The Unsung Heroes Of Economics

There have been some participants in the economy that have been adequately championed. Adam Smith championed the businessman; Karl Marx championed the worker; and the lesser-known Thorstein Veblen championed the engineer. But there have been other major participants in the economy that have not been adequately championed. These include:

The scientist;

The teacher;

The military;

The police;

The priest;

And the artist.

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 wealthy than Medieval Europe or Tsarist Russia is technology; and technology comes from science.

Even the most anti-intellectual American drives a truck that comes from science; has TV and telephone that come from science; and uses such things as air conditioning and boom boxes that come from science. Scientists are at the root of most of what business sells. The scientist is not adequately compensated for the work that he does; the businessman gets more than his fair share.

Another significant contributor to the economy is the teacher. The teacher educates both the businessman and the worker. Without the teacher most people would be unemployable. Many teachers are regarded as losers; however without them the businessman would not have the knowledge that he needs to do his job, and most workers would be unemployable.

Still another major contributor is the military. The importance of the military was found out by Bertrand Aristide, who disbanded the military only to be out of a job when some drug runners got hold of major guns. There have been many situations in which a poorer population conquered a wealthier population. Both Russia and China had much more money than Genghis Khan, but Genghis Khan conquered both populations because he was a military genius who assembled an excellent army. America's solution to this problem – to have effective military hardware – is a correct one; and I completely endorse Reagan's doctrine of peace through strength and hope that the present administration continues this doctrine.

Also important is the police. The police enforces property rights. Without property rights enforcement economic activity would be impossible. Everything that people produce would be pilfered, and the population would be plunged into poverty. This happened in Russia in 1990s, when the police was incompetent and the place was overrun by gangs. This continues to happen in the American inner city, where law enforcement does not know what it is doing and the conditions are so violent that no business would set up shop there. Police is required for enforcement of property rights, and without the police everyone would be very poor.

I have also not heard enough said in defense of the priest and the artist. The priest is important because he teaches people moral principles, which are necessary for economic activity to take place. As for the artist, he is a visionary whose inspiration anticipates much of what people figure out later with their minds. Much of what we have now was anticipated by artistic inspiration; and while most artists don't make very much money other people make tons of money out of implementing their visions.

Most of the above don't make very much money. However their contributions to prosperity are vast. A scientist or a teacher does not earn a lot of money; and many of these and others, being driven by the ideal of service, do not mind that state of affairs. Where they do revolt – rightfully – is when people decide that their work is worthless or that they are losers or irresponsible or anything of the sort even as they are benefiting from the work that they do. When they rail against and defund science while benefiting from science. When they ride around in trucks that science made possible with signs that say “My son beat up your honor students.” When they go around disrespecting the military while benefiting from its defense of their lives and property, or when they tell a police officer “fuck you pig.”

Do I have personal reasons for saying this? I most certainly do. I was planning an academic career; but when I was at the university the academia was being defunded, and prospects for an academic career were scant. I went into the computer industry, and after that crashed I was under-employed. Probably the only good thing that came from that was me becoming acquainted with perspectives of people whose perspectives I otherwise would have never considered and gaining in compassion for other people. If I am to put in the kind of effort that is needed to get a PhD or anything of the sort, I have to know that the field will be there.

So it is time that more people acknowledge these unsung heroes of economics. And it is time that more of such people be treated with respect.

Russia's Interference In American Election

A big deal has been made about Russia's supposed interference in America's presidential campaign.

A bit of history.

In 1996, America and other Western countries poured a lot of money into Boris Yeltsin's re-election campaign. Yeltsin was very unpopular at the time, as the place was a complete mess. So how can they logically forbid places like Russia from interfering in their own campaigns?

The most ironic thing about this is that for a long time Russia has been identified with Communism; but here they supported the Republican candidate. At least on social issues, Russians are much closer to Republicans than they are to Democrats. Russians are a highly gendered population, and they also are good at producing real literature and real art. So it would come as no surprise that they would support a candidate who believes in traditional roles and who also has an excellent taste in architecture and has commissioned some of America's most beautiful buildings.

Now of course the Russian government may have much different reasons for supporting Donald Trump, who appears to be good friends with Putin. It is correct to say that other countries should not be meddling in America's elections, but here we see something very interesting. The kind of people who are most vocal about this stance are the right-wingers, and the right-wingers benefited from Russia's interference in America's elections. Whereas many Democrats are internationalists, and in this situation they lost out.

Sometimes it works to think things through before formulating policy. If you want greater engagement with the rest of the world, then this kind of thing will happen. If there is a one-world government with everyone having a vote, then it would be the Muslims and Hindus that command vast power around the world. And Muslims and Hindus are not known for being feminists.

So we are seeing the logical outcome of some of the stances that we have seen. And this outcome has hurt mostly the people who have that stance. At which point it will become incumbent upon the Democrats to either correct their stance or live with its consequences. And this consequence is completely logical according to their own beliefs.

Feminism And Subset-Superset Fallacy

There are many women in feminism who claim that Donald Trump and any number of others are misogynists.

They are committing what is known in mathematics as a subset-superset fallacy. Not liking some of a kind does not mean not liking any of a kind. Most people will like some women and dislike others. Most people will like some men and dislike others. I consider it foolishness to expect anything else.

To these people the question that needs to be asked is, Does the fact that you dislike some men make you a misandrist? Does the fact that you dislike Donald Trump mean that you hate men?

I do not need to like Catherine McKinnon in order to love the women in my family. Similarly you do not need to like Donald Trump in order to love your father or your son.

It so happens that I've had extensive dealings with men who are genuinely misogynistic. The men who think that women should be slaves, and that they should kill a woman in case that she leaves them. The men who think that women are an “incomplete gender” possessing a “penis envy.” The men who think that women are irrational, or stupid, or evil, or wild. I have had many things to say to such men.

When these women accuse someone like me of being a misogynist, they are crying wolf. And crying wolf is an irresponsible behavior. It makes you and others not credible when a real wolf appears. You are dealing with someone who has written love poetry for several women. You are dealing with someone who sacrificed a very nice setup to be with someone he loved. You are dealing with someone who has had female bosses and was comfortable with the arrangement. You are dealing with someone who has incurred danger, financial loss and damage to reputation as part of an effort to help women who are being screwed over in court.

So they claim that they want equality. Equality means treatment based on one's personal qualities. As Martin Luther King said, “I have a dream that a man will be judged not based on the color of his skin but based on the contents of his character.” These women are doing their followers a disservice. They are teaching them to be bad people. And in a climate of actual equality, these women do not stand to be treated well.

For as long as men choose to act like jerks, there will be a need for one or another form of feminism. However it has to be a wiser feminism than what we have seen in recent decades. You accomplish absolutely nothing by attacking people like me. And if you really are the strong women that you claim to be, then you need to be confronting actual misogynists. And of these there are plenty.

Fake Liberalism Vs. Actual Strength

When I was in San Francisco, I sometimes talked to people there about experiences of women in the American South with domestic violence. Their typical response was that these women were weak.

To such people: It is no wonder that you have a reputation for coldness and arrogance.

I ask this. Where would a woman in such a place get the strength to get away from domestic violence? Everyone is telling her that she has to put up and shut up. Everyone is telling her that she is a piece of crap. Everyone is telling her that if she does not do this she will go to hell, or betray her community, or uproot her children. So where would a woman get the strength to fight such a thing?

The San Franciscans aren't known for being strong. The people I've known there were nowhere close to being the strongest people I've known. Many of them were the weakest. That however has not prevented these people from fancying themselves to be the only strong people in the world.

