetry in their lives. She was beautiful, brilliant and kind. She had a very painful life and died of malpractice at age 36.

It appears that there has been an effort to do away with true poetry and philosophy. Academic poetry has degenerated into cold cynical word-gamesmanship and vicious abuse against people whose poetry is actual poetry. And, given the experience of Michelle, there is not much to be said for contemporary academic philosophy either.

I went on the Net, where I saw many of the wrongful attitudes. I fought them, and of course there were many who hated me for it. There were others however who loved me for it; and I have had lasting relationships as a result and more lasting friendships.

Probably the biggest thing that took a hit in recent decades has been relationships. The wrongful attitudes came mainly from two directions. One was a vicious form of feminism that militated against love and beauty and taught its followers to be mean, nasty and paranoid. Another was wrongful trends in psychology that pathologized such things as passion, creativity and originality. I took it upon myself to fight these abominations. I have written a lot on the subject, and my thoughts on these and other issues can be found at https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought .

From the experience of people who've had education in such things, I've learned that it is not enough to merely practice them. It is also necessary to defend oneself and others from those who are against them. It is necessary to confront all the forces in society that militate against poetry, arts and beauty and counteract their poisonous effect. It is necessary to confront wrongful beliefs and wrongful attitudes and stand strong against them. It is necessary to face all the ugliness that these people dish out and defeat it.

I've done a lot of intellectual heavy lifting on this matter. I got attacked in hideous ways by many. I accept this as part of the process. I hope that others find my work on this useful and likewise apply them against those who militate against them when they have interest in things such as poetry and philosophy. And I hope that poetry and philosophy become again poetry and philosophy and regain their rightful place in society.

Why So Many People Hate Poetry

In "The Great Short," there was a quotation about someone saying, "Truth is like poetry, and most people hate poetry." Obviously that person has not been in Russia or in France. As for the reasons that so many people in America hate poetry, probably the biggest one is the fault of poets themselves.

The "avant garde" and postmodern directions in poetry have been absolute rubbish. When I attended a DC Poets reading with a woman who is a magnificent visual artist, she told me, "I hope you never write that way."

Not only do these people produce absolute rubbish, but they are viciously abusive to people who produce poetry that is better than theirs. When Jewel came up with a poetry book, she was attacked very badly by these people. In fact Jewel's poetry is far better than anything that has come out of these movements; and it is completely wrong that she be getting subjected to that kind of treatment from people whose work is in every way her's inferior.

On a Google Groups forum called rec.arts.poems, someone claimed that my poetry was "so 1972." In 1972, people in America actually read poetry. That has not been the case in recent decades; and the reason, once again, is that poetry championed by media and academic movements of the time has been complete trash.

In Russia, on the other hand, people actually read poetry. And the poetry that is produced is poetry that is worthy of the name. I have put in a lot of effort and time into translating Russian poetry and songs into English, while retaining the original style and feeling. I have had a lot of good reviews of my translations. Even people who do not like contemporary American poetry have had good things to say about my work.

The solution to this problem is to produce - and disseminate - poetry that people actually want to read. Poetry that is actually poetry. Poetry that aims at such things as beauty and passion. Poetry that is poetic rather than cynical or cold. Poetry that actually inspires and moves.

I have seen very good poetry in several unlikely places, such as the Open Mike readings in DC and the Dan O'Connell readings in Melbourne. These people's work has beauty and meaning. If you don't like poetry, the most likely reason is that you haven't seen real poetry. Real poetry exists. But you won't find it in avant garde or postmodernist or academic poetry or anything of that sort.

"Sex objects" and "sex predators"

One concept that deserves to be shot is that of "a sex object." Apparently there is something wrong with being appreciated for one's body. My response is that everyone - both men and women - have bodies, and bodies are objects. I am a man, and I have a fairly good physique. I find it flattering when people appreciate my body. That is even the case with people to whom I am not attracted, such as much older women and gay men.

Furthermore, there is nothing at all contradictory between being regarded sexually and other good forms of attention. It is possible to respect someone and be attracted to them at the same time. It is possible to appreciate someone both physically and mentally. In better relationships, there are both forms of attraction and appreciation. One can value the other personally and one can be attracted to them as well.

