Misogyny And Donald Trump

For a long time it has been fashionable to throw around – frequently inappropriately – terms such as misogynist, sociopath and narcissist. This has been the act of crying wolf; and people who cry wolf do not become credible when a real wolf appears. So that now, when a woman comes forth to attempt to redress real wrongs done against her, she is no longer believed.

One person who has been portrayed this way is Donald Trump. I do not regard Mr. Trump to be a misogynist. A misogynist is someone who hates women. Mr. Trump appears to love his wife and his daughter. I have however known real misogynists.

One of these was a man on the Internet who called himself Ray Gordon. This person started out as a “nice guy” befriending and counseling young women, only to see them pass him over for relationships to be with men he saw as being jerks. He started out with goodwill toward women and ended up with very strong ill will toward women. He made a whole philosophy about how women are stupid and evil, and how men should play them. Here was a real misogynist: Someone who actually hated women. He was not born that way; he became that way as a result of his experiences.

Now I have also been called a misogynist, and my response to that is twofold. One, as I said above, crying wolf discredits you when a real wolf appears. And secondly, if you are foolish enough to see me as a misogynist, then you have no chance of winning anything at all.

What we see here is a trick very similar to one played before by Joseph Stalin. He claimed to be the leader of the people, and he claimed his enemies to be enemies of the people. With militant feminism, we see these women claiming to be the leaders of women. Nobody has voted for them to do so. Nobody has justified them in this colossal usurpation of power. So that whenever they see somebody disagreeing with their party line, that person becomes the enemy of women as such – that is a misogynist.

We see here two very wrongful behaviors. One is that of usurpation of power. And the other is that of crying wolf.

Is Donald Trump a misogynist? I do not think so. Once again, he appears to be loving enough to his wife and his daughter. He does appear to have some “traditional” attitudes as to who should be the boss, but then again so do most people around the world, both men and women. In case of Mr. Trump there are obviously other issues involved. If you have built a $9 billion empire and become President of America without any political experience, then it is justifiable that you should see yourself as worthy of being the boss, regardless of whether you are dealing with men or women.

Indeed Mr. Trump and his family stand to exert a positive effect on American culture. Both his wife and his daughter are smart and elegant at the same time. Most feminist-influenced American women are neither. These women stand to provide an example of better womanhood to their American sisters. And that stands to be highly beneficial for the United States.

He also stands to exert positive effect on American culture in another significant way. He has commissioned beautiful buildings and beautiful machinery. He may influence America's architects and designers to produce beautiful architecture and technology such as what existed in 1920s. And that may be the seed of a cultural renaissance that would make America beautiful again.

In short, Donald Trump may very well be what the doctor has ordered. He stands to be beneficial to American culture. His wife and his daughter stand to improve American womanhood, and his good taste stands to improve the look of what is produced. And that may very well be what America needs at this time.

Globalization And National Sovereignty

In most recent news, Russia has expelled some of America's embassy staff in retribution for sanctions that America has imposed on Russia for interfering in America's election.

The funniest thing about this is that for a long time Russians were identified as Reds. And here they helped a Republican candidate to get into office. In fact, Russians have more in common with Republicans than they do with Democrats. I have heard it said by Russian people that they always got along with Republicans better than they did with Democrats. Mostly it is a matter of temperament. Russians like strong leaders, they have no use for relativism, and they are socially conservative.

In 1996, Yeltsin ran in an election against Communist challenger Gennady Zuyganov. The West heavily supported the Yeltsin campaign. Does this qualify as meddling in Russia's internal affairs? Should Russia have imposed sanctions in return? Or was this simply due to the fact that, whenever any country is in a position to influence another, the other country will want to wield influence in it?

This is one of the maddening problems associated with globalization. If countries interact much with one another, they will be influencing one another, and they will be influenced back. Sometimes these influences will be for the better and sometimes they will be for the worse. For example, we have had Muslim guys come into places like Oslo and Sydney and gang-rape Western girls and teach young men in bad neighborhoods to be even worse to women than they had been previously. Like many other things, globalization looks good at the sight, but is not always for the better.

Globalization as such has lead to many good things. However it becomes necessary to set the correct parameters. What is subject to international treaties, and what is the country's internal affairs? What is up to the country and what is up to the rest of the world? What can countries do legitimately respecting other countries? Where does the international treaty law stop and the national law begin?

In America, there is the federal system. Some laws are up to the central government, and some laws are decided at the state or local level. It has been a successful arrangement. The basic rights apply to everyone. And each state has its own legislation, allowing people who want to live like they do in Texas to move to Texas and the people who want to live like they do in California to move to California.

In short, the real issue is where to draw the line between international coexistence and national sovereignty. What affairs can be challenged by other countries, and what affairs are strictly that of the country. This is a debate that every country needs to have, and this is a debate that the world needs to have. So far I have seen weighty arguments both toward international orientation and toward national sovereignty. It is important that people figure out the best way to arrange the two.

Scientists And Teachers In Prosperity

Many participants in the economy have had people speaking for them. Adam Smith and Ayn Rand spoke for the businessman; Karl Marx spoke for the worker; and Thorstein Veblen spoke for the engineer. But there are two significant participants in the economy that, to the best of my knowledge, have not been adequately championed. These are the scientist and the teacher.

Most of what business sells is technology; and technology comes from science. There have been many places that had the market system, and most of them were poor. The reason that we are more prosperous than Medieval Persia or Tsarist Russia is technology. And technology comes from science.

Science is therefore responsible for most of what business sells. It – in form of psychology – is also widely used in how the products are sold. 50% of business expenses is marketing, and marketing extensively uses psychology. Technology is responsible for most of what business sells. Psychology is responsible for most of how it is sold.

Another nor adequately heralded participant in the economy is the teacher. The teachers educate both the businessman and the worker. They also educate the scientist. Now there are some people who think that academic learning is worthless and that the only thing that matters in life is common sense and social skills. That may be the case if you are a salesman or a lawyer. Do not tell that to the engineer.

Now most scientists and most teachers do not make very much money. Somebody else makes huge money off the work that they do. Many of them do not mind that state of affairs. When they revolt – rightfully – is when many people decide that their work is worthless or parasitical, or that they are losers because they do not make millions of dollars. Ayn Rand asked the rightful question, What is the root of money? And in most cases the root of money is science and education, with business playing also a significant role but in no way the only significant role.

I was going to become a scientist. However at the time that I went to the university the academia was being defunded, and people were not encouraged to have academic careers. In addition the social climate was intolerable, split between ruinous anti-intellectualism on the Right and a monstrosity known as political correctness on the Left. I worked for a number of years in the computer industry, then that crashed. For most of the time after that I was either unemployed or under-employed. Now there are a number of people telling me that I am well suited for the academia. However if I were to put in the kind of effort that it takes to become a professor, I will have to know that the academia will exist and be adequately funded at the end of the process.

My personal situation aside, this is an argument that has to be made. Once again, science is at the root both of most business sells and of how it sells it. Most of the product comes from technology. Most of the marketing and human relationships uses psychology. Both of the above come from science.

As for the teacher, it is one of the most ungrateful professions, with probably the only more ungrateful profession being social work. There was a time when military was held in low regard, but that situation has rightfully changed in more recent years. It is about high time that there be effective boosters for science and education at the political level. Once again, science is at the root both of most of what business sells and of how it sells it. As for education, it is what makes it possible for people to be both business and labor.