So sometimes people tell me such things as that I have something against strong women. No I do not. My grandmother was a very strong woman. She was a Jewish woman who lived through the Second World War while living under Stalin. She however did not have a bad attitude. She acted in a humble and reserved manner while being genuinely strong.

So we see some women with feminist associations claiming that they are strong and that other women aren't. This is completely wrong. I would like to see such a woman go up in an argument against an older Russian woman. She would show them who is strong and who is not.

So now we are seeing a sizable influx of Russian women into America, and I applaud it. These women are actually strong, as well as smart and beautiful. They stand to refute by counterexample many wrongful claims that we see from American feminists. And they stand to influence American society for the better.

They will also bring with themselves great cultural output. They will bring real poetry, real literature, circus and ballet. And on these matters as well as some others, Russians have much to teach Americans.

But probably the most important benefit from this will be re-affirming the family. A former Reagan administration official once told me that on this matter the Russians have much to teach Americans. They don't have much to teach America about politics or economics. But on these matters they stand to be a very positive influence.

As for the folks in places such as San Francisco, they will be confronted with people who are genuinely strong. This will tear apart their delusion that they are strong and that nobody else is. And then maybe these people would be likely to be more compassionate to the kind of women I've talked about earlier.

When that is done, they will have earned the right to call themselves liberals for real.

The Errors Of Ray Gordon

A long time ago, there was a poster on Google Groups who called himself Ray Gordon. His main contention was that women were stupid and evil and that men should play them. Other people mainly responded to him by saying that he was a narcissist.

To me, the issue that he was a narcissist means nothing whatsoever. According to the definition of the disorder, so are most of the world's greatest contributors. If it is narcissistic to seek great success or to have original ideas, then we owe vastly to narcissists. So that argument bears no currency with me at all.

Instead I seek to address his ideas. What he was right about was that women are capable of wrongful behavior. Well of course. Anything capable of choice is capable of wrong choice. That is the case both with women and with men.

But his solution – that men should play women – was completely wrong. Playing may work in getting casual sex, but in long-term relationships it is a complete disaster. The relationship starts with a lie. What can a lie not handle? Either the truth or any other competing fallacy. The process of defending a relationship that starts with a lie involves weaving an ever-more-ellaborate, ever-more-oppressive, and ever-more-ridiculous web of deceit. Eventually either the woman or the children learn to see through the deception. At which point one winds up with either a hateful wife or rebellious kids.

I am not addressing Ray Gordon's arguments based on what he is as a person. I am confronting them for their own intellectual demerit. What he recommends is an absolute disaster. And I want to warn anyone vulnerable to that kind of behavior from falling for it.

Playing is a rotten basis for a relationship and a far more rotten basis for family life. If you want to have a relationship or to start a family, then you need to do it with someone whom you respect. And if you do not respect anyone, then you should stay away from such things altogether.

Once again, the issue of what Ray Gordon is as a person means absolutely nothing to me. What matters is the wrongful quality of his ideas. I have been described as a narcissist myself, but I have much better views on this subject. And certainly if someone tries to play my daughter, he will hear from me.

So the player attitudes have to go. If all you want is casual sex, then by all means take Ray Gordon's advice. But if you want family or a long-term relationship, then see through this kind of nonsense. Get together with someone whom you can respect. And then you, your partner and your children will have a life that is worthy of being had.

"Misogyny" And "Misandry"

There have been any number of feminists accusing me of being a misogynist; and basically they don't know what they are talking about. I am not motivated in what I do by hatred of women. I am motivated to a very large extent by love for the women I love. When I care about a woman I adopt her concerns, and frequently I put in vast intellectual and emotional effort into addressing them. And the two main concerns that I hear again and again are the one about domestic violence and the one about vicious behavior of women who call themselves feminists.

I am against both. I have every reason to be against both. It takes absolutely nothing for a man to beat up on a woman, and the men who do such a thing should be arrested or at least shamed. But neither is it rightful for some women to claim leadership over 50% of humanity without 50% of humanity having voted for them to do so, and use this usurpation of power to advance an agenda that is destructive both to women and to men.

Now some of these women are of the belief that a man who takes objection to any aspect of feminism whatsoever is a misogynist. They are completely wrong. It is not just men that object to such things; many women – in my experience successful, intelligent women – do as well. We may as well say that any woman who dislikes the Taliban or Ted Bundy is a misandrist. The correct response to the state of affairs is that Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon do not speak for women any more than do Eminem or Michael Murphy speak for me as a man. Most people will like some people and not others. This is the case both with men and with women. Disliking some women does not make one a misogynist any more than does disliking some men make one a misandrist.

So we see the other side claiming that anyone who agrees with any aspect of feminism is a pussywhipped idiot or a male feminist. The correct response to both sides is the middle finger. I agree with some aspects of feminism and not others. So should most other people. It is not rightful to viciously push on people a party line. But neither is it rightful to decide that all women are bad and that men should be beating them down.

On both sides therefore we see a vast usurpation of power, with people claiming leadership of 50% of humanity without 50% of humanity having voted for them to do so. And both are using this usurpation of power to viciously bludgeon everyone into conformity with whatever party line they have. And it is about time that more people take my example and say to both sides that, no, they do not speak for 50% of humanity, and even more importantly that most of the 50% of humanity are better people than are they.

This is the case both with men and with women.

So no, the slanders that I am a misogynist or anything of the sort stand rejected. I reject a wrongful usurpation of power. And I hope that more people – both men and women – have the courage to do what I have done.

The Feminist Big Lie

I have dealt with any number of people who have taken part in Third Wave feminism; and what I found was that not only are their perceptions wrong, but they are precisely wrong. They are the precise opposite of what actually is the case. A man loves women, call him a misogynist. Someone loving and altruistic, call him a narcissist. Someone compassionate and heroic, call her a sociopath. Repeat a lie enough times, and people will believe it.

Unlike these feminists, I have actually done things for women who actually needed it. That makes me a better feminist than them. Whereas I have not seen them do much more besides attacking young men nearest the liberal centers of learning and culture who are the least misogynistic men out there, while having neither the guts nor the power to confront real wrongdoers.

So to the women who claim that I am a misogynist or anything of the sort: I refuse to be your whipping boy. If your hearts are as strong as your tongues, you would be fighting real misogynists such as Islamists, Westboro Baptists and the Father's Lobby. These people will not care if you call them misogynists. They have many justifications for their genuinely misogynistic stance. These men would think nothing of killing women like you. And right now they are growing in power.

The women who attack people such as myself are behaving in a completely irresponsible manner. They are alienating a crucial ally and making enemies of people who otherwise would support the women's cause. Then they stand to be confronted with real misogynists, and people such as myself will refuse to help them. This will hurt their cause bigtime.

They are also being irresponsible because they are crying wolf; and people who cry wolf do not become credible when a real wolf appears. And of these there are plenty.

So we see opportunists seeing these women's disgusting behavior and saying, “See, we told you, women are evil, we should beat them.” This does not hurt the feminists. This hurts women who are much better people than either the feminists or these opportunists.

To both sides I say this once again. I refuse to be your whipping boy. If you are a feminist, go fight real misogynists. If you are a Father's Lobby type, go fight real feminists. I will not be your monkey in the middle. Go after one another and leave people like me alone.

Being Played For Fools

I have seen a number of situations in which a player or a salesman would play a woman and trick her into thinking himself a good person when he was not. He would show his true colors later, at a huge expense to the woman. Then he would apply the same skills that he used in order to play a woman to play everyone else and get them thinking that he was the good guy and that she was the villain.

The person who knows how to play a woman will also know how to play everyone else. He would go around getting sympathy, getting people to think that he was the good guy and that the woman was the bad guy. He would be playing the courts, the social services, the people around him, you name it. And many of these would be played for fools and believe his lies.