Another concept - one that has some merit, but that keeps getting misapplied - is that of the sexual predator. Apparently a man with supposed psychological problems seeking a relationship with a woman is a predator, and a woman with supposed psychological problems is a victim. In fact both are in the same boat. They are both people who have been branded, rightfully or wrongfully, with psychological problems. Neither is the predator, and neither is the victim.

Probably the only people who actually are sex predators are men who go after children and men who go for women who are more vulnerable than they are themselves. But if say a man with bipolar diagnosis goes after a woman with a bipolar diagnosis, there is no predation being perpetrated. One equal goes after another equal; which is exactly what is supposed to be happening in relationships.

Sexuality will always exist, as will romantic attraction. The solution is to work to make such things the best experience that they can be. The first step toward that is clearing up misconceptions on the subject; and I hope that any number of others do more toward that effect.

Naivete and Misanthropy

The biggest problem with naivete is how easily it turns into its opposite. I know any number of hippie types who started out with peace and love and human rights and ended up howling about narcissists, sociopaths and perverts.

On a larger scale, the same thing happened with humanism. The humanist writers such as Bertrand Russell expressed despair about humanity. The human species disappointed them. They believed that people were good, then people did what they did during the Second World War. Whereas we see much less despair in people of say Christian perspective, who assume that human nature is sin and expect people to act in destructive manner.

The same people that championed the 1960s peace and love ideal also embraced the 1990s hysteria about perverts and sociopaths. They went from an imbalance of idealism to an imbalance of fascism. They changed their views completely but remained extreme.

The person who is naive gets screwed over in one way or another. They do not see the wrong of which people are capable, and any number of people take advantage of that. The person starts with good will and ends up with ill will. Either people mistreat the person, or the person sees terrible behavior in people. They start out loving people and end up hating people.

The solution is not to see people as either good or evil. The solution is the rational one: That anything capable of choice can be good or bad. We will see good people and we will see bad people. We will see people good in some ways and bad in others. We will see people being bad at some points in their lives and good at others.

The naive stance fails to see evil and falls for it. The cynical stance fails to see the good and portrays anything of any kind of merit as being yet another, sneakier way to do evil. In one decade people fall for all sorts of nonsense; in another they abuse anything that is beautiful and anything that is good. The same people are doing both of the above. Which is consistent with my previous statement: That people can be good or bad at different times in their lives.

Neither naivete nor misanthropy is the solution. The solution is to see things for what they are. That way one avoids being screwed over and one also avoids missing opportunities. Neither emotional state is the correct one. The correct solution is the rational one.

Craziness and Originality

I have found that there is a way to describe wherever you go as a bad thing.

If you have feelings, you are weak and unmanly. If you do not have feelings, you are a sociopath.

If you do not have emotional intelligence, you are a social retard. If you do, you are manipulative.

If you do not have money, you are a loser. If you have money, you are a hypocrite, a snob or a part of the Satanic New World Order conspiracy.

If you get hurt, it's your negativity or "life is not fair." If someone else gets hurt as a supposed consequence of your actions, you will get what you give.

If you have values, you are a fanatic or a Communist. If you do not have values, you are scum.

If you think well of yourself, you are narcissistic or vain. If you do not think well of yourself, you have low self-esteem.

If you disagree with any aspect of feminism, you are a misogynist. If you agree with any aspect of feminism, you are a pussywhipped idiot.

If you don't wear a social front, you are trash. If you do wear a social front, you are fake.

If you do not have style, you are uncool. If you do have style, you are pretentious.

If you are with a beautiful woman, you are shallow. If you are with an unattractive woman, you are a loser.

If you do not introspect, you are unconscious. If you do introspect, you are self-absorbed.

And so on and so forth.

I have of course been described as all of these things, all of which are mutually incompatible with one another.

I once knew of someone who said, "I am not crazy, everyone else is crazy." In fact I have empirical evidence that just about everyone is crazy, including him (he attempted to take part in a coup). And my proof is as follows:

The world believes all sorts of mutually incompatible things. Even if one group is sane,  everyone else is crazy.

Now anyone who thinks differently from those around him will be seen by them as crazy. That is the nature of the beast. However it is the people who do just that, that come up with most original contributions; and to them is owed much of what we have - economically, politically, scientifically, technologically, culturally, what have you.

Not every crazy person is original; but anyone who is original will be regarded by someone as crazy. That, once again, is because the mind that comes up with original contributions is a mind that has to work in original ways. And the people whose minds work in set ways will never be accepting of such a mind.