It is much easier to rail against “liberal academia” than it is to oneself become a scientist. Since the field does not make very much money, the people who are driven by money avoid the field, which will in all cases result in the field being dominated by people who value knowledge or service. This means that most people in the field will be liberals until conservatives espouse these things as their values themselves. And if the conservatives want greater presence in the field, these are the values that they will be imparting their children.

Once again, science is the true root of prosperity. Most of what business sells is technology, and most of marketing and HR uses psychology. Science is therefore responsible both for most of what business sells and how it sells it. As for education, it is what makes possible both for business to be business and for labor to be labor.

It is time that these realities be acknowledged, and that people performing this kind of work get both rightful income and rightful respect.

Misconceptions About Abuse

In recent years we have seen many attempts to profile the kind of people who are likely to become abusers. I consider such a project to be foolish. There can be any number of reasons why someone would behave badly, in relationships or in anything else; and to think that all of these people would be similar to one another is ridiculous.

One concept constantly used is “Jeckyll And Hyde”: That the person would be one way sometimes and another way at other times. I do not see how that would be limited to abusers; nor do I see how that could have a single cause. In some cases the person would genuinely conflicted, or torn between incompatible influences. We see a lot of that for example in Russian people, who are torn between the “traditional” influences that are very brutal and misogynistic and the influences of Russia's better minds who fought such influences. There are other times when a person was raised in an abusive situation and hated it. Some have decided that abusive behavior is wrongful; but they do not know any other way. In some situations, when they come across a situation that they do not know how to handle, they are likely to slip back into the bad ways with which they have been raised. In neither such situation is the person evil; he is confused.

Then there is the claim that such people lack empathy. In a number of situations that may very well be true. However I have also seen empathic people become abusive. Sometimes a person would genuinely love the partner, only to have his bar buddies or workmates or family play Iago and stuff his head with a load of crap. They would say such things as that his feelings are childish or unmanly or obsessive, or that he owes it to his gender to beat women down, or else convince him that his partner is a bad person or is doing the wrong thing by him. This would result even in beautiful relationships becoming abusive. Once again, some people who mistreat others really do lack empathy. But there can be any number of situations in which an empathic person would become an abuser.

Then there is the claim that these people do not take responsibility for their actions. Once again, in some situations that really is the case. However it is not at all the case in a number of situations. There are many men who are abusive and think that what they are doing is right. They think such things as that women are evil or that his partner is evil; or that he owes it to other men to beat women down; or that love is for wimps. They may think that what they are doing creates strong children. Some most certainly do fail to take responsibility for their actions. But there are any number of others who think that what they are doing is responsible.

The claim that the culprit is low self-esteem or personality disorders is completely wrong. There are cultures where domestic violence is against the social norms, and of course in those places the only people who do it are people who violate social norms. However that is not where the bulk of abuse takes place. The bulk of abuse takes place in cultures where domestic violence is considered acceptable. Your average wife-beater is not a narcissist, a sociopath or a borderline. Your average wife-beater is your average Joe or Igor or Abdul or Praveem or Jamal who thinks that real men need to dominate women and “keep them in their place.”

In short, most of the thought on this subject is demonstrably wrong. And when we see something that is demonstrably wrong, we are going to see it lead to bad places. These wrongful beliefs have lead people to see abuse where it isn't and fail to see abuse where it is. The result has been an effort that has been misdirected. This misdirection has failed to help real victims, attacked all sorts of people who were not real abusers, and discredited feminism as such.

"Positive Thinking" And Real Solutions

The biggest problem that I have seen with the New Age movement has been their belief that everything that happens to people is their doing. This is a belief that one may develop if he has lived all his life in a protected environment. However the 500,000 Americans who died during the Second World War do not have the luxury of such beliefs.

When I talk about such things as the Holocaust, the usual response is that the Jews had a victim consciousness. When I talk about the atrocities against the gypsies, the usual response is that they did not follow the rules of the societies in which they lived. However the 500,000 Americans and the 20 million Russians who died in that war did not suffer from either problem.

Now it is all fine and good to encourage such things as responsible choices. It is in no way fine and good to do away with compassion and principle. People's attitudes have all sorts of impact upon their lives, but they are in no way the only factor. There is a claim by many in the New Age that they are making people better. In many ways they are in fact making them worse. They are teaching people to have no ethics or compassion. And that is a terrible wrong to inflict upon humanity.

Most of these people started out from a similar position as did I. They saw what was wrong with the world. They tried to improve things; they were met with a greater force; at which point they became totally selfish and made a religion of the self. I am determined not to repeat their errors. I am determined to leave the world a better place than I have found it rather than a worse place than I have found it. And so far, the baby boomers are derided both by their parents and their children for leaving the world a worse place than they have found it.

At this point I will be accused of such things as being negative. My response to that is that for a problem to be solved it has to be seen; and if that means being negative then being negative is a part of the process. Sometimes you have to be negative. In Japan, where such ideas are commonplace, and people believe such things as that you get what you send out, people are not allowed to say or even to think anything negative. That does not lead to enlightenment; it leads to suffocating insincerity. When a nuclear reactor blows up you have to tell people what has actually happened. Doing anything else is not enlightenment; it is lying.

Being negative can very well spoil your mood. But leaving the world in a worse shape than you have found it is a far more real and far more lasting form of damage. You can say as much as you want to that I am being negative. I do not care. Real problems require real solutions; and “positive thinking” or anything of the sort does not begin to accomplish such a thing.

It is not my interest to either think positive or to think negative. It is my interest to think for real. Neither positive thinking nor negative thinking begins to be adequate for confronting the tasks with which we are being faced. A positive thinker would say that focusing on such things is being negative or not taking responsibility. A negative thinker would say that these problems are beyond our capacity to solve. Both will be dead wrong.

The real solutions come from facing the problems squarely and honestly. They do not come from acting like a grade school coach. They do not come from thinking positive. They come from thinking for real. I am not at all concerned as to whether I am feeling positive or negative. I am concerned about what world we are leaving behind for our children. If recognizing such things is being negative, then once again, being negative is a part of the process.

Once again, I do not advocate negative thinking either. Negative thinking can be deluded as well. A negative thinker would see anything good as yet another, sneakier attempt to do evil. I dealt with a number of such people, and I have come away with the conclusion that they are as full of crap as the people who think positive. They think that they are smarter; they are not. Critical thinking is a value; negative thinking is not a value. But neither, again, is positive thinking.

Thinking should not be based on the mood in which one finds himself. Thinking should not be either positive or negative. Thinking should be real thinking. Now maybe being positive can “win friends and influence people” if you are a businessman or a salesman; but in science or engineering or policy it does not begin to work. In all such cases, you cannot afford to think positive. You have to think analytically. You have to think things through, and you have to anticipate problems. A scientist or an engineer who thinks positive will design equipment that will blow up on use.

The solution with which these people came up – positive thinking – is completely wrong. Positive thinking will not solve global warming. Positive thinking will not solve the gender war. Real thinking and real solutions will solve these and other problems with which we are faced.

Does saying such things make me negative? No, it makes me concerned for the future of the world in which my daughter will be living. I am determined not to make the baby boomers' mistake. I am determined to leave the world in a better and not a worse shape than what I have found it. At which point there will be more, not less, for people to be actually positive about.

The belief that people are responsible for everything that happens to them is outrageous. The 500,000 Americans who died in the Second World War were neither negative nor weak. They did what was required at the time. Most of them were far stronger people than anyone in the New Age movement. Nor were they in any way irresponsible. And it is a complete insult to these people to claim that they had created their reality.