The mistake that many people make is mistaking “nice” for “good.” In fact the two are completely different things. Nice is a social front; goodness is righteousness of heart. I have heard an American woman say that sometimes nice people are worse than mean ones. Many people who are into “nice” tend to be absolute sharks. They wear a nice front while doing everything in their power to advance on bruised backs.

Whereas the person who is actually good is likely to be sincere. And sincere people get attacked.

What we see in these situations and many others is a Big Lie. The conman gets people to think that he is a good guy when he is a bad guy. Whereas the person who is sincere is regarded as a villain or a psycho or worse. The result, on the social level, is everyone living a lie. And that is very bad for society.

So it is time that this behavior be seen for what it is and be exposed for what it is. We are seeing conmen get the authority in society and genuine people be demonized. And that creates a perverse set of incentives to reward dishonesty and punish honesty. Once again, the world does not benefit from this one bit.

I have seen this happen in many situations. And my response is that it's time that more people see through this behavior. They are being played for fools; the rest of the world is being played for fools. And that creates a worse world for everyone.

"Nerds" and "Jocks"

When I was in school, the attitude that many people had was that academic learning was worthless and that the only thing that mattered in life was common sense and social skills. You may want that attitude if you are raising salesmen and lawyers. But the country needs many people besides just that. You also need engineers, programmers, doctors, scientists, teachers and many others. And for these people, they better have academic knowledge.

Having that attitude is one of the most irresponsible things that one can have. You are attacking your best minds and making enemies of people who otherwise would be your greatest contributors. And that hurts mostly your country.

So we have idiots riding around with signs that say “My son beat up your honor student.” Once again, these people are hurting mostly themselves. They make enemies of people who otherwise would be their greatest contributors. And that hurts mostly their country.

For this state of affairs they blame – liberals, Jews, Communists, you name it. They should be blaming themselves. They destroy their best minds, and that renders them non-competitive.

So then these people go into the academia. They are rightfully full of hatred. They buy into bullshit such as political correctness and Third Wave feminism. This does not serve the country at all. This serves its enemies.

In school settings, the “jocks” are seen as exciting and the “nerds” are seen as bores. In the adult life that changes. The “jocks” settle into a predictable existence. The “nerds” keep learning, and they become more interesting people over the long run. At this point the “jocks” decide that the “nerd” types are evil. They are not. They are simply people who've bothered to educate themselves about many things, and they become more interesting over the long run than the people who have been “jocks.”

Now not everyone who is a “nerd” is a good person, and not everyone who is a “jock” is a bad one. However for as long as people insist on destroying their best minds, they are going to lose. The correct solution to all this mess is to support and encourage academic learning. And then the people who tend to such things will become your country's contributors, and the influence of people who have a grudge against your country will be reduced.

Father Vs. Teacher

Much has been said about any number of conflicts that can take place at the family level; but there is one such conflict that I have not seen addressed. That is the conflict between the father and the teacher.

The father wants the child to be what he regards to be normal. But the teacher sees in the child an extraordinary ability and wants to encourage the child toward greatness. The father sees the teacher as being a threat to his authority over the child. He denigrates the child's accomplishments and says various ugly things. Other kids pitch in by saying such things as that academic knowledge is worthless and that all that matters in life is social skills and common sense, which they say he does not have.

The child takes the worst from all sides. He becomes both arrogant and tortured. He starts acting like a complete psycho. The father blames the teacher; the teacher blames the father. And when the child becomes an adult others blame him and call him such things as a narcissist or a sociopath, neither of which he is.

At the larger level, we see the same conflict play out between business world and the academia. We see many people complain that the academics are teaching things that are useless or wrong. They want to defund the academia and replace it with institutions that have their values. On some issues they are right. I see no reason at all why the taxpayer would want to support the institutions of political correctness and Third Wave feminism. However there is and always will be the need for science and education, and for the academia to exist and be adequately funded is crucial for the country.

What is the right way to solve these kinds of problems? Maybe it is for everyone to know the righful parameters of their role and to wield their power rightfully. The father does have the authority over the child, but he has to wield it rightfully. He cannot be dictating to the child how the child can live, nor can he be mistreating the child. As for the teacher, he has to recognize as well that he is not the child's father and to honor the legitimate parameters of the father's role.

I have a stepson, and I never attempted to replace his father as a father. I spent a lot of time with him, but I saw my role as mainly educational rather than parental. I taught him quite a lot, but I never took on the authoritative role in his life. I left such things to his mother and his father.

I am writing this mainly because I have not seen writing about these kinds of conflicts. Maybe attention should be paid to such a thing. Probably the only place where I have seen this addressed is the film Shine about an Australian pianist who was in this kind of a situation. And I think that more needs to be said about this, as it is obviously a source of problems for many people.

Non-Violence And Peace Through Strength

Non-violence is a beautiful concept. However actually putting it into place would take draconian measures. The reason is that a population that is non-violent leaves itself prey to occupation by populations that are violent. To actually make non-violence work, no population could be allowed to be violent. That would take a tyrannical world government; and most people would not be open to such a thing.

The same thing takes place inside the countries. Both Netherlands and Switzerland have a low violent crime rate. In Netherlands nobody is allowed to have a gun, and in Switzerland everyone is required to have a gun. The first country makes it impossible for most people to commit violent crime, and the second country lets people defend themselves. Whereas in America violent crime is through the roof. That is because in America some people have guns and others do not. And the people who do not have guns leave themselves open to brutality by people who do.

I do not believe that it will ever be possible to keep American people from having guns. Nor is it even desirable. In some situations people need to have guns. If you live in the country and the nearest police station is three hours away, you better have a gun. If you live in the inner city and the police don't know what they are doing, you better have a gun as well.

We see the same thing with non-violence. Once again, the people who are non-violent leave themselves open to occupation by people who are violent. And that does not create peace. It allows the bad guys to run everything while the people of conscience are being enslaved.

For this reason I endorse Reagan's doctrine of peace through strength, and I hope that the current administration continues that doctrine

Better Relationships: Soft Power And Hard Power

My view on gender relations is simple. I want men to be good to women, and I want women to be good to men. Toward this I recommend using a combination of soft power and hard power.

Soft power is that of persuasion. There should be more movies, art and literature celebrating such things as family, marriage and love. There should be thought refuting the wrong things that we see put forth by both sides in the gender conflict. I have contributed toward both.

The hard power in this situation is that of using basic supply and demand. Reward men who are willing to be good to women and women who are willing to be good to men with good relationships, and make non-competitive the men and the women who want to be ugly to the other gender. Toward that effect I recommend a large cross-cultural flux for intermarriage, bringing together men – such as many in USA and UK – who are willing to be good to women with women – such as many in Russia, Iran, India and Brazil – who are willing to be good to men.

The biggest problem with most idealistic schemes is that they either have no enforcement mechanism or have a draconian enforcement mechanism. This is not draconian at all. Nobody has to be killed. There is not even a need for expenditure of taxpayer money.

In recent decades, Third Wave feminists have been using taxpayer money to tear families apart, put innocent men behind bars and teach women to be horrible people. They have also committed a vast and illegitimate power grab, claiming falsely to speak for 50% of humanity without 50% of humanity having voted for them to do so. A large-scale influx of women from places such as Russia and Iran will teach them and others that attitude is not the same thing as strength, nastiness is not the same thing as intelligence, and there is nothing at all incompatible between being physically attractive and being smart, being strong or being a good person.

The men who take part in this stand to realize an array of benefits. They will be disempowering usurpers of power. They will be giving someone good a chance at a better life. They will be improving their country by bringing into it someone good. And they will have a much better life than they stand to have with a Third Wave feminist.