Sometimes crazy really is just crazy. But there are other times when it is originality or creativity at work. My former wife, who does not have a mental illness, was described as crazy by a previous boyfriend, who did. She is a brilliant artist and excellent writer. And it is original people like that - whether or not they have a mental disorder - that come up with the most important contributions.

The world is crazy, and has been crazy for as long as we know. We however have to live in it. Probably the most important thing that can be done is to end the stigmatization of creative and original thinking and allow it to do its work of benefiting the species. This is in no way my original idea. But it is an idea of which people must be reminded time and again in history, as they tend to forget.

Equality, Elites and the Arts

Scott Lasch wrote a book called "The Revolt Of The Elites." What he did not tell you is that America owes its nationhood to one. America's founders such as Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin came from the aristocracy, and they created America's statehood. The ideas for America's democracy came from English and French aristocratic intellectuals such as Locke and Voltaire. And without these elitist intellectual, an average American would be tilling a 2-acre plot of land, living till age 30 and having his sons drafted into the military and his daughters into domestic servitude.

What would happen if Thomas Jefferson came to America today? Most likely he would be regarded as an elitist and a snob. Even more likely he would be regarded as dangerous, even narcissistic or psychopathic. Most certainly people would think that he is arrogant or "thinks he's better than everyone else." And then of course there would be any number of others who think that he does not live in the real world.

Anyone from any kind of background can be bad to someone from another background. People from higher born groups can be bad to people from lower born groups; but the opposite can happen as well. I knew a woman who came from English royalty, who married a man from a bad background. He made her spend 6 hours a day cleaning the house and would come at her with fists whenever he found a speck of dust on the floor. To him, she was a trophy wife. To her, he was a complete tyrant - one who did not come from any kind of aristocracy and who behaved in a much more tyrannical manner than most men who are high-born.

Now there are any number of people who want equality; but equality can mean any number of different things. If a woman wants equality with men, then that means that she will have to deal with what men deal with - competition, violence, war. With racial equality, there are also demands on the person; white people demand a lot of one another as well. But these are not the things that I want to talk about the most. I seek to talk about this: Culture.

Probably the worst feature of America is its lack of respect for culture and the arts. At one or another point some people decided that there is some kind of incompatibility between culture and equality. This is wrong - totally wrong. One does not need to be an aristocrat to value culture or to produce culture. I have seen excellent work produced by people from lower-income backgrounds, both black and white; and it is wrong to see culture as something that is a luxury of the elites.

In France, culture is something that is held in high esteem, and not only by the highly educated. Even the manual workers there have use for the arts and the thought. There is absolutely no reason why America should not do the same either. American people are just as talented and intelligent as French people. The only problem is their attitudes.

What are these attitudes? One, once again, is seeing art and thought as luxuries of elites. They are no such thing. Without them damn snob intellectuals such as Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, America would not exist. As for prosperity, it also owes vastly to intellectuals, particularly Adam Smith who articulated the philosophy of capitalism and economists such as Milton Friedman who brought it back when much of the world embraced socialism. There has been magnificent architecture in America, and there has been beautiful machinery built in America. Art and culture can exist anywhere and regardless of background, and it is wrong that a nation of 300 million people with per capita GDP of $50,000 a year should not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy.

Another is a stance of denigration of beauty. This has been especially strong in feminism. A belief that some people appear to have is that beauty is incompatible with being a good person. This is a terrible belief. There is no reason whatsoever to see there being any kind of relationship - good or bad - between being beautiful and being a good person. Some people will be both; some will be one or the other; and some will be neither. The idea that there is something incompatible between such things is nothing but a license for women who are neither to abuse women who are either or both. And in the real world, it translates into there being no demand for beauty, to result in very little beauty being created in the country.

Another thing that adds to reduction in beauty in the country is the trends in academic art. Postmodernism and avant garde poetry are absolute abominations. There is no beauty to them whatsoever; indeed they are against beauty. When Jewel wrote a poetry book, the media establishment maligned her terribly, when her poetry in fact was far better than anything that they publish. Having written poetry in classical and romantic styles on Internet forums - and having been viciously attacked for it by people claiming academic associations - I know just what faces someone who actually strives to produce beautiful work and how hard it is to get it to people who would derive benefit from reading it.

Most certainly Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin would have taken objection to the anti-artistic stance. They would have corrected their followers, telling them that equality is not the same thing as sameness. They would have told their followers that accomplishment isa good thing, and that also means artistic accomplishment.