This kind of thinking does not create good people. Instead it creates scoundrels. It creates people who have no ethics or compassion. The people who went from 1960s idealists to New Agers did not become better; they became worse. They lost their compassion and ethics. Maybe some of them became successful; but then again so have many Mormons. If you have drive and intelligence, you stand a chance of succeeding in America whatever your beliefs happen to be.

Now in Russia, a positive person is usually regarded as an airhead. I do not agree with that either; some of these people are airheads and some are not. Russians, despite their negativity, won the Second World War, put the first man in space, produced amazing literature and music, and for four decades credibly rivalled America for leadership of the world. Whereas there are all sorts of positive thinkers who ended up in hideous situations because they misjudged the characters of the people with whom they have chosen to share their lives.

Yes, being positive can be appealing to other people. However being a neon balloon is not. As for the people whom these people see as negative thinkers, any number of them are more honest people than are they. Certainly not all of them; once again, negative thinking can be as deluded as positive thinking. And once again, neither begins to be adequate for solving the problems that we now face.

What is? Actual thinking, and putting it into place. Put the country to work putting into place viable smart energy solutions. Encourage a large cross-cultural flux for intermarriage to bring together men who are willing to be good to women with women who are willing to be good to men. Do away with anti-artistic attitudes and create a cultural renaissance at the level of 1920s America or Renaissance Italy. Leave the world a better place than you have found it.

At which point, once again, there will be more for people to be positive about. And that becomes the true definition of responsibility.

"Whining" And Analysis

There are many people who see the artistic type as whiney. In fact anyone is capable of being whiney if their expectations have been disappointed. I have known well-off Reagan conservatives who were very whiney when Clinton was President.

In some cases, what we are seeing is the behavior of people who have been disappointed. What they are good at is not valued in society, and that gives them a lot to whine about. In other cases we see as whining things that are not. One of the worst errors to that effect that I've seen has been portraying analysis – especially social analysis – as whining. It is no such thing. It is analysis. For a problem to be solved it first has to be seen; and if it is not seen then it has no chance of being solved.

To portray analysis as whining is therefore to prevent problems from being solved. And that makes the world worse for everyone, giving people still more to whine about for real.

The bottom line is that anyone can get whiney, including even the people who think themselves go-getters. That was the case for example for Republicans at the university that I attended in 1990s. They kept whining and whining. Then they went on claiming that whining is for liberal losers. Yet here they were supposedly tough and strong Republicans whining like a little bitch.

Are there many artistic types who are whiney? I am sure that they are; but they are not the only people who whine. And in any number of cases what they are actually doing is not whining but showing problems that need to be solved. Seeing a problem is the first step toward solving it. Portraying that process as whining prevents problems from being solved. And that is not a responsible or a rightful stance.

In my case, I do not whine at all. I know that my life has been a privileged one. I do however see all sorts of problems that need to be addressed. That is not whining, it is analysis. And analysis is necessary for all informed action.

So then there are some people who whine for justifiable reasons; and there are people who get painting as whining when they are in fact doing something far different. And then of course there are people who just whine. It is important to figure out who is doing what and for what reason. Then one can confront people who are doing the wrong thing and apply those who are doing the right thing for rightful ends.

Why God Does Not Want To Be Known

In economics there is a concept that, once a pattern is recognized, it ceases to exist. The reason is that people cash in on the pattern and make it to disappear.

There appears to be a similar dynamic with God. Whenever people think that they have God figured out, God would throw a curve ball. It appears that God does not want to be known. The reason for that appears to be that, when people think that they have God figured out, they themselves want to become God. They of course do a lousy job of it. Whether it be Genghis Khan or Stalin or Kim Il Sung or anyone else, the person who tries to be God fails miserably and ends up doing all sorts of stupid things. That is because they are not God.

Alexander Pushkin, the greatest of Russian poets, had a poem about a fisherman. God asked the man what he wanted; and every day the man kept asking for more. God kept obliging until the man wanted to become God. At that point God took away everything that He had given the man and left him back as a fisherman.

There appears to be a good reason for such a thing. Whenever people find something out, they try to replicate it. By this logic it would follow that, if people were to understand God, they would attempt to construct another God. That of course may not sit well with God. So that is where we find ourselves now.

Now there are any number of people who see things such as genetic modification to be “playing God”; but most of these people are hypocrites. They see nothing wrong with destroying what they believe God to have created and everything wrong with creating something new. This is a very wrongful mentality. It is a mentality that accepts destructive potentials but suspects creative potentials. And the outcome of that mentality is humanity becoming completely destructive while failing to avail of the creative potentials that it has.

Once again, I see nothing wrong with finding out how living things work and even creating new ones. But when we try to understand God, the wrongful potentials are twofold. One is that of people acquiring over other people and over the world godlike powers and using them for all sorts of wrongdoing. And the other is that of people creating another God to compete with this one.

In the Transformers, there is the battle between two super-powerful robots: Optimus Prime and Magatron. If people were to create another God, the competition between the existing God and the created God would be far greater than anything in Transformers. We would see a situation that would make the Matrix scenario look like a walk in the park. So needless to say, it very much does appear that God does not want to be known to human intelligence, and for what seems to be a very good reason.

That does not however mean that God leaves us in the lurch. Solomon asked God for wisdom, and God obliged. But even more viable path is faith. Wisdom can be apprehended and used for wrong things, which means that God will not reveal all of it to us. Whereas faith is reliance on wisdom of God, and that cannot be used for wrong. So God will then give people the gift of faith and direct them according to His wisdom, which will in all cases be greater than ours.

Thus the method that many people associate with ignorance and stupidity – faith – in fact becomes the smartest path that is there. And it is a path that, unlike either knowledge or wisdom, cannot be used for wrong.

"Self-Esteem" And "Law Of Attraction"

I have heard many claims that people attract attention based on how they feel about themselves. I do not believe that this is true. In fact I have seen many cases of the opposite. If you feel too good about yourself, other people will want to tear you down. If you feel too bad about yourself, other people will want to cheer you up.

A related claim is “The Law Of Attraction” - that like attracts like. I have also seen many cases to the contrary. There are many macho men who attract very feminine women. There are many kind people who attract very mean-spirited partners. There are many wise gurus who attract very stupid students. In none of these cases do we see like attracting the like.

So it goes that people believing such things are told to work on self-esteem and suchlike in order to improve what they are attracting. I have reasons to say that this approach is wrong. You do not attract people based on how you feel about yourself. You attract them based on what they think you to be. If others think that you are a jerk, they will not be good to you however you feel about yourself. If this is the case, the correct response is not working on your self-esteem but surrounding yourself with the kinds of people who value what you are. That way you will be surrounded by people who esteem you rightfully, whether or not you esteem yourself well. If you are a poet and you are surrounded by people who have no value for poetry, you will not be esteemed well regardless of how well you esteem yourself. You will be esteemed better however if you surround yourself with people who do have value for poetry.

Now I have been exposed to many people who have such ideas, and any number of them have made all sorts of negative claims about me. Quite simply I have a massive bullshit detector, and these are some of the forms of bullshit that I detect. There are many valid reasons to challenge these ideas. Especially with the issue of self-esteem, the idea has gotten far too big for its merits. Rewarding self-esteem does not make better people; it makes worse people. If you have high standards for yourself you will find it harder to feel good about yourself than if you have low standards for yourself. Rewarding self-esteem rewards low standards; and that means, worse people.

With the Law of Attraction, we see even worse things. If anything bad happens to you, you have caused it. So then, logically, if a witch who believes such a thing gets burned at the stake, she will have to say that she has brought it about. If a New Age community comes under attack from Islamists, they will have to say that they have caused it. This kind of thinking robs people of ethics and compassion. Which means that it is an evil set of beliefs.