So now America has a president who is married to a beautiful and intelligent woman from Slovenia. I think that this is great. This is good for American culture; this is good for American society; this is good for American womanhood; and this is good for American character. And I hope that more men who know what is good for themselves and their country make a similar choice.

Stalking And Domestic Violence

I may offend any number of people here by writing about this; but I believe that this is something that needs to be said and needed to be said for a long time.

For a long time, we have seen huge amount of attention paid to the issue of stalking. Much less attention has been paid to domestic violence. In fact domestic violence is a much bigger issue than stalking, and one that is far more harmful and to far more people.

Being stalked is flattering to the woman's ego. Someone is risking going to jail because he finds her attractive. Whereas there is nothing at all flattering about domestic violence. It is disempowering, it is humiliating and it is degrading.

A woman who is being stalked gets to feel like a winner. A woman who is being battered gets to feel like a loser. The world mirrors that back. If a woman is being battered, she is blamed for it and abused even more. If a woman is being stalked, she is the damsel in distress and the man who is doing it is an inhuman monster.

What we see here therefore is hideous hypocrisy. And in addition to hypocrisy we also see extreme cruelty. If you are borderline, you are disqualified from having relationships. If you are sociopath or narcissist, you are evil and can only be evil whatever you do, however hard you work and whatever work you do on yourself. The cruelty – as well as irrationality – of this is beyond what is ascribed to any narcissist or any sociopath.

We see the same people go on and on about how many people get traumatized through wrongful sexual practices. Oh yeah, and sex abuse victims own traumatization. Nobody else gets traumatized at all. In fact, with people who are genuinely traumatized, these people see them as psychos or damaged goods or bringing it about through low self-esteem or negativity in their consciousness.

The woman who gets flattering attention gets to pose as a damsel in distress; the woman who gets abusive attention is seen as a loser.

Well, you are a father, do you want your daughter getting stalked? Not particularly; but I would be upset a lot more if she wound up with a wife-beater. Getting away from a stalker is as easy as filing a restraining order. Whereas it is much harder – and in many cases impossible – to get away from a violent partner.

So we are seeing a lesser issue getting tons of attention, and a much greater issue getting much less attention.

Mark Twain said that there was never a truth that was not denied nor a lie that was not heartily believed in. His words remain true over a century after his death.

Righteousness And Forgiveness

There are many people who claim to have the virtue of righteousness; but many of them do not have the virtue of compassion and forgiveness.

I have known people who tortured their children because of what they did when they were 3. I have known people who claimed that anyone who broke a rule – official or unofficial, right or wrong – was a sociopath or a narcissist and could never be good. These people are in greater violation of righteousness than anyone that they attack. They have no compassion and they have no forgiveness. What they have is not righteousness. It is cruelty and meanness.

And this is a much greater sin than anything of which they accuse anyone else.

It is time that more people confront such bullying behavior and remind such people to remove the beam from their eye before removing a splinter from their brothers. And I hope that people who stand to be on the receiving end of such behavior have the courage to do just that.

In Praise Of Swedes

Living as I do in a major tourist destination, I have interacted with a number of people from Sweden. I was impressed with what I have seen. They are smart, hard-working and in excellent physical shape. And unlike any number of other people who have the same traits, they behave in a friendly and humble manner.

There is more to like about Sweden besides its young people. Sweden gave the world Abba and Europe. Sweden gave the world Volvo and Saab. Sweden has been highly influential around the world as a center of women's rights. And, unlike the American feminists, they have achieved that without teaching women to be horrible people.

For a country of 8 million people, that is impressive. Per unit of population, the only people who compare to the Swedes in their contributions of the civilization are the Jews and the Irish.

So I am writing this to express my respect for the Swedish people. They have a lot to be proud of, and I hope that more people have respect for them as well.

On Tolerance

Different people have different ideas as to the meaning – and virtue – of tolerance. I will make distinctions as to what I believe should be tolerated and what shouldn’t.

With people – including people who are in no way like yourself – yes. As I learned when I was in Amway, you never know who will have something valuable to offer. The Bible talks about the stone the builders rejected becoming a chief cornerstone. The people who make original contributions are people who differ from others in how they think, which means that many people will see them as freaks or worse. And yet it is these people who contribute the most.

With lies and errors, no. Wrong beliefs lead to wrong actions. I do not recommend censoring wrong beliefs, but they can and should be vigorously refuted.

With cultures, it is more complex. Most cultures have some things right with them and some things wrong with them. I see no reason at all to respect a culture that thinks it rightful to throw sulfuric acid into the face of a child for going to school. However neither do we benefit from a rigid monoculture. Black people, Jews, Chinese, Hindus and any number of others make vast contributions to the Western civilization, and they do so to a greater extent than if they had simply assimilated.

So people – including the “freaks” - should be tolerated; wrongful beliefs should not be tolerated; and cultures should be supported where they are doing the right thing and confronted where they are doing the wrong thing.

And it is important to make this distinction, as there is a vast difference among the three.

Send Gangsters To Africa

Many people have tried different things to fix the inner city. I have given a lot of thought to the subject myself. I am now proposing something that I have not seen proposed by credible sources, and that is as follows:

Send gangsters to Africa.

Do not overload the prison system at huge expense to the taxpayer. Do not provoke hatred by criminalizing people living there since they are kids. Instead call their bluff. If they do not like America, let them leave America. If they do not like the white man, let them go to a place where there are few white people.

Some of these people say such things as that all white men are racists. They forget that approximately 500,000 white people died during the Civil War to give them their freedom. So if they hate America, and if they hate the white people, let them go to Africa.

It is not possible to socialize someone who sees you as an enemy. Many of these people will fight such a socialization to the point of death. If you are a Jew, you will not let Nazis socialize you. If you are Palestinian, you will not let the Israelis socialize you. If you are a Russian romantic, you will not let American third-wave feminists or personality psychologists socialize you. Such people would rather die than let people of that kind dictate to them the meaning of right-and-wrong, mental health or anything of the sort. I do not understand why more people do not understand such things, it should be bloody obvious.

But if they are surrounded by people whom they do not believe to be their enemies, then many of them will accept socialization from them.

I speak in this from experience. I was born in the former Soviet Union, and my family moved to America when I was 12. Since early childhood the Communists instilled in me hatred of America. And even when I was no longer a Communist, I had a low view of Americans. This meant that I would not let these people socialize me, and I continued acting like a teenager for a long time. Whereas when I came to Australia, where I had no ill will toward anyone there, I could grow as a person.

Now there are some people who think that the problems of the inner city are due to racial inferiority. That is completely wrong. The African immigrants who come to America tend to do well, and they tend to behave well. The problems we see are with people who are descended from African slaves. The difference between the two populations is choice. One has chosen to come to America, the other hasn’t chosen to come to America. Many in the second population feel like they have no control over their lives. This leads many of them to see themselves as victims and act like assholes.

The solution therefore is to give them the choice that they believe they have been denied. Do not put them away for $40,000 a year in taxpayer money. Give them a one-way ticket to Nairobi. And if they choose to remain in America, demand that they be patriotic and be good citizens.

H. L. Mencken: Yet Another Idiot

H. L. Mencken stated that love is an illusion that a woman is different from all other women.

The implication here is that all women are the same. I ask Mr. Mencken, Are all men the same? Are you the same as Adolf Hitler?

A frequent claim about romantic types is that they have no rational intelligence. I can reason well enough, and I rejoice in taking apart attitudes that are stupid and cruel. This is the case with Third Wave feminism; this is the case with personality psychology; this is the case with most of what has come out of Adler and Freud; and this is also the case with Mr. Mencken.