They also would have taken objection to the stance that calls people dangerous for thinking differently from those around them. They would have said that freedom means freedom, and that means first of all: In thought. They would have said that just about everything to which the world owes what it has started in original thought; and original thought is something that starts in original minds - the very minds that the recent trends have been trying to portray as dangerous.

So now America has a president whom psychology describes as a narcissist, and who is a self-made billionaire with excellent taste. Maybe it could be possible to work in such a climate to build a culture. Maybe it could be possible to confront the academic abominations. Maybe it will be possible to make America beautiful again. And maybe - just maybe - it will be possible for there to be a demand for beauty, to result in those who are capable of producing beauty doing so - and those who seek such a thing having in their lives the beauty that they seek.

What Motivates Whom

Many people tend to assume that others are motivated in the same way that they are.

People who are motivated by power assume that people are motivated by power.

People who are motivated by competition assume that people are motivated by competition or "adequacy striving."

People who are motivated by sex or love assume that people are motivated by sex or love.

People who are motivated by economic interest assume that people are motivated by economic interest.

People who are motivated spiritually assume that people are motivated by salvation or enlightenment.

In fact different people are motivated in different ways and at different times in their lives, and while all of the above apply to some people in no way is it rightful to claim that they apply to everyone.

I have been told by many that people are the same everywhere. People may be the same, but cultures aren't. A normal person in Texas drives a truck and drinks beer. A normal person in Tibet spends five hours a day meditating. In either culture, the other would be seen as a freak or worse; and it will be miles to go before they can come to any area of commonality.

There are differences between cultures, and then there are differences among people within cultures. A culture is not in control of the character of the people who are born within it. My brother and I come from the same culture, but we have very different personalities. What cultures are in control of is what they do with different characters that are born within them. The same qualities can be attacked in one culture and supported in another; and much is decided on how these qualities are dealt with.

This brings me to another subject. The Golden Rule states that it's necessary to treat the other person the way that one wants to be treated. But if I treat another person the way that I want to be treated, I am projecting upon the next person my own needs. I have always been seen as a freak, and there is absolutely nothing guaranteed that the way I want to be treated is anything like the way the next person wants to be treated. Nor is there anything guaranteed that the way in which I am myself motivated has anything to do with how someone else wants to be motivated.

It is important to find out how any given person is motivated. All of the above - and more - apply to some people, but they do not apply to everyone. Do not assume that other people are similar to you or motivated in the same way as you are. Find out how they are themselves motivated. Then treat them on that basis.

Love and Children

I have run across a claim that feelings destroy the fabric of society. That is only the case in situations where social interest is directed against feeling. In places where feelings are allowed, feelings do not have an antisocial purpose; and the feelings are completely consistent with social interest.

It is funny how the hippie types in America have been treated. When they had interest in improving the world, they were claimed to be commies. When Reagan conservatism took place and took over the society, they were claimed to be selfish narcissists. Uh-huh. If you have interest in improving the world you're a commie; if you focus instead on your own life you're a narcissists. Very rational indeed.

Another claim I've heard is that love is nature's way of getting you to do its purpose. As someone said, “An illusion called love leads to an illusion called marriage, which leads to a reality called children.” I do not see anything wrong whatsoever with wanting to have children. My daughter was the best thing that ever happened to me, and I've lived a privileged life. What really is wrong with wanting to have children? And especially what really is wrong with wanting them to be raised in a loving environment?

I've known people who stated that their children were the “mistakes of their youth,” and I've known people who've blamed their children for the failure of their existence. Attitudes of that sort are completely disgusting. Maybe I've been lucky to have a child like my daughter instead of a child like me; but I have no respect at all for parents who are unloving as well as for parents who blame their children for their own choices.

Another claim I've seen is that love has mostly been used for wrong. No, that is not true at all. The World War II generation not only believed in love but practiced it as well; and it is a generation that has in no way been a failure. I know any number of highly effective, highly successful households from that generation who started their matches with love at first sight. Love worked out for them; it also should work out for others.

Apparently love did not work out for many people in the baby boom generation. I do not know the reason for this; but they do not begin to own love or anything similar. Love existed long before they existed, and it is innocent of their failures. That love has not worked out for some people does not make it narcissism or anything of the sort. Any more than the fact that some people are poor does mean that nobody can be wealthy.