As for the treatment that you attract, it is not based on how you feel about yourself. It is based on how others see you. Sometimes they would feel like you feel too good about yourself and will want to tear you down. At other times they would feel like you don't value yourself enough and will want to build you up. I have known some amazing people who felt badly about themselves. I did not treat them based on how they felt about themselves, but how I felt about them. I have also known jerks who thought of themselves too well. I likewise did not treat them based on how they felt about themselves, but how I felt about them.

In short, all of these attitudes have gotten far too big for their merits. And all of them are wrong, for reasons stated above. Not everyone who has bought into such things is an idiot, but even those who are not idiots are deluded. People's treatment of you is not a reflection of what you think about yourself but of what they think about you. Different people attract different things for all sorts of different reasons. And self-esteem is an absolute canard and a concept that degrades the character of mankind.

Justified Anger And Misuses Of Spirituality

I have seen a game played by any number of people who consider themselves spiritual. They would do something that would deliberately bring on an angry response. Then they would claim that the person is negative or evil or a neanderthal for getting angry. The person playing this game would then walk away feeling superior to the person whom he has played in this manner. The anger would be the proof of one's superiority and the inferiority of the other person.

The game is quite similar to a related game that is played by some people who consider themselves rational. These people would make some kind of a poisonous statement; that would bring on an emotional response; then they would walk away saying that the other person is irrational or crazy or neurotic.

Seeing such abuses, there have been any number of people deciding that there was something wrong with, respectively, spirituality or reason. That is wrong. The problem is that these things get used for wrongdoing. All sorts of things can be used for wrongdoing, including many things that are not at all bad in themselves. Money, intelligence, beauty and all sorts of moral values can be used for wrongdoing; but that does not make any of them bad. However the more they are used in this way, the more they become discredited, and the more credible becomes the case of the people who want to see them as something bad. And of these there are plenty.

So for example we have any number of people in the baby boom generation going around that the people younger than themselves are negative or neanderthals or evil because any number of them have negative or angry feelings. I am sorry, the conduct of any number of these people deserves angry responses. If you have left the world a worse place than you have found it, then anger at you is legitimate. These problems will not be solved by “positive thinking” or anything of the sort; they will be solved by informed and directed action. For a problem to be solved it has to be seen, and if you think that this is negative then being negative is part of the process. Failing to do so is not enlightenment or anything of the sort. It is lying to yourself and others. Many of these people started out seeking to do the right thing, then they did the wrong thing. So when someone else seeks to do the right thing, these people smugly claim that they have been in the same place and then moved beyond it to better places. They did not move to better places. They moved to a worse place. They started out caring about the world and its future and became short-sighted and careless. That is not an improvement, it is a degradation.

Of course many of these people have availed themselves of all sorts of spiritual knowledge, and not all of them have been using it for right things. If they are using it to aggravate people in order to make them look bad, or to make it look like legitimate anger at them is something wrong with the person who has it, then that is not rightful use of spiritual knowledge. Neither predatory behavior nor dishonest behavior counts as enlightenment. Misusing this knowledge in such a manner discredits spirituality as such. And that makes things bad even for people who are using spirituality for rightful purposes.

I have seen all sorts of misuses of just about everything that is there. Just about anything that is good can be made bad. This is the case with both spirituality and reason. Reason is a good thing, but it can be used for all sorts of wrong things. Spirituality is a good thing, and it can also be used for all sorts of wrong things. It is important that people who stand to be hurt by misuses of such things have the knowledge that they need not to fall for predatory conduct. Then they will be able to separate the value from the misuses of the value. They will be less likely to turn against the value itself, and the value will remain free to be used for rightful purposes. This is the case, once again, with spirituality and reason both.

As for anger, no, it is not always a wrong thing. There very much is such a thing as righteous anger. Once again, being angry at people who've left the world a worse place than they found it is righteous. You can get as positive as you want to get. That will not solve the problem. In such situations it is rightful to get angry or negative. Only by being recognized first will the problem stand a chance of being solved.

So the misuses of spirituality for wrongful ends have lead many people to conclude that spirituality as such is a bad thing. That is wrong as well. Once again, reason can also be used for all sorts of wrong things, but that does not make reason bad. Anything that is good can be used for wrong ends. Any value can be corrupted. That does not discredit the value; it discredits those who use it for wrong and make good things into bad things.

So no, being angry or negative is not always unjustifiable. There are many situations in which such responses are correct. When a nuclear reactor blows up you have to tell people what has happened. Failing to do so because doing so would be negative is not enlightenment; it is lying. When people are poisoning the planet and leave it a worse place for their children than they have found it, being angry at such a thing is right. Misusing metaphysical concepts to make it look like it is the other person's problem makes metaphysical concepts that much less credible, and it also makes you look like a jerk to anyone who has any insight into the matter.

The correct approach is to actually solve all these problems. The people who work on such real solutions deserve all the credit that they can. The people who misuse metaphysics or anything else to hide from or deny these problems are the true villains. It is rightful that they be seen in the negative light. And it is rightful that people go to work solving these problems head on so that the world that they leave behind for their children be a better place than they have found it, however "negative" anyone paints them to be for that reason.

False Gods And False Satans

For a long time, political correctness had any number of people believe that the Western civilization was the root of all wrongs done against women. Then the Muslims invaded, and that claim could no longer be credibly made, as the Muslims are worse by standards of feminism than any place in the West. So now these people are having to decide whether to look like complete idiots and traitors and side with Muslims, or to admit their error and side with their own countries in which they have enough rights to make their ridiculous claims.

The politically correct created a false Satan. They decided that there was a single root of evil. Of course they were wrong. But also wrong had been the people who made the Western civilization their god. When you create a false god, it is only a time before somebody comes along and instead calls him Satan. False gods and false Satans create one another.

We see this with just about everything that is out there. Government. Corporate system. Men. Women. Jews. Reason. Faith. Feelings. Ego. Soul. Science. Capitalism. Whatever may be one's interests, if one is clever enough he could make it look like the definition of good. Then someone whose interests do not correspond with his own will then come along and say that it is the definition of evil.

Both will be dead wrong.

The Western civilization is neither God nor Satan. Neither is anything else listed above. All of these can have both positive and negative outcomes, usually a mix. Neither business nor labor are good or bad; both are capable of both. Neither men nor women are good or bad; both are capable of both. Neither government nor private sector are good or bad; both are capable of both. Same most certainly is the case for the Western civilization. Anything human can be good or bad. That is because anything capable of choice can choose to be good or bad, and is in just about all cases a mix of both.

So these people created a false Satan, and they are being met with a real-life refutation that they cannot deny. Muslims are more misogynistic than even the Western conservatives. A much uglier Satan is staring them straight in the face. They can no longer fool people as easily. Then these Muslim dudes come to places like Sydney and Oslo and gang-rape young women and teach young men in bad neighborhoods to be even worse to women than they had been before. So they have a choice: Either continue with their ever-more-obviously ridiculous standpoint, or recognize what is patently obvious and correct the bullshit that they are teaching the kids.

Are these people the only ones who pull tricks of this kind? Absolutely not. It is fashionable in many places to see the corporate mindset as “reality” and anyone who is not a part of it as not living in the real world. Now the corporate world is real enough; but it is ridiculous to say that it is reality. The Sun is reality. Planet Earth is reality. China and India are reality. The rainforest is reality. Corporate mindset is not reality, it is a mindset. You do not leave “reality” or “real world” when you think in other ways than how it wants you to think. What you are doing instead is acquiring a more complete view of reality. Then, if you go back to the corporate world, you do so with a more informed understanding of the world; and if you do not, you still have a more complete understanding of reality than you did when you were in it.