So Mr. Mencken thought that all women were the same. This is completely wrong. There are ways to go between Brittney Spears and Phyllis Schaffly. Women are not all the same. There are good ones and bad ones, and most are good in some ways but not in others. The same is the case with men.

On the other side I have found the attitude that feminism seeks to celebrate the goodness of all women. Do feminists celebrate the goodness of all men? Most of them do not have much good to say about any number of women, especially women who are kinder and prettier than themselves. And many of them are driven by hatred, both of men and of kinder and prettier women.

Now I can see why a woman may be angry if she has a brilliant mind, but all that people care about is the size of her breasts. However a woman also has the right to be angry if she is kind and intelligent, and other women attack her because she is also pretty. The women in my family are all of the above, and I will not stand to see them attacked by either side.

And no, I do not lust after any of them.

On both sides we see both cruelty and stupidity. And that is a deadly combination. Any number of them have deluded themselves into thinking that they are the only intelligent people out there. They are not. In fact many of them have proven to be more stupid than the regular people whom they despise.

When you add cruelty to stupidity, you get something hideous. You get things such as Nazism. And it then becomes incumbent on everyone else to vigorously confront and overcome such things.

When Mencken died, he was described as a sage. No, he was not a sage. He was yet another idiot. So was Freud; so was Adler; so were Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon; so were any number of others. He was articulate enough, as were these others. However all of them were wrong. And their errors and their fallacies have made the world worse for everyone.

Women are not all the same; men are not all the same. We will always see the good and the bad in both. And it is time that more people confront such poisonous beliefs and practice attitudes that are truthful and not ones that are transparently and obviously false.

Attractive Women, Wealthy Men And Morality

Many people appear to be of the impression that highly attractive women and wealthy men are unethical, even that they are narcissistic or sociopathic. I have a much better explanation for what they see. A highly attractive woman or a wealthy man would be experiencing a lot of temptation, and it will take more self-restraint on their part to keep a straight line than would for someone who does not experience the same level of temptation. Bill Clinton or Donald Trump will have more women after them than a taxi driver or a manual laborer. Marilyn Monroe or Brittney Spears will have more men after them than Andrea Dworkin. Which means that they will have to have a will of steel to stay true to their marital vows, and it will take more moral character on their part to remain ethical than it would for an average person.

A related problem that I have seen is that such people provoke their partners' insecurities. The partner would rightfully recognize that they are attractive to other people; and he is likely to respond to that with violence, abuse or oppressive and paranoid behavior. This will create even more of a temptation to stray, which then will feed more abuse. This will create a complete hell for the person. And any number of people in such situations will not survive that hell.

Furthermore, such people will evoke jealousy in people of their own gender; and that will lead many people of their own gender to treat them terribly. Sometimes the poison that such people generate would be lethal, and in most cases it would be highly destructive to the person.

I once heard someone say that Marilyn Monroe was her own worst enemy. Most likely what they have seen is that she internalized the attitudes of the people who hated her. Such a thing would lead to self-destructive conduct. I have had a hell of a time getting out of my head the attitude of the people who hated me. Imagine how much harder it would be for a young woman who, unlike me, is always being scrutinized by the public and who, unlike me, does not specialize in deconstructing lies.

So no, many of these people are not – narcissistic, sociopathic, or immoral. Once again, they experience higher levels of both temptation and jealousy; and both take their toll. Many of the people who criticize such people do not experience what they experience, and they find it easier to act ethically than do they. And I am especially tired of these people attacking women who are attractive both physically and personally when they, if they were either, would behave worse. 

What Russia Has To Offer America

As somebody who spent my childhood during the Cold War, I am delighted that the president of America and the president of Russia are friends. I have very good reasons to think that this serves for the betterment of both countries. I write this about what Russians have to offer America.

Now the Russians do not have much to teach Americans about politics and economics; but there are many other issues on which they can influence America rightfully.

Probably the most important one is family. A former Reagan administration official once told me that Russians have much to teach Americans about family. In Russia, marriages tend to stay together even if they are troubled. Whereas in America many men skip out on their families and many women divorce for trivial or capricious reasons. These same women howl abuse about the tiniest things that happen to them while supporting vicious abuses by Muslim or inner-city men as well as abuses against women nicer and prettier than themselves. Russian women stand to put things into perspective, both for these women and for many others.

Another thing that Russians stand to do is confront the monstrosity known as political correctness. Political correctness is one of the most foolish things that have ever been tried. Not only does it fail to achieve its stated goals of respect and tolerance, but it makes them impossible. For me to actually respect or tolerate the next person I have to know their actual perspective. For me to do that they need to express to me their honest opinions, however offensive these may be. If they cannot express their honest opinions because someone may consider them offensive, then I will never know their actual perspective, which means that I will not know whether to extend to them tolerance or respect.

Instead of respect and tolerance, political correctness has accomplished this: A climate of suffocating insincerity. And it is this that the Russians are uniquely suited to address. The Russian people are rude; they are also genuine and sincere. They aren't nice, but many of them are good. Their honesty, their forthrightness and their courage stand to defeat the society of smilie-faced lies disguising snakepits. And that stands to go a long way toward improving not only American culture but also American character.

The Russians also stand to improve American womanhood. American womanhood has gone to hell as a result of the Third Wave feminism, and it is the kinder and prettier women who have suffered for it the most. The Russian women will put things into perspective, both for the women and for the men. They will show American men what they have been robbed of. And they will show American women that attitude is not the same thing as strength, nastiness is not the same thing as intelligence, and there is nothing at all incompatible between being physically attractive and being smart, being strong or having a good heart.

The Russians also stand to improve American cultural output. American culture likewise has gone to hell as a result of postmodern and avant-garde movements. Russians stand to set these people straight. Russian literature is real literature. Russian poetry is real poetry. Some of Russian songs are amazing. And Russians excel at such things as circus, theater and ballet. The Russians therefore stand to improve American culture greatly, and I, as someone who has translated five books of Russian poetry (https://sites.google.com/site/ibshambat) and many Russian songs ( https://sites.google.com/site/ibshambat/russian-songs) into English, am honored to be a part of this.

Finally, Russians stand to end the false identification that many American people have between culture and weakness. Now maybe you may get this expression when you have been dealing too much with French people or San Franciscans, who are cultured but who are wusses. But you will not get this impression if you are dealing with Russian people, who are cultured and are not wusses at all. And this may improve the reputation of culture in America, resulting in greater respect for culture. And if that creates a cultural boom such as what America had in 1920s, then that is probably the best thing that can happen in America today.

Donald Trump can very much be a help in this matter. He has commissioned some of America's most beautiful buildings, and he has a love of beauty. He is the proof that there is nothing at all contradictory between culture and strength or culture and money. There are people in culture who have a low view of business, and there are people in business who have a low view of culture. Both are wrong. The two can very well co-exist, and in 1920s - the time that saw America become the undisputed leader of the world - they did.

So now we are seeing Russians learning rightfully from Americans on how to manage business. And I am hoping to see more Americans learning rightfully from Russians on how to do family and culture. I hope that this positive symbiosis continues. And I hope that both Russia and America continue to benefit as a result.

Evil Beliefs In Psychology

I am writing this to address a number of very wrongful but very widespread beliefs that I have encountered among people with psychological or spiritual associations.

One is that self-esteem makes good people. That is completely wrong. Rewarding self-esteem does not make people better; it makes them worse. A person with higher standards for themselves will find it harder to feel good about themselves than a person with lower standards for themselves. Rewarding self-esteem does not reward personal good. It rewards low standards. And that does not improve people; it makes them worse. I have told a friend of mine in California that I knew in Virginia “good people who thought that they were shit and dipshits who thought that they were the shit.” His response: “”Pretty shitty situation.” I see every reason to think that this is what happens when the culture rewards self-esteem and not good character.