That some people failed at love does not impugn love any more than does the fact that some people failed at prosperity impugn money. Anything that has appeal to people will see all sorts of people try it, and some of them will do better at it than others. Love has worked for the World War II generation, and it should work for other generations as well. That some among baby boomers failed at it does not impugn love any more than does the existence of broke people impugn money. Separate the purpose from those who failed at the purpose, and come up with a real understanding of how the purpose can be achieved.

What Really Is Whose Responsibility?

One claim in psychology is that neurotics take responsibility for things that are not their responsibility, whereas the personality disordered do not take responsibility for things that are.

The correct question to ask in all such situations is, What is whose responsibility? Different places have different ideas on this subject. There are some places that see responsibility as being personal. There are other places that see responsibility as being shared. In either one of such places, the other place would be seen as composed of both neurotics and people with personality disorders.

There was a poster on the Internet who was going on about wanting women “to share in the askout.” Someone else stated that this person wanted society to compensate for him not having certain skills. What is whose fault, and what is whose responsibility? I believe that every place in the world needs to have this debate. What, really, is whose responsibility?

In my own life, I have done a lot to separate one from the other. I used to be physically weak. That was a problem with me, and it is a problem that I've fixed by doing rigorous exercise. I have a lot of ideas and I have been in love any number of times. Some people think that that is a problem with my personality. No, that is the problem with people who think that such things are bad.

What, really, is whose problem? That is the central issue in situations of this sort. I've been around the block enough times to know that people would be likely to take credit when their actions pay off and blame others when they don't. I do not think that it would ever be possible to get rid of this propensity. It should however be possible to balance it with legitimate understanding.

The Error Of Personality Disorders

I have a degree in psychology, but that does not mean that I agree with everything that has come from psychology. I seek to contend here with a number of diagnoses in psychology known as personality disorders.

According to the definition of the antisocial personality disorder – otherwise known as sociopaths or psychopaths – there is such a thing as a criminal personality. This means that people can be made criminal by virtue of their personality – namely, by virtue of how they think. With this is introduced the Orwellian concept of crimethink – that people can be made criminal by how they think. And with this is created a totalitarianism so absolute that people cannot be free from it even within the privacy of their minds. If people can be made criminal by how they think, then not even thought is private. Everything is under the control of the people who believe such a thing.

The claim made about sociopaths is that they are evil and can only be evil whatever they do, however hard they work and whatever work they do on themselves. This contradicts most basic reason. If people are responsible for their actions then anyone, including a sociopath, can act rightfully; and if some people can only be evil whatever they do then people are not responsible for their actions. This is a worthless mentality, useful only for conducting witch hunts. And this is exactly what we have seen from the believers in such things.

According to the definition of the narcissistic disorder, the world owes most of what it has to its narcissists. If it is narcissistic to seek great success or to have original ideas, then everyone who's had great success – and everyone who's had original ideas – is a narcissist. This would pathologize everything to which the world owes most of what it has – and most of what is responsible for America's greatness – resulting in the world losing its best contributors, and the places that believe such a thing losing competitiveness.

According to the definition of the borderline disorder, some people are made bad by having been raised badly. This is a horrible idea. As if these people were not suffering enough. People are taught to steer clear of them and avoid relationships with them, when these are the people who need such a thing the most. It is just as bad as saying that Jews are evil or that blacks are inferior.

According to the definition of the schizoid disorder, it is pathological to have spiritual experiences. This would pathologize most people, particularly the ones who have the greatest wisdom. Most people believe in something spiritual, and usually for very good reasons. The people who believe in such a thing state, basically, that the bulk of humanity are loonies. I can think of no more arrogant or ignorant stance.

According to the definition of the histrionic disorder, the people who want attention are sick. This would pathologize most stars as well as any number of professors, businessmen and priests. I see absolutely nothing wrong with calling attention to oneself, especially if one has useful things to say.

When health – and sickness in the head – are defined wrongly, we will see all sorts of disastrous results. And of course we are seeing these all around us. We see witch hunts and extermination campaigns. We see abuses against humanity's most original minds. We see persecution of spirituality and wisdom.

It is time that more people stand up to people perpetrating this fraud on humanity and say that enough is enough.

Is Beauty Incompatible With Spirituality And Practicality?