So now we see the corporate mindset being elevated to being a God; and – surprise surprise – what do we see is a rise in socialist agitation, where the corporate world is being painted as Satan. Once again, if you create a false God, it is only a matter of time before someone comes along and inverts it and says that it is Satan. The correct solution is to call things by their proper name. The corporate world, the government, the Western civilization, and anything else listed above, is neither Satan nor God. They are human phenomena which, like all human phenomena, can be good, evil, or a mix.

So Hobbes, then Communists, stated as much as that the state was God. Then the libertarians, anarchists and some conservatives stated instead that it is Satan. It is neither of the above. The state consists of people. So do all sorts of private entities. There is no reason to expect people within the state and people outside the state to be better or worse than one another. Governments can be good and governments can be bad. Private power can be good and private power can be bad. In Western democracies, where governments are elected, official, accountable, checked and balanced, while entities like Texas Oil and the Church of Scientology are not, there is adequate scrutiny of the government and not adequate scrutiny of private entities, allowing these private entities to get away with abuses that are not allowed the federal government.

With ego, we see some people seeing it as the source of all evil and others as the fountainhead of progress. Some people worship genius or risk-taking or love and others name such things narcissism. Some people worship the mind and others say that reason is cold or immoral. Some people say that unconditional obedience to whatever any given society wants is the definition of good and others say that any kind of conformity is evil. False gods beget false satans. In fact no human phenomenon deserves either deification or demonization. Everything listed above, and more, can go right or wrong.

So it is time that these fallacies be seen through. No human phenomenon is God. No human phenomenon is Satan. Call things by their proper names. Anything human can go right or wrong. And that is as much the case for the Western civilization as it is for all other things listed above.

The Role Of Science In Prosperity

Margaret Thatcher said that the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

She failed to ask the question that another great capitalist supporter Ayn Rand asked: What is the root of money?

Most of what business sells comes from science. Without science, capitalism would be nothing more than exchange of basic commodities at the level it was in Medieval Persia. What this means is that the money is owed in at least as great – if not greater – extent to science as it is owed to business.

It is also owed to teachers who educate both the businessman and the worker; the military and the police who protect national borders and enforce property rights; and of course the worker.

The role of science in economics is vast. That is the case both with the products being sold and the way in which they are being sold. Science is responsible for vehicles, TVs, phones, computers, domestic appliances, air conditioning and much more. It – in form of psychology - is also constantly being used in marketing, management and human relations. Advertising constantly uses psychology; so does management; so does market research. In short, science is responsible for most of what is sold and most of how it is sold.

There were many places that had the market system. Most of them were poor. The reason that we are more prosperous than Medieval Persia or Tsarist Russia, which likewise had market system, is technology; and technology comes from science.

So when Margaret Thatcher talked about other people's money, she was confused as to what was the source of other people's money. Business had a role in it – a large role - but in no way did it begin to deserve full credit. Scientists, teachers and many others had a vast role in it as well. As of course did the workers, union or non union. As did the military, the police and any number of others. At that time, nobody knew how to deal with her arguments. I do.

This brings me to a related subject – that of responsibility. Just about everyone speaks in favor of responsibility; but they have different ideas as to what responsibility is. Some – such as many in business - think that responsibility is about being financially well off. Others – such as scientists, teachers, military and others – think that responsibility is about contributing to, or serving, the country or the civilization. I have of course heard it from all sides, including that of Ayn Rand.

When the only form of responsibility that is encouraged is what some call personal responsibility, or financial self-interest, we will see all sorts of negative effects. Everyone will want to become a yuppie; nobody will want to become teachers, scientists, police, military, or social workers. These professions do not make very much money, and if responsibility is defined solely as monetary self-interest then very few people will go into these professions. This will starve the country of a lot of what it needs. I've been a yuppie myself, and I did not find the other yuppies I knew to be more responsible than scientists or teachers I've known. They made more money; but the money that they made came from the work of scientists, and the reason that they could be yuppies was owed to their teachers and college professors. Likewise the fact that they could do business at all was also owed to the police that protected their property rights and the military that protected their country.

Now to someone who defines responsibility as monetary self-interest, teachers and scientists would be considered irresponsible. Many of them would be seen as losers. And yet these people's work is vastly important, even to business; and without them there would be no prosperity, even to the businessman himself.

In the people who equate responsibility with monetary self-interest, we see all sorts of other irresponsible behaviors. We see people poisoning the oceans and the air. We see people burning the rainforest and destroying great treasures that they cannot conceivably recreate. We see people forcing reliance on destructive technologies while standing in the way of progress toward better technologies. Some of them genuinely think that they are being responsible. They are not.

Who is more responsible: Yuppies or scientists? I've had extensive interactions with both. Both claimed to be practicing responsibility; but they had different ideas as to what responsibility meant. One saw responsibility as being well-off financially, and the other saw responsibility as contributing to the civilization. I see a room for both concepts of responsibility, as I do for both business and science. Yuppies need scientists, teachers, military, police and many others. Scientists need funding.

I am in no way against business. I am however against ignorance, and claiming business to be the sole root of prosperity is ignorance. Prosperity is owed to an equal – or greater – extent to science. It is also owed to teachers, military, police, workers, and many others. To claim that business is the only root of money is ignorance. And ignorance does not qualify as responsibility by any definition.

I, myself, am not ignorant of these issues at all. I have an economics degree from a conservative American university. I use concepts from classical economics for all sorts of things, including on issues on which nobody uses it, such as gender relations. I have found classical economics incomplete on three fronts. One, as I have been saying, prosperity is owed as much to science as it is owed to business. Secondly, most consumption decisions are not based on rational interest but on psychology. Finally, the market does not inevitably select for the best product, and there are many situations in which an inferior product rises to market dominance through a superior marketing or business strategy.

Do we throw out classical economics or militate against capitalism? Not by any means at all. We correct the errors in their claims. We also correct what is obviously an incomplete definition of what is responsibility. A good teacher or scientist is at least as responsible as any yuppie and most businessmen; and if the only idea of responsibility that is encouraged is “personal responsibility” then the country will be starved of such people, resulting in many negative effects to business itself.

A responsible person would not be poisoning the planet, nor would he be defunding the academia and gutting education. Unfortunately the Reagan conservatives have done all of the above. I do not meet them with Communism or socialism; I meet them with the logical implications of what they themselves claim to be their values. If you value responsibility, you would not be doing things that are irresponsible, such as poisoning the planet. If you have family values or Christian values, you would not be leaving behind for your children a worse world than you have found. And if you value honesty and integrity, you would not be telling people a pack of lies.

Now I've known any number of businessmen – liberal and conservative – and in many cases I liked what I saw. But I also liked what I saw in scientists and teachers and social workers, in any number of laborers, and even in some in the military and the police. I see neither one as being superior or inferior to the other, nor do I see either's definition of responsibility as totally wrong. I see a room for both definitions of responsibility. As much as I do for both business and science.

So that while it may very well be valid to stand in defense of capitalism, let's not forget who actually deserves credit for prosperity. Business has a role in it, but in no way is it the only role. Prosperity also owes greatly to science, as well as to any number of other pursuits. Equating responsibility proper with financial self-interest disincentivizes professions that do not make much money but are vastly important. And that hurts the country and business itself.

Cats, Dogs And Systemic Extermination

There are people who are like dogs, and there are people who are like cats. When dogs are in charge, they want to make the cats into dogs. That of course does not work. Cats are cats; dogs are dogs. No matter how much the cat tries to become a dog, that is never possible.