Another is the Buddhist “law of attraction” - that the like attracts like. Once again, completely wrong. Different people attract different things and for different reasons. I have attracted a number of women who were beautiful both inside and out while not being either myself. I have also attracted a number of persecuting fascists of both genders when I myself do not want to harm anyone. The same person could attract wonderful people and terrible people in less than a month of one another. So clearly the Buddhist law of attraction is wrong.

Another claim I have heard is that you need to love yourself before you can love another. Totally wrong as well. In many cases it works the other way around. You do not love another for traits that you have; you love them for traits you find lovable, whether or not you yourself have these traits. Seeing these traits in another person, you know what you need to strive for in order to be lovable yourself in your own eyes. Then you, by working on yourself in that direction, acquire these same traits. Then you love yourself.

Further along the same line is the idea that if you are loving you cannot be angry, or if you are angry you cannot be loving. I cannot begin to tell you how wrong that is. If you love Amazonian rainforest, then you rightfully will be angry at people who cut it down. If you love a woman, then you rightfully will be angry at some idiot doctor who kills her through medical malpractice. To expect anything else is not enlightenment, it is foolishness.

I once knew a person who gave me just that line. Then he got a job through me; he borrowed a Jeep on a loan from the boss; and then he skipped down the road while missing the payments on the Jeep. When I talked to him about it, he said that the problem was his self-hatred. No, it was not. The problem was that he was a crook.

So there were women in 1960s and 1970s who bought just into that same line. They got together with men who used them and abused them. They had many rightful reasons to be angry at these men, but their ideology of universal love forbade it. So then they decided that love is bullshit and formed the vicious strand of feminism that has been plaguing the Western world and especially America since 1990s. My response to those women is that right and wrong do not depend on your mood. Sometimes you need to be kind and nurturing to people. Sometimes you need to confront people. No woman should have to tolerate a man throwing sulfuric acid into the face of her child. But neither should anyone, man or woman, buy into fascist ideologies that say that Jews, or “sociopaths,” or “narcissists,” or men, are constitutionally evil and are incapable of rightful behavior.

So we have seen these women attacking men such as myself, seeing in me the reflection of men who abused them. I however do not deserve these attacks. I want men and women to get along. I want men and women to be good to one another. The gender war on both sides teaches precisely the opposite. It teaches both men and women to be horrible to one another. They take it out on precisely the wrong people. The feminists take it out on men nearest the liberal centers of learning and culture who are the least likely to be actually misogynistic, and the men take it out on women in right-wing or Muslim or inner-city communities who are the least likely to be vicious to men. This creates a destructive set of incentives within society. It teaches everyone involved – both men and women – that it pays to be a jerk and that good behavior and good attitude will get you mistreated. And that makes the world worse for everyone, both men and women.

Of course in such a climate very few people would think or dare to attempt love; and those who do will be laboring under a heavy disadvantage. The loving relationships that do form will be attacked from all sides, and both the men and the women who are interested in such things will be in one or another bind. Most of such relationships, being as they are at such a disadvantage, will fail. This will then reinforce the false belief that something is wrong with love. And that will be bad for everyone, both men and women.

So we see some people with such convictions accusing me of being such things as a predator or a misogynist. No, they are predators. They destroy good things that happen between men and women and then make tons of money as either divorce lawyers or psychiatrists. These people prosper from making the world worse. And that means that they, and not people such as myself, are the predators. As for misogyny, a misogynist will not be writing love poetry, or moving across the ocean to be with a woman in another country when he has a nice setup at home, or continuing to love a woman with whom he had been for only a short time 22 years previously. What we see here is not only beliefs that are wrong. What we see here is beliefs that are precisely wrong. What we see here is a Big Lie. And it is time that more people say that the king has no clothes.

Now I anticipate that I will ruffle many feathers by saying things of this nature, and I hope to do so. What we are seeing here is false and evil beliefs that make the world worse. And I believe that I owe this to a number of people whom I have known to confront such wrongful attitudes and help others to have lives free of such poison.

Prayer and Work

Augustine said, “Pray as if everything depended on God, work as if everything depended on you.”

I have seen miracles worked by people within Christianity. I have also seen miracles worked by people outside of Christianity. Right now I do not know which one of these is right. So my solution is to have my feet in both worlds and practice Christian teachings while also doing what I can on my part to strive for better things for people.

Some people I know who were not Christian practiced Christian values to a greater extent than many people who were Christian. They practiced compassion, generosity and strong ethics, which many people who call themselves Christian do not. In some ways the Jews and the Christians traded places since the times of Jesus, with many Jews acting the way that Christians are meant to act and many Christians following the Old Testament without loving their neighbor. I have also seen strong ethics in many people outside Christianity. So that while I remain committed to following Christian teachings, I am also choosing to take the loving stance toward people who are not Christians.

Some Christians do in fact act the way that Christians are meant to act. I have been involved with a Salvation Army church, and these people do exactly what Christians are meant to do. They have had very real experiences, and they have dedicated their lives toward doing such things as helping people get off of drugs and become productive and healthy people. The experiences of William Booth, Bill Wilson and any number of others cannot be dismissed. They experienced a real intervention from God, and they have done many things that Christianity demands. When people follow some parts of the Christian teachings without following others, often God intervenes to set them straight. The Victorians practiced morality but not compassion, so God revealed Himself to Booth. The result was the Salvation Army. The people in 1930s were contemptuous of drinking, so God revealed Himself to Bill Wilson. The result was Alcoholics Anonymous.

My solution therefore is to follow Jesus while being respectful of any number of people who do not. In the best-case scenario I stand to guide them toward Jesus. In case of people I've loved who are deceased and for whom I cannot do such a thing, my solution is to see what they would have wanted to see done and do it. So if someone who is deceased wanted me to be a better person or to do good things, I am willing to do both.

I have had many spiritual experiences, and while I do not yet know if only the Christians are right I know for a fact that skeptics and atheists aren't. I do know however that I need to do what Augustine said. Pray as if everything depended on God, work as if everything depended on me. And I recommend this approach to other people.

Taoism, Romanticism And Societal Rules

In both Taoism and Romanticism, two philosophies that I have held dear to heart for a long time, society is being regarded as Satan, and it is thought that if rid of its influence on their minds people will be good. This is not necessarily the case. We see conflict even among animals; and I see no reason why people outside Western or Confucian society would be better than people in these societies. In fact in many cases – even among indigenous populations such as the Maoris who did not have a civilization – we see very wrong things.

The real question that needs to be asked is, Which societies are good or bad and for what reason? Some think that Christianity is bad; but Christianity replaced the Roman Empire, which had a lot of advanced knowledge. Clearly there is something here that is not evil and is in fact very good. Christ offers hope, life and meaning to many disempowered people, which is the same goal as is proposed by people in Romanticism.

Now I have seen Ken Wilbur and a number of others deride Romantics as spoiled children for militating against Rationalism, which he said had many of the same goals as Romanticism; but by that standard so are the Rationalists for rejecting Christianity, which like them has a goal of attaining at truth. In fact Christianity achieves many of the same goals as Romanticism. Love, fairness, compassion, being good to other people – all these are Christian teachings. So is the preference of divine power over secular power. The Christians and Romantics clash over sexuality and social morals; but their most important goals are similar to one another.

Hippies and “rednecks” had a similar idea – move away from the civilization into the country in order to live free lives. One set were Romantic, the other set were Christian. The “rednecks” worked out a generally more successful arrangement than did the hippies. They did a better job of providing for, defending and governing themselves. Eventually most of the hippies moved back to the civilization where they applied their creativity and intelligence toward creating the computer industry and a Wall Street boom, while “rednecks” remained in the country and used the knowledge that they got from the hippies to rise to major political power.