A major claim in feminism is that beauty is only culturally dependent or taste-dependent. This claim is refuted by feminists' own behavior. If they really believed that, they would be attacking all women, beautiful or not beautiful. Instead they only attack beautiful women. This means that feminists, like everyone else, know what beauty is and what it is not, and their claims on this matter are a pack of lies.

If beauty were only culturally dependent, then why do so many white men find Asian women attractive? If beauty were only culturally dependent, then why do people around the world agree that Ukrainian women are the most beautiful women in the world? There was once a colonist in the Caribbean who spoke about the leader of an indigenous tribe presenting him with a very beautiful woman. That woman was not white; she was of Caribbean extraction. If beauty were only culturally dependent, then he would not have thought such a thing.

I knew someone on the Internet who kept writing about a woman that he had been in love with. Someone attacked him for being with her because she was beautiful. Really. Is being beautiful incompatible with having other good qualities? Is being beautiful exclusive of being a good person? I see no reason at all why beauty should correlate, positively or negatively, with good personal qualities or anything of the sort. Some will have both inner beauty and outer beauty; some will have one or the other; and some will have neither.

I was once called a sham on the Internet because I was with a beautiful woman. The woman claiming this was claiming to be spiritual; but she came from the position of hatred. The ironic thing is that the kind of women whom people like that attack do not bear them ill will. Many of these women are highly spiritual. There is absolutely nothing incompatible between beauty and spirituality. Indeed the artistic type of women tend to be both beautiful and spiritual; and it is completely wrong that these women, possessing as they do of both physical beauty and inner beauty, be attacked by women who obviously have neither inner beauty nor outer beauty.

Loving such women – and standing up for such women – does not make me a sham or anything of the sort. It makes me someone who loves whom I love enough to go to bat for them. My daughter has always been very beautiful, and I refuse to see her abused by feminists or women who equate their hatred with spirituality for this. I will do what I can to reduce in the culture this poisonous influence. And I will do what I can to ensure that women possessing of both inner beauty and outer beauty be treated rightfully in the world.

Even if you do not value beauty, you have no business discriminating against it. Spirituality is something that's claimed by all sorts of people, some of them rightfully and some of them wrongly. If you think that your hatred makes you spiritual, you are wrong. You may not have interest in beauty, and that is fine. But you have no business attacking those who have it.

Real art is both beautiful and possessing of spiritual richness. We see this with everything from the Sistine Chapel to the works of Renoir. And yes, it includes works that are not part of the Western civilization, such as the Burmese stupas and the Incan temples. Beauty is not limited to culture or taste; it has existed across cultures. And it has done so in a way that is recognizable by people cross-culturally.

When a society does not have value for beauty, there is no demand for beauty. This results in a nation being starved of an essential element. I see no reason at all why Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1,500 a year, should have better art than America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $50,000. We should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only thing that prevents this from happening is society failing to value beauty. And this is owed both to some on the Left and some on the Right.

The real solution is to stimulate the demand for beauty. The real solution is for people to value beauty – and not only beauty in women, but also beauty in nature and art. The real solution is to tap into the potential supply of genuinely talented artists, musicians and poets and put it to work to make America – and the rest of the world – truly beautiful.

This happened before in American history. It was called the 1920s. That time produced magnificent architecture and artwork without it in any way being contradictory to practicality. Along with the cultural blossoming at the time there was also technological and economic boom. Maybe in 1960s the artistic sentiment was divorced from economic reality. In 1920s however it was not.

This means that there is nothing contradictory between beauty and practicality. It also means that there is nothing contradictory between beauty and spirituality. In truly excellent artwork and literature beauty and spirituality come together. In great architecture and technology beauty and practicality come together. There is nothing at all contradictory between beauty and either spirituality or practicality. Beautiful work can be highly spiritual, and any number of beautiful women are highly spiritual. And it is also possible to make practical things, such as houses, interiors and machinery, beautiful.

The problem is not lack of talent. The problem is wrongful beliefs, such as ones that denigrate beauty. When something is under attack in society, those who have such things – and those who want such things – will be in one or another bind. This will reinforce the fallacious impression that something is wrong with things of that nature. The dynamics are similar to ones of racism and misogyny. When blacks or women are oppressed, then they don't accomplish very much, which reinforces the wrong impression that either are inferior. And when beauty is oppressed, then anyone who is beautiful – and anyone who values beauty – will be in one or another bind, which will of course reinforce the incorrect impression that something is wrong with beauty.