I was once with a magnificent visual artist named Julia. She was married to a severely violent Reagan conservative, and he kept saying such things as “why can't you be like other wives.” She was a Christian, and she was praying to God that she become normal. Of course God did not grant that prayer. That is because God does not want us to fit whatever is considered normal in any given time and place. God wants three things from us: To be our best, to be righteous and to treat one another well. This man was doing none of the above, and his misuse of the Christian authority over his wife for completely wrong purposes made him by far the bigger sinner.

Religion aside, there is the issue of what happens when a cat chances to be born among dogs. This is usually a bad experience both for the cat and the dogs. A cat will never be a normal dog. Not if you threaten it, not if you bully it, not if you medicate it, not if you psychoanalyze it, not if you preach hellfire and tarnation. And even if it tries to be a dog, it will never become one. Which means that, no matter how much the cat attempts to disfigure itself so as to be pleasing to dogs, it will never be anything close to enough.

Now of course cats can be bad to dogs as well. I knew a young man in Melbourne who was very macho and wanted to join the military; but his parents, who were Melbourne liberals, did everything that they could to keep him from doing so. That is wrong; anyone who wants to join the military should be able to do so, even if he has a criminal record, for as long as he is willing to serve. I knew of a man in Oregon who was raised by hippies. He was of the astrological sign Taurus, and the people around him kept going on about how Tauruses are greedy. In neither case do we see rightful behavior. Cats being bad to dogs is just as bad as dogs being bad to cats.

However most of the abuses have been done by dogs to cats, and not the other way around. Dogs keep waging extermination campaigns against cats. In 1930s and 1940s it was them damn Jews. In 1950s it was them damn pinkos. In 1990s it was them damn perverts and sociopaths. Now it is them damn narcissists. The biggest problem with the latter concept is that it would pathologize the world's most important contributors. If it is narcissistic to seek great success or to have original ideas, then everyone who's had great success and everyone who has original ideas is a narcissist; which means that the world owes vastly to people with this disorder.

Another claim that the dogs like to make about the cats is that they lack empathy. The question to ask is, for whom? If I am a cat and you are a dog, I will not empathize with you and you will not empathize with me. You will see me as some kind of monster. I will however empathize a lot better with another cat.

In recent times, we have seen cat types of men getting treated as criminals and cat types of women - who are usually very beautiful - becoming punching bags for one or another kind of jerk. Both were seen as dangerous, and concerted efforts were made to disempower both and exterminate those whom they could exterminate. Many people thought that the cat phenomenon was unique to “the sixties generation.” So that when I came along acting like a cat, that was disturbing to many people. Of course I endured many attempts to wipe me off the face of the planet, but I was gifted with nine lives, maybe even more.

So how can cats survive in a dog world? Mostly by looking after one another. Cats need to learn to recognize one another and stick with one another and fight back all the attempts by dogs to exterminate them. I told some folks who were of cat persuasion that I will go into the dog world and scratch the dogs who attack them. But it will take more than that to make the cat species great.

Misreadings Of Evolution

I once had an interaction with a man on the Internet who called himself Danimal. He was a firm evolutionist, yet he believed that the problem with the world was that “the freaks do not know their place.” As an evolutionist he would have known that the evolutionary process – if there is an evolutionary process – is driven by mutation. In human world what this means is that the people whom he regards to be “freaks” are the ones who come up with all the innovation that moves the world forward.

Now evolutionary theory can be used for all sorts of things, many of them not good at all. There are some in the Nazi movement who think that races have evolved for their place in the ecosystem and should not mix. They are dead wrong about that. When races mix they give each other their best genes, and the children inherit the best of both races involved in the mix. The most beautiful populations in the world – Ethiopians and Venezuelans – are products of racial mix.

Still more wrongdoing we see with people who think that only the strong survive. There are people in rural Mexico who believe this, so they've worked out an arrangement toward that effect. A man would come home and beat his wife, and she would make him super-spicy food and tease him when he would tear up. To the best of my knowledge, rural Mexico does not run the world. In fact many people in such situations complain about the gringos and the multinationals; and complaining is not a behavior of strong people. The correct response to that is that the world requires contributions of all sorts of people, most of whom would be strong in some ways and not in others. That Bill Gates cannot defeat Mike Tyson in a boxing match does not mean that he is not fit to live.

Another bad use of the evolutionary theory has been Social Darwinism – that a population that conquers another population is superior. That is not always the case. They may simply have better weapons or better military practices but be light years behind in other respects. Genghis Khan and his descendants were able to conquer cities in China and Russia that were far ahead of Mongols economically. The Spanish conquered the Incas; but the Incas had architecture, agriculture and infrastructure far superior to that of the Spanish. Having better weapons does not mean that you are better. You are better in one pursuit. It does not mean that you are better in all of them.

More important is an argument that, to the best of my knowledge, has not been made before. There is the power to destroy – as we see in Genghis Khan and the Spanish above – and there is the power to create. It takes one bullet to kill a person. It takes trillions of cells to make one. Power to destroy can become power to subdue others, but it does not become power to create others. Not even the people who know how to build nuclear bombs can create a human body or an Amazonian rainforest. Until one can create things of such nature, not even the power to destroy them gives one the right to see oneself superior to them. The power to create is far more important than the power to destroy. And it is time that it be recognized and rewarded accordingly.

A person who parses the evolutionary theory correctly will draw much different conclusions. One will be that the process is driven by mutation; which in human society means that it is the “freaks” that contribute the most original things. Another is that the process requires contributions of all sorts of people, and weakness in one area does not preclude being valuable in any number of others. Finally, life requires all sorts of things, and having destructive power is not comparable to having creative power.

So it is time that wrongful implications of evolutionary theory be reversed. Support ingenuity and innovation; support diversity; and support the power to create. And as a result of this see the human species advance beyond all its previous limitations and build on its genius and its efforts to achieve the heights never thought possible.

A Better Concept Of Family Values

There are many people who claim to be in favor of family values; but they do not appear to understand what family values means.

Family values means being good to one's family and leaving a better world for one's children than one has found it.

Instead, family values has been used to support incest, domestic violence and tyrannical parenting. This discredits family values; it also discredits family as such. So that what do you expect and that any number of people decide that family as such is the problem. I used to be one of those people; then I had a family of my own and realized how wrong that stance was. What we have here is confusion between a legitimate value that is family and illegitimate misuse of that value to support things such as incest and domestic violence.

The idea of what is family values has been completely misconstrued. Once again, family values does not mean to support wrongful practices within the family. That discredits family values, that also discredits family as such. A true practicioner of family values will do what is right by his children. And that, once again, means treating them right and making sure that the world that they inherit is better rather than worse than he has found it.

So it is about time that wrongful uses of the concept of family values be challenged. It is not about letting men get away with incest and brutality. It is about doing the right thing by one's children. It is about treating your children as human beings rather than as animals. And it is about bequeathing them a vibrant environment, a functioning economic-political system and wholesome social conditions.

The Errors Of Third Wave Feminists

A fairly long time ago, I was with a very beautiful older woman who was a devout Christian. I was talking to her about the wrongs done in the name of feminism, and she told me to the effect of that one shouldn't fight hatred with hatred but with love.

Now I do not pretend to love these women – certainly not in the way in which I loved her – but I have made an effort to understand them; and it appears that they do in fact come from an understandable place. These women were either not valued or treated badly, and they got angry at that – in many cases rightfully so. However what they did with it was wrong.