By the Romantic standard of freedom, “rednecks” are better than the “bourgeois.” By the Romantic standard of non-violence, culture and treatment of women, they are far behind the “bourgeois.” If society was the root of all evil, then the opposite would be the case. We will see good and bad behaviors everywhere. It is entirely not the case, as some believe, that society is “reality” or “the real world” and the Atlantic Ocean isn't. But neither is it the root of all evil.

I was attracted to some of these ideas myself and gave voice to them. I learned from experience. I did not disown the correct aspectes of Romanticism – support of loving relationships, respect for culture and the arts, better treatment of the less fortunate and respect for nature in all its intricacy and complexity. I do however disown things in any tradition that prove to be wrong, and this is one such problem. We see evil among the Maoris as much as we see evil among the English. And at this point in history it is the English-speaking countries that lead the world in human rights.

With Taoism, the claim that has turned me off of the ideology is that by conceptualizing beauty one also creates ugliness. That is completely wrong. Both beauty and ugliness existed long before I existed, it will continue existing long after I'm gone. With Buddhism we see such ideas as the law of attraction – that the like attracts like. This is also demonstrably wrong. People attract different things for different reasons, and much of what they attract – for good or for ill - is very little like themselves. I have myself attracted widely different people and for widely different reasons while remaining the same me throughout. And the New Age idea that people create their reality with their consciousness is completely wrong. They did not create the Sun with their consciousness. This attitude is not only wrong factually; it is also wrong morally. By this logic the 500,000 American soldiers who died in the Second World War caused it through "victim consciousness" or "negativity in their consciousness," and that is a damnable thing to believe.

Society is neither the god that fascists claim it to be nor the Satan that Romantics and Taoists claim it to be. It is an arrangement. And what I want to advise to those who speak in favor of society's rules is to make these rules official. Pass them into law. Subject them to visibility, accountability, check and balance. Unofficial rules create a hidden tyranny. We have rules that are not even honest enough to be made official. This is a way to sneak in hidden tyranny into nations that are intended to be free. Societies will always have rules; but for these rules to be valid within a context of democracy they have to be passed into law. They have to be made visible and official. Then people who seek to enforce them will have a constitutionally valid basis for doing so, and the people who object to them can work in a visible context to try to repeal them.

I am of an age where I see a need for structure. However it has to be a legitimate structure. For an authority in a democracy to be made legitimate, it has to be made official. It has to be made subject to visibility, accountability, check and balance. Anything else is an attempt to sneak in hidden tyranny into countries that are intended to be free.

So the correct solution is neither to deify society as “sanity” or “reality” or “the real world” nor to practice ill will toward the civilization. Societal rules have to be passed into law. Subject societies to the same standard of accountability and visibility to which you subject the government. And then avoid tyranny both official and unofficial, while achieving the correct goals that Romanticism, Rationalism and Christianity have in common.

True Cure For "Perverts" And "Sociopaths"

For a long time we have been hearing that some people – such as sociopaths and “perverts” - are incurably evil. This is a completely wrong thing to believe.

There may not be a cure for sexual perversions, but there is a cure for acting on sexual perversions. It is called self-control. There may not be a cure for sociopaths, but there is a cure for acting on sociopathic tendencies. It is called having a moral compass. The people who claim that these people are evil and can only be evil reduces people to being animals. The correct solution is not to listen to such people, but to exercise the human capacity for moral choice.

If someone is acting in a selfish or unethical way, it does not necessarily mean that he is a sociopath. Some of such people are simply lost. They do not have a moral compass. The moral compass is provided by accepting the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Doing this restores people again to the status of being people. Whereas we see many in psychology doing the opposite. Once again, they have decided that some people are bad and can only be bad whatever they do. This is irrational, this is cruel and this is wrong.

Into this fascist nightmare comes in the wisdom of God. He restores people to humanity and teaches them the rightful way to conduct themselves. At this point even the people with the worst natures learn to act rightfully and use their moral choice to overpower whatever is wrong with their natures.

Character, in my experience, makes one attractive to many more people. And rightfully so. A person with character will be much more likely to behave rightfully than a person without character. The solution is to build character; and, in my experience, the way to do so is to invite into one's life the being that had the best character of anyone known in history, who, even though He could do anything that He wanted, decided to sacrifice Himself on the cross.

Very little of merit on this matter can be learned from the man-haters. Very little of merit on this matter can be learned from predatory psychologists. But everything stands to be learned on this matter from beings that actually know what character is. If you have those kinds of propensities it does not mean that you are damned for life. It means that you need to figure out ethics and apply it. And that is something of which anyone, including the sociopaths, are capable.

This matter has been approached in a completely wrong way. It ignores the central reality of human existence – deliberate choice based on principle. We are not animals. If we have wrong propensities, it does not mean that we will always act on them. We can stop ourselves when we find ourselves tempted to do wrong things. And it is in encouraging this, and not self-esteem or anything of the sort, that we stand to become good people.

So it is time to do away with these grievous errors. The solution to these problems is moral self-restraint. The solution is giving people a correct moral compass. And then they will act rightfully whatever their nature or their psychology or their brain chemistry happens to be.

Vindicating Love

In America, many women – especially the feminist kind – disliked me. I came to the conclusion that the reason for that was conflict of expectations. Both my mother and my grandmother were superwomen, and I got used to female beauty and goodness without myself being especially attractive physically or personally. So many women saw me as a bottom-feeder.

However I did have things to offer the women that I was with. One was affection and passion. Another was appreciation. Another was quite good poetry. Another was addressing their concerns. And of course when I was making good money in the computer industry I had that to offer as well.

One benefit of this state of affairs is that bad women avoided me. I did not have what they wanted. The women I did attract were the artistic and philosophical kind. As such, these were frequently accused of being crazy or evil. However they were all beautiful, intelligent and exciting. Some lived in mansions and some have been homeless; but all were amazing as romantic partners. And all had experienced completely unfair mistreatment.

They, like me, were the romantic type. In contemporary society the romantic women become punching bags, and the romantic men get treated as criminals. We all had a strong influence from Romantic poetry and literature. We applied the concepts to things in our lives. It worked when we found one another. The result, besides beautiful shares, was also good poetry and art on both sides.

Now romantic attitudes have come under a lot of criticism. Apparently it is unrealistic, narcissistic or childish. It is not narcissistic; it is about valuing the other person rather than about valuing yourself. It is not unrealistic; people's convictions have a large role in shaping the reality of their lives, and people who base their actions on such beliefs make these beliefs a part of social reality. Nor is it childish; I have known marriages that started with love at first sight and were going strong when the partners were in their 80s.

Then there is the claim that it is antisocial. Do not tell that to the World War II generation. They built a very successful society while in many cases basing their matches on romantic love. Maybe such things become antisocial in societies that want to snuff them out; but societies do not have to be that way.

Another claim is that it is nature's way to get you to do its bidding. Is that such a bad thing? Is it a bad thing furthermore that such matches should lead to marriage and family? Most people will want to have families. Most people will want to have children. It is much better that this be done within the context of a relationship where people love one another than within a relationship in which people do not.

Probably the most ridiculous claim I've heard on the subject is that it is misogynistic. That claim is a Big Lie. That claim is precise inversion of truth. A misogynist is somebody who hates women. A man who writes poetry for women is not a misogynist; he is the opposite of a misogynist. He is a man who loves women, or at least the women for whom he writes poetry. To claim anything to the contrary is absurd.