Political correctness is wrong on any number of fronts, and I have written extensively just how much. As for spirituality, it is something that is meant to stimulate development of the person, not to discriminate against beauty. Some spiritual people will be attractive and some won't be. The people who come from position of hatred of people who are more attractive than they are cannot claim their attitudes to be based in spirituality. The women whom they attack generally do not hold ill will against them. And that makes the women whom they attack more spiritual than they are themselves.

Once again, there is nothing at all incompatible between outer beauty and inner beauty. Some will have both; some will have one or the other; and some will have neither. The women I've loved were beautiful in both ways. So is my daughter; so are any number of others. I owe it to them to stand up to these social abominations and correct them – for their benefit and for that of society.

Real Laws and Usurpatory Dictates

I, and any number of others, have been accused of not following social rules.

My response to that is as follows. If you want your social rules to be binding, pass a law toward that effect. Have the Parliament or the Congress vote on them. Make them official. Make them real.

If a rule is unofficial, then it is not subject to accountability, check and balance. That makes such rules an attempt at tyranny. When a rule is unofficial, there is nothing to check it against; which means that it constitutes effective tyranny.

Which means that it is not only one's right to transgress such usurpations, but that it is in many cases one's duty before liberty and democracy to do the same.

In many places in the supposedly free countries, the worst thing that one can be is different from people around them. This is a hideous monstrosity. Anyone who makes any kind of original contribution will have to think differently from people around him in order to do such a thing. If such people are portrayed as “narcissists,” “sociopaths” or anything of the sort, then the world loses its best contributors. And that leads the countries that have such attitudes to fall behind to countries that do not.

When the media was running a feeding frenzy about Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinski, an independent media outlet called the Salon ran a story about the affair that Henry Hyde, the congressional leader of that feeding frenzy, had run for several years. The media accused the Salon of violating unspoken rules. What it actually violated was a vicious feeding frenzy; and in doing so it saved American democracy.

We hear a lot about the so-called sexual deviants. The Right accuses homosexuals of sexual deviance, and the Left accuses “perverts” of sexual deviance. I would rather be dealing with a homosexual or a “pervert” over people of that kind. Liberty means just that: Liberty. Unelected, unofficial, unchecked and unbalanced organs of usurpation of power – whether oppressive communities or Third Wave feminists – do not have the right to dictate to a free country what kind of sexuality people can practice. Someone going after children, fair enough, make and enforce laws against such a thing. But stay out of the bedrooms of consenting adults.

If it is thought rightful that a man break a child's skull, but not rightful that a woman leave him to be with someone she loves, then something is very wrong with the social norms in the place. If it is thought rightful for teenagers to get one another pregnant but a kid who is taking school seriously is thought of as a “know-it-all” or “thinks he's better than everyone else,” then something is also very wrong in such places. If the worst thing that one can be is different or a “freak,” then the country is going to lose its best contributors. The attention of freedom fighter type has been focused mostly on the government, but in the Western countries the government is not the worst villain. Communities are. School cultures are. Brutal parents and step-parents are. Religious organizations are. Corrupt networks in law and medicine are. All of these commit greater violations than anything that is allowed Western governments under Constitutional law.

If you want your social rules to be binding, sign them into law. I would follow an official law; but I would not follow an illegitimate dictate. Illegitimate dictates have no place in a democracy or in a country that is intended to be free. If you want people to live your way, pass a law toward that effect. But do not at any point put people under an illusion that they are living in liberty.

The rules that are unwritten are rules that are not subject to visibility or accountability. That makes them an attempt at de facto tyranny. At which point it becomes not only the right, but the duty, of anyone who holds liberty dear to confront such usurpations and free oneself and others from them.

Should societies have rules? If you want your society to have rules, make them official. Pass them into actual law. Codify them. Then people will know exactly what they are faced with, and whatever social rule one claims to follow will have an actual existence in the law books.

Codify in the law what kind of relationships people can have. Codify in the law how people can dress, how they can look, how they can behave. Codify in the law how people can think. Codify in the law what kind of personality people can have. But at no point give a false impression that what you are offering is liberty.

I would follow an official law. I would not however follow an usurpatory dictate, nor would I advise that anyone else does either. You want your social rules to be binding, pass a law. Subject it to checks, balance and accountability. And then replace a de facto tyranny with official rules, that at least have the honesty to be official and subject to visibility, check and balance.