They made several major errors. In matters of beauty and love, they confused value with misuses of value. That stupid teenagers attack girls whom they don't consider attractive, or that unscrupulous plastic surgeons exploit women's insecurities to make a buck, is not the fault of beauty; it is the fault of the stupid teenagers and the unscrupulous plastic surgeons. That some player types pretend to love women but actually don't love anyone except themselves is not the fault of love; it is the fault of the players. To damn love and beauty because they have been misused that way by ignorant or unethical people is to give these people far more credit than they deserve. Both beauty and love existed before these people existed; they will continue existing long after they are gone.

What do I mean by confusing value with misuses of value? Simply that anything that is good will have someone wanting to use it for wrong. Some people see this misuse and blame the value. They are wrong. They should be blaming the person doing the misuse. Intelligence can be used for wrong things; that does not mean that intelligence is bad. Money can be used for wrong things; that does not mean that money is bad. Patriotism, altruism, justice, you name it. That Hitler appealed to patriotism to start the Second World War does not damn patriotism; it damns Hitler. That Stalin appealed to altruism to create a brutal totalitarian state does not damn altruism; it damns Stalin. That there are people who think that justice means slaughtering the propertied class or relentlessly persecuting people they do not know does not mean that justice is for pinkos and weenies. Once again, there is the value, and there are the misuses of the value. It is wrong to damn the value because someone has been misusing it. Doing that gives the person doing such a thing far too much credit, while devaluing all the many other people who use the value for things that are right.

This means the following: That it's wrong to attack women who are beautiful and males who love those women. They, once again, are not responsible for the actions of ignorant teenagers and unscrupulous plastic surgeons. Neither are Michelangelo or John Keats. Confront the people who misuse the value. Do not attack people who contribute to the value. And most certainly do not attack people who use the value for rightful things.

Another major error that they have made has been perpetrating the worst hysteria in the history of the United States. They have decided that a class of people is evil and can only be evil whatever they do. This of course contradicts the most basic reason. If people are responsible for their actions then anyone, including “sociopaths” and “perverts,” can choose to act rightfully; and if some people are evil and can only be evil whatever they do then people are not responsible for their actions. What we see here is irrational, it is cruel, and it is wrong. It is fascism in the name of feminism. And this is the main reason why women who have partaken in this witch hunt are termed Femi-Nazis.

Finally they have been influencing women, especially young women on college campuses, to be paranoid and mean. They have been attacking of course precisely the wrong males. The males whom they attack are the males nearest the liberal centers of learning and culture, who are the least misogynistic men out there. Then the real misogynists and the real abusers take these women's venal behavior and say to other men, “See, we told you, women are evil, we have to keep them down.” The malicious behavior of the Third Wave feminists feeds real misogyny even more reliably than did the promiscuity of the baby boomer women whom they regarded as “sluts” and “breeders.” The feminists in the academia do not see the results of this. All sorts of innocent women do.

Now many of the women who have taken part in this movement did so from understandable considerations; but then again so have many men who have formed the reaction. These women were angry at men who had treated them badly, and they were angry at women who treated them badly. The biggest problem with both movements has been that it is precisely the wrong men and the wrong women who suffered. The men who suffered from this movement were the men nearest the liberal centers of learning and culture who were the least misogynistic men to be found. And the women who suffered from the reaction were women in right-wing or Muslim or inner city communities who were the least likely to be involved in militant feminism.

So there we have it: A horrible movement that begat another horrible movement. And in both cases precisely the wrong people suffered and precisely the wrong people got ahead. So now there are all sorts of innocent women who suffer for the sins of the Third Wave feminists, as the men who form the reaction are equating them with the venal conduct of the people within this movement. The good women suffer, while the self-proclaimed leaders of feminism enjoy successful careers. This teaches everyone – both men and women – that it pays to be a jerk and does not pay to be a good person. And that makes the world worse for everyone.

Thank you Andrea Dworkin. Thank you Michael Murphy.

It is time for men and women of goodwill to stand up to both abominations and say that enough is enough.

Gender Warriors Vs. Everyone Else

There have been people on the Net making noises about the fact that some things I wrote appeared on the site of Australian pro-feminist professor Dr. Michael Flood.

In fact Dr. Flood dissed me after I sent him some material critical of Third Wave feminism. He told me that I was a part of the problem.

No, you are a part of the problem. You are a gender warrior. Gender war makes the world worse for everyone, both men and women. It teaches both men and women the worst possible behavior while taking it out on respectively the women and the men who deserve it the least.

Both sides in the gender war are evil. They consist of unelected usurpers falsely appropriating for themselves the claim that they speak for 50% of humanity without the 50% of humanity having voted for them to do so. They then use this false claim to ruthlessly bludgeon the rest of the gender into conformity to their party line while teaching them – in case of women – to be vicious and paranoid and – in case of men – to be brutal and corrupt. The two sides have neither the guts nor the power to touch one another. Instead they take it out on respectively the men and the women who have done the least to cause either problem. The feminists take it out on men nearest the liberal centers of learning and culture who are the least misogynistic men out there. The Fathers' Lobby types take it out on women in right-wing or Muslim or inner-city communities who have done the least to cause Third Wave feminism.

The result: Women being the worst thing that they can be; men being the worst thing that they can be; and thus the world being the worst thing that it can be.

The gender war has created two complementary injustices. On one side of town, horrible women viciously abuse men who are willing to treat women right. On the other side of town, violent thugs brutally abuse women who are willing to treat men right. In both cases the bad guys win and the good guys lose. And this teaches everyone – both men and women – that being a jerk is the right way to go and that being a good person will get you abused.

This, once again, makes the world worse for everyone.

How do you solve two complementary injustices without involving military action or large-scale expenditure of taxpayer money? Create a flux between Side Of Town A and Side Of Town B. Let men who are willing to be good to women get together with women who are willing to be good to men. In this reward the parties involved for their good will and good behavior with good relationships. But more importantly create an incentive on the offending gender in each situation to improve their treatment of the other gender – or else see the other gender leave in large numbers to be with people who are willing to be good to them.

Another part of the solution is to encourage people – both men and women – who are already in relationships to be good to one another. It is likewise to give them the courage to say screw you to both the female and male Iagos who want to influence people to think badly about their partners and instead to love whom they love. It is to support men and women who are willing to be good to one another. And it is to give the courage to others to do the same, and thus to stand strong in face of both villains in the gender war.

I have said repeatedly that the gender war is not the solution, the gender war is the problem. The gender war makes everyone worse, and it makes the world worse. The solution is the opposite of the gender war. The solution is men and women being good to one another. And that requires for men and women of goodwill to throw off the yoke of the unelected gender usurpers and have the courage to love whom they love.

The two sides in the gender war are really on the same side. They are on the side of nastiness, cruelty and fascism. They are on the side of exploiting people's failure and misery to advance themselves while making the world worse for everyone. They are on the side of cowardly bullying and taking out their anger on people who've done the least to cause the problem while having no guts to confront real wrongdoers. They are on the side of unelected totalitarianism.

This means the following. It is not men vs. women. It is the gender war scoundrels against everyone else. And the solution is for everyone else to stand strong against the villainy known as the gender war and have the will and the courage to love one another and treat one another rightfully.

The Errors Of Abraham Maslow

Abraham Maslow postulated a hierarchy of needs, starting with “basic needs” such as food and shelter and reaching toward “higher needs,” the highest of which according to him was self-actualization.