Then there is the claim that the people who are attracted to such things are narcissists or sociopaths or perverts, and that these people can't love. Even ones who can't feel love – as we are told about sociopaths - can choose to act in a loving manner. Use your mind for what your heart fails to do. As for “narcissists” and “perverts,” many of them do very much love. Ayn Rand is regarded as narcissistic, but she was passionately in love more than once. And of course many of the people who were involved in 1920s and 1960s would be now regarded as perverts, but many of them were very loving, as we see for example in the Great Gadsby, the Beat poetry and Pink Floyd.

When something is under attack in society, its manifestations are at a disadvantage. This reinforces the false claim that there is something wrong with it. Especially when partners are young, inexperienced and not versed in social manipulation, their relationships can be easily poisoned or destroyed by people versed in such things. This leads to situations such as the one that I had in 1995, when I passionately loved a woman only to have her stepmother tell her that I was using her. Completely untrue, but it appears that she believed it. Some say that love is the most powerful force in the universe, but in fact love is quite fragile. Its value is its beauty, not its power, and the correct place for power is to protect the love.

One thing that I have seen in some situations is what I call the Iago behavior. Sometimes a man would genuinely love a woman, only to have his bar buddies or his family stuff his head with paranoid nonsense and convince him that the woman is doing the wrong thing or that the woman is evil. In many case these people would claim that the man owed it to other men or even to God to tramp women down. This would destroy even the most loving relationships and lead them to become abusive. Then of course the feminists would look at this behavior and say that it means that men are evil or that love is a racket. In fact the problem was neither with men nor with love. The problem was with the ugliness that surrounded them and which was more experienced than were they.

I want to see romantic love vindicated and becoming a fertile ground for better family life. This will create better family situations. As for the people with strong romantic influence, it will give them a reason to live and to excel, bringing into the civilization a rightfully disaffected constituency.

I want people growing up now to avoid situations such as what I had in 1995. To that effect I offer my arguments on the subject. Use these arguments to defend your relationships and make your relationships blossom for life.

Alt-Right: WASPs and Jews

It appears that in America there is a strong new movement that calls itself alt-right. According to them, black people are lazy and violent, Jews are evil manipulators, and Muslims are terrorists.

I ask these people: Where would America be without Michael Jordan, Eddie Murphy and Colin Powell? I ask these people: Where would America be without Albert Einstein, Mark Spitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger, Adam Sandler, Steven Spielberg and Ayn Rand? I ask these people: Where would they as former Tea Party be without the Koch brothers? All these people contribute a lot to America. And they contribute much more than they would if they had simply assimilated into the WASP culture, as some people say that they should.

Every culture has something wrong with it. That includes the White Anglo Saxon Protestant American. Now there are many things that are right with that culture, and they have the right to affirm these virtues. The stress on character, hard work, strength and ethics is right. The biggest problem with this culture is emotional repression. Apparently feelings are for the weak and the stupid, and anyone showing feelings is trampled down. For people who do such a thing, the greatest nightmare is a feelings-oriented person with a brain, as many Jews are. They are a nightmare for two main reasons. One is that they cannot be credibly portrayed as stupid and thus form a refutation by counterexample of this falsehood in their worldview. And the other is that they have the wits to be able to help other feelings-oriented people whom they want to trample down. So portray them as evil manipulators or dangerous individuals. Brand them with untreatabled disorders. Or claim that their whole culture is evil.

Regarding the black people, I am close to a number of black ladies, and from what I have heard from them I feel like punching the men who had treated them that way in the face. However this is not limited to black people, and I feel the same way about a number of people who are Muslim, Russian, Australian and the American WASP. That some black people are lazy and violent is certainly correct. However there are any number of others who are no such thing. It is correct to go after the guilty; but do not stick these labels on the innocent. I have seen a number of good efforts that the black people are doing to improve the behavior of people in their community, and these efforts deserve respect. Yes there are stupid hoodlums who are black. But there are also many black people who are admirable individuals, and they do not deserve to be blamed for the sins of the hoodlums.

One thing they are right about is that political correctness is wrong. Yes, it is completely wrong. Not only does it fail to achieve its stated goals of tolerance and respect, but it makes them impossible. For me to actually tolerate or respect you I must understand your perspective. For me to do so you must be able to express your honest opinion, however offensive it may be. If you cannot express your honest opinion because someone considers it offensive, I will never understand your actual perspective, which means that I will not know whether or not to extend to you actual tolerance and respect.

Maybe the WASP culture has been criticized too much, and it may be valid that it should remind people of the positives in it, of which once again there are many. However do not in the process bring back features that are wrong. Do not bring back emotional repression. Do not bring back coldness. Do not bring back meanness and cruelty. If you do that, it will always be only a matter of time before something like 1960s happens again.

So yes, celebrate the things that you are right about and that are right in your character. But do not portray as evil or lazy or violent or whatever people who are none of these things and many of whom are strongly contributing citizens. America benefits from many black people and many Jews. And it is rightful that these people be properly credited for the work that they are doing for America.

Errors Of Personality Psychology And New Age

Psychology and New Age thinking both make the same error, but from the opposite directions. The first claims that, if someone is a narcissist, a sociopath or a pervert, then he can never be good whatever he does. The other claims that a child who's been run over by a car has caused it by negativity in his consciousness.

The first treats people as animals; the second treats people as gods. The first abdicates responsibility and choice to the point of claiming that people have no control over their actions. And the second saddles people with responsibility for things that are not their responsibility at all.

On this matter, as on others, Christianity offers a correct solution. Christianity says that we have choice without saying that we have control over everything. Christianity says that even a sociopath can choose to act in rightful ways. And it does so without saying that everything that happens to people is solely their doing.

This makes it the rational standpoint.

Now there are certainly people who've fallen into the whining habit who need to be told to be more responsible and proactive. But there are also people who've fallen into the persecution habit who need to be reminded that others are human beings rather than animals. Once again, anything capable of choice is capable of rightful choice. This, once again, includes sociopaths, perverts and further along the same line. There may not be cure for sociopathy or sexual perversions, but there is a cure for acting on such things. It is called choice. Choice, once again, of which everyone, including sociopaths, is capable. The correct cure for people who act like bastards is to provide them a moral compass. That is the case whether or not they have anything wrong with their brain.

Some people who do wrong things have something wrong with their brains; some do not. Some people who do right things have something wrong with their brains; some do not. Any number of major contributors in history have been diagnosed with mental illness. It would be especially present in the narcissistic diagnosis. If it is narcissistic to have original ideas or to seek great success, then most of the world's major contributors have been narcissists. If it is narcissistic or sociopathic to dislike social authority, then most Americans are descended from narcissists and sociopaths, who disliked the social authority in their countries enough to move across the Atlantic. And if it is schizoid or schizophrenic to have spiritual experiences, then the bulk of the world owes its moral guidance to schizoids and schizophrenics.

With New Age idea, we see exceptional cruelty as well as lack of ethics. Now it may very well be, as I have been told, that the Jews who got killed during the Second World War had a “victim consciousness”; however the 500,000 American soldiers who died during that war suffered from no such thing. This is something that one may believe if one has spent all his life in a protected environment. But people who've experienced trouble that was not of their making do not have the luxury of such beliefs. And it is reprehensible that such people would insult the heroic people such as the above who have made the ultimate sacrifice so that they can live in comfort and sneer at them.

Once again, both ideologies make the same error from the opposite directions. One treats people as animals; the other treats people as gods. We are neither. We are human beings. We are beings who can control some things but not others. It is rightful that people be told to make more responsible choices without holding them accountable for the phases of the moon. And it is also rightful that every human being, even if possessing a sociopath diagnosis, be treated as a human being.