Donald Trump, Narcissism and Feminism

Social movements have a habit of empowering the people who least deserve it while attacking the people who deserve it the least.

When 1990s hysteria took place, it did not do just about anything to confront men who were actual abusers. Instead it attacked people like me. Likewise when the reaction against feminism happened, it did nothing to confront the world's Catherine McKinnons. Instead it came down on people such as my former wife, who is one of the best people I know. In both cases the wrong people were empowered, and in both cases the wrong people got attacked.

In such situations not only are the wrong things done, but precisely the wrong things get done. Things are being represented as their opposites. Someone loves women, call him a misogynist. Someone honest, call him a sociopath. Someone altruistic, call him a narcissist. A woman is a loving and caring mother, call her a maternal gatekeeper.

What is known as sanity is, and always has been, a lie. Not only is it a lie, but it is a Big Lie. It is something that represents things as their opposites. This has been done to me, and this has been done to my former wife. And I don't know how many others.

What is the source of this racket? Well, there are many of them. Some come from the academia. Some come from the media. Some come from the church. In all cases, things get represented as their opposites; and the result is the population being conned.

The people who cry wolf do not become credible when a real wolf appears. The people who portray me as a misogynist or a narcissist or anything of the sort do not become credible when met with a real misogynist or a real narcissist. Donald Trump has been described as both a narcissist and a misogynist. I do not necessarily agree with that. I do however most certainly agree that this is someone whom people like that deserve.

America once had King Stump. It was known as Bill Clinton. Clinton did many things for American people, but American people kept treating him like dirt. Then they got King Stork that was Bush Jr. And now they are getting an even bigger King Stork. I do not give a damn about Bill Clinton's personal life. He got rid of the deficit, and he created 23 million private-sector jobs. The feminists who attacked Hillary Clinton for staying with him despite his philandering have no sense of perspective. If Hillary Clinton had been with a Nascar Republican, she would have been a pregnant-and-barefoot punching bag. Instead she became the most powerful woman in the world.

One owes absolutely no loyalty to the people who treat him like dirt; and I have been treated as worse than dirt by American feminists. As a father, I most certainly want my daughter to have opportunities; but neither will I stand to have her mistreated by feminists for being pretty and kind. She has always been that way, and it is in no way owed to my instruction. As a child, I did not care what I looked like and was not a friendly person. Whereas her first social interaction outside the family was coming up to another little girl and giving her a hug.

The problem with the idea of the narcissistic personality disorder is that it would pathologize everyone who's ever made a significant contribution. If it is narcissistic to seek great success, or if it is narcissistic to have original ideas, then just about everyone who's made a major contribution was a narcissist. This is a mentality that would pathologize what made America great in the first place; and it is a sad state of affairs indeed if it takes a Russian immigrant to remind them of that.

Maybe Trump is something that needs to happen in America. Maybe that is what it would take to give these people a sense of perspective. That way they would be less likely to make mountains out of molehills on trivial issues and wrong issues, and they would have to deal with actual problems, of which there are many.

I fought the 1990s hysteria ever since I knew what it was. I did things of which I am not proud, but I was 16. The horrible things that were said about me stayed in my mind; and I have had to do a lot of work to undo them.

So now America has a president whom psychology describes as a narcissist and a misogynist. Maybe it is necessary that this happen. Maybe it is necessary that people get their heads screwed on straight and know what a narcissist or a misogynist is and what it isn't.

I have respect for Donald Trump. He is an excellent businessman, and he has great taste. He has produced magnificent architecture. I do not look back either to 1960s or 1980s. I look back to 1920s. That is the time that America became the undisputed leader of the world. And it is a time that produced both great economic and technological progress as well as excellent architecture and art.

Of course art has been taken into a terrible place by postmodernism. They rejected the great Western literary and artistic tradition and replaced it with absolute junk. Maybe it will take someone who hasn't been a part of this horrible movement to re-create culture. Maybe it will take someone who isn't beholden to the academia to stand up to horrible trends in the academia. Maybe it will take someone whom these scoundrels regard as a narcissist to make America a great country again.

To the people who keep throwing around terms such as narcissist: Now you're dealing with a real one. And he is someone whose side I will take. When a profession goes off a cliff, it takes reality to stand up to it. You kept accusing me of being a narcissist or a sociopath. And now an actual narcissist is in charge of your country. You cried wolf, and now there is a real wolf. Hope you enjoy your interaction with him.