He obviously did not study the seriously religious people. The seriously religious people put their higher needs first and have the “lower needs” fulfilled as part of striving to fulfil these higher needs (as in, “seek ye the righteousness of God and all else will follow”) or denied as being contrary thereto (as in, overcoming the “ego” or the “flesh”). The monks and the nuns deny many of their lower needs, such as sex and esteem, and even in the most basic needs they limit themselves, consuming plain food, living in humble accommodations, and enduring all sorts of physical discomfort.

This means that Maslow was wrong. And as with anything that is wrong, the results have been deleterious. The people are told to spend all their lives struggling to provide for the “basic” needs, which become ever greater and require consuming ever more resources, while letting the world go to hell.

Some people think that that is freedom. If that is freedom then I have a bridge to sell you. A person in North Korea has more freedom than people who live by this code.

The Europeans have a better idea. They live comfortably enough, but they do not overconsume resources like the Americans. They spend more of their time and their attention on culture. The Europeans score much higher on happiness tests than Americans. They do less harm to the world, and they pay more attention to what Maslow would regard to be higher needs.

Now I am perfectly willing to work hard, and I have proven that in any number of situations. I am also perfectly willing to contribute, and I have proven that in any number of situations as well. I refuse to live according to Maslow, or Adler, or “winners-and-losers,” or “survival of the fittest,” or “self-esteem,” or personality psychology. I would live by something that is truer and wiser. At this time this appears to be God. If God wants me to clean the toilets or to join the military, I would do it. I would not however live according to harmful theories which are also totally untrue.

So this is it on that matter. To hell with evil theories in psychology. Rather gain your wisdom from things that are actually wise and that actually make the world a better place.

Rebellion And Personality Disorders

In recent years, we have been hearing thought that good people follow all rules of whatever society they inhabit, and that the people who violate these are sociopaths and narcissists.

I cannot begin to say just how wrong that kind of thinking is.

Some societies are good; some are bad. Most are good in some ways and bad in others. The people who follow rules may do so for right reasons or wrong reasons. The people who violate them may do so for right reasons or wrong reasons. If your society tells you that you should throw sulfuric acid into the face of a child for going to school, then that is a rule that you are obligated to break.

Now. If the thinking such as I've listed above is true, then the West in general – and America in particular – owes most of what it has to narcissists and sociopaths. This includes the institutions of liberty, which were put into place in violation of the monarchic social order of the time – an order that thought itself divinely ordained. This includes the bulk of the West's industrial might. This includes most scientific and literary accomplishments. All of these were put into place by people who thought differently from the time and place and who would be seen by such people as narcissists or sociopaths for that reason.

I do not see why someone who actually is selfish or cold would be likely to be more present among rebels than among conformists. If someone cares only about himself, then he will not care what climate he finds himself in. He will side with whomever he thinks will win. If he thinks that rebels are ahead he will go with rebels; if he thinks that conformists are ahead he will go with conformists. We have seen any number of people who were rebels in 1960s becoming conformists in 1980s and 1990s. That is because these people went with whomever they thought were winning at the time. As a person who's actually selfish would.

Therefore it makes no sense whatsoever to look for sociopaths or narcissists among the rebels. Once again, the selfish people pick whoever they think to be the winner; which means that they will be among rebels during successful revolutions and among conformists during times of social peace. The baby boom generation has a reputation for selfishness, and as I've stated before they went from rebels to conformists. I have also known people who were in no way selfish or heartless go from conformists to rebels when they were faced with corruption within the system.

Sometimes the rebel will be good, sometimes he won't be. Sometimes the conformist will be good, sometimes he won't be. Whatever order the conformist enjoys is owed to people who once have been rebels. That is the case most vividly with America; but it is also in many ways the case all over the world.

Far be it from me to advocate rebellion for the sake of rebellion. But when wrong things happen, a good person is going to take the stance of the rebel. A person who does this when it does not work in their best selfish interest is neither a sociopath nor a narcissist. Such a person is less selfish than the conformist and in many cases his moral superior.

Narcissism And Hysterias

Once again we are facing a hysteria. This time it is about them damn “narcissists.” In 1990s it was about them damn “sociopaths” and them damn “perverts.” In 1950s it was about them damn Commies. In 1940s it was about them damn Jews.

Why do things like this happen? We have these supposed disorders that are supposedly incurable and that supposedly make people evil for life. They do not know what causes it. They do not know how to treat it.

What this means in the real world is that they have nothing of value to say on the subject.

We know both from religion and from reason that these people are dead wrong. If people's actions are their choices, then anyone can choose to act righteously, whatever their neurological or psychological makeup. In this matter religion is light years ahead of psychology; and until psychology has similar realizations it will continue righftully to lose power to religion.

According to the definition of the narcissistic disorder in particular, the world owes most of what it has to people with this disorder. If it is narcissistic to seek great success, then everyone who's had great success is a narcissist. If it is narcissistic to have original ideas, then everyone who's had original ideas is a narcissist. If it is narcissistic to dislike authority, then the people who gave America and the rest of the Western world its liberty is a narcissist. This would mean that everyone who's made any kind of a major contribution to the world, and America in particular, is a narcissist; and the people who think themselves normal owe their freedom, their nationhood and most of their scientific achievements and economic power to people with this disorder. Do not claim that you are serving your society when you are destroying what made it great or even possible at all.

More definitions. “Complains about being misunderstood.” Well sure. If I think one way and you think another way, you will misunderstand me and I will misunderstand you. If someone thinks in ways different from people around them, then others will misunderstand him. Similarly if someone thinks like a Muslim and he is surrounded by people who think like feminists, they will not understand one another either – which is probably for the better, as if they actually did understand one another they would blow one another to shreds.

Further. “Sense of entitlement.” To what exactly? If you believe that you are entitled to me not shooting you, that is quite a rightful thing to expect. Many of the rights and liberties that we enjoy now would have been seen historically as a luxury. By the standards of most of history, the bulk of the people in Western democracies have a sense of entitlement and are narcissists for that reason.

Continuing. “Outsize sense of self-importance.” According to whom? Anyone who has any knowledge of history knows that people come from all sorts of places and do all sorts of significant things. You will never know who is going to become important and in what way.

Going on. “Manipulative.” I've come to the conclusion that this is a term that is used to describe people possessive of emotional intelligence who do not have political or economic power. In business and politics this is called people skills, competence and strategic thinking.

More. “Lack of empathy.” For whom? If you are a dog and I am a cat, I would find it hard to empathize with you. I will however empathize a lot better with another cat. Having dealt with all sorts of completely different people, I have come to a conclusion that some are like dogs and some are like cats. A cat will find it hard to empathize with a dog; and a dog will fail to empathize with a cat. What the dog will do instead is brand the cat with an untreatable disorder while himself failing completely to show the cat any kind of empathy and manipulating others into treating it like dirt.

Further. “Envious of others and believes that others are envious of them.” That would mean that everyone who's been a part of 1980s, when everyone was taught to envy one another, was a narcissist.

More. “Seeking association with high-status people and institutions.” Why the hell not?

Continuing right along. “Intolerant of others' views.” That would make every Republican, every Communist and every Muslim a narcissist. Most of the world's ideologies promote intolerance and see tolerance as weakness or sin.

“Needing constant admiration from others.” That could get annoying I suppose, but then again if we are made in God's image we would have quite a few of His tendencies.

“Pompous and arrogant demeanor.” That would include most of your priests and politicians. It would also mean that everyone from any number of places in Europe is a narcissist.

These are the main ones, and what I say is this. What we are dealing with is not a bug but a feature. If you are meant to be an innovator, then you will have any number of these traits. We see this in everyone from Bill Gates to Donald Trump who have been such things. And the first is a billionaire and the second is a president, and people who believe such things are not.