Romanticism And Misuses Of Reason

Somebody on the Internet has tried to get me to deconstruct the transition from rationalism to romanticism. I see the situation as being a confusion between a value and the misuses of the value.

Reason, as such, is not a bad thing at all. It becomes bad when it is used for emotional cruelty and contempt for such things as romantic love and spiritual experience. Misuses of a value discredit the value itself. So if reason is used for such things, it is only a matter of time before someone will say – in confusion or in deception – that reason is a bad thing in itself.

We see the same thing with just about anything. Feminists took the misuses of beauty by ignorant teenagers and unscrupulous plastic surgeons and decided that beauty is a bad thing. Liberals took the misuses by Hitler and others of national pride to impugn national pride. Many people see misuses of money and think that money as such is a bad thing. All of these people are wrong.

The Christians have still not been able to live down the Dark Ages and the Inquisition. The wrongful things done in the name of Christ has tarnished for many the name of Christ. So that when a sensitive young person is seeing abuses of reason, he may be vulnerable to the error of thinking that reason is bad as such.

Once again, what we see here is confusion between a value and the misuses of the value. If you use reason to be vicious toward other people, then many people may start to think that reason is bad as such. It is not. It is a tool – a very valuable tool. We owe most of what we have in the civilization to reason. Militating against reason is completely wrong. However correcting abuses done in the name of reason is valid.

So if someone is using reason to keep making a case that you are an inferior form of life, that is not the fault of reason. That is the fault of the person misusing reason for such a thing. And the correct solution is not to militate against reason, but to correct its misuses and thus preserve its value and credibility.

Personality Psychology And Character

Personality is your relationship with other people. Character is your relationship with yourself.

It has been noted that in recent times too much stress has been placed upon personality and not enough on character.

The personality psychologists generally come to an agreement that most personality disorders are incurable. That is because they do not know what they are doing. They are attempting to fix character problems with talk therapy. That is not how to go about doing it. The correct ways to fix character problems is to overcome challenges or to submit to the will of God.

The people I've known who've fallen for this line have generally not undergone improvement. Far from it. They appear instead to have gotten more adept at psychological tricks while remaining bad people. My mother had a boyfriend who was seeing a psychiatrist for narcissistic personality disorder. He did not become better as a result of it. If anything he became worse.

So it appears that psychiatry does not know what it is doing on this matter. Religion however very much does know what it is doing. Religion teaches people actual values and actual character. And that makes it a far more viable force than personality psychology.

So it is time that character problems be seen for what they are and dealt with correctly. Character problems are not the same thing as personality problems. Once again, one is your relationship with yourself, the other is your relationship with other people. Fix your character, and then your relationship with other people will follow.

Faith And Freedom

For a long time I thought that the concept of faith was incompatible with the concept of freedom. I identified religion with oppression. However I ended up finding out that faith really does set you free in a number of meaningful ways.

One of these ways is that it sets you free from resentments and grudges. I used to think that an injustice unavenged is an injustice institutionalized; however I ended up finding out that grudges hurt both oneself and other people. I ended up finding out that forgiveness really is liberating. It gives a soaring sense of freedom in which the attention is liberated from the source of the problem and is freed for more meaningful things.

Another is freedom from sin and its exploiters. Sin has a way of drawing people in, and ill-intentioned people will use your sins – real or perceived - to control you, abuse you or get from you what they have no right to want. We see this done by criminal organizations, abusive partners, what have you. Being freed from sin frees oneself from exploiters of sin. It also frees you from your own bad habits. You are given a moral structure with which to overcome both sin in oneself and wrongful claims and abuse by others. You are given a strong moral grounding in face of exploiters of sin. And that is a very important freedom to have.

A related freedom is freedom from one's past. We have many people equating others with whatever flaws they see in them and failing to see their virtues. We have many people treating others based on the worst thing they've ever done without acknowledging the good things that they have done. Faith frees you from that. It tells you that you can choose how you behave, whatever your behavior has been previously. And that is very liberating indeed.

Faith also frees you from wrongful beliefs and wrongful attitudes. Many beliefs out there are very wrong. If you are living under something like Communism or personality psychology, you are likely to be under severe oppression. Whereas faith takes apart these wrongful beliefs and instead gives you a much more valid moral structure – one that is less likely to lead to torture chambers or lifelong demonization.

Probably most important, faith frees your will and gives you the right to free choice. We see in psychology many theories that see people as basically animals or machines. We see in psychology theories that tell us that some people are evil and can only be evil whatever they do. Faith frees one completely from this cruelty and irrationality. Faith gives you the right to choose rightful conduct whatever your psychology happens to be. Faith takes you out of animalistic dynamics and makes you a human being. And that is the most important freedom of all.

And then of course faith also gives you freedom from whatever corruption is around you by putting you in contact with a greater power than theirs.

So these are the main ways in which faith sets you free. And I hope that more people discover this – for their own benefit and for that of others.

Is The Government The Great Satan?

I know a number of people from Texas who appear to be of the impression that the American government is the Great Satan.

Simply, these people don't know what a bad government is.

I was born in the former Soviet Union. The government there really was brutal and oppressive. The American government is no such thing. In the Soviet Union, the worst abuser really was the government. In America, they are private. The American government is elected, official, accountable, checked and balanced. The private organs of brutality and oppression are no such thing. And this allows them to get away with greater levels of brutality and oppression than are allowed the American government

I would much rather be dealing with the American government than with men who like to beat their wives and rape their childen, or with Westboro Baptists, or with mafia and the gangs. And while these people are spending all their energy scrutinizing the government, they are allowing real brutality and oppression to grow up right under their noses.

I knew a man in Texas who had every bone in his body broken as a child by his stepfather and his grandmother. I do not know what his mother was doing, but I have complete contempt for her. There was a case in Texas in which a woman got raped, and a man was put away in prison and died in prison only to have someone else confess to the crime. An innocent life was lost to a false accusation of rape. In neither case was the government the perpetrator.

Anything capable of choice is capable of wrong choice. That is as much the case for people who are not a part of the government as it is for people who are part of the government. And when people expect corruption and brutality potentials only in the government, they allow other entities than the government to perpetrate real brutality and corruption.

So it is time that this be seen for what it is. Once again, anything capable of choice is capable of wrong choice. And that is as much the case for private individuals and private entities as it is for the government.

Sensitivity And Macho

While listening to music from 1980s I started thinking, How did the sensitive types adapt to a macho and competitive decade?

It appears that they adapted by getting good at macho and competitive stuff, and in this way preserving their sensitivity. We see this for example with Billy Idol. Here is someone who became very macho; however he also kept the sensitivity to produce some quite profound songs.

On the Internet, there was a man named Scott who called himself The Crow. He was clearly a sensitive type; but he became very good at fighting and also ended up succeeding in business. There was another man named Rodney who kept running me down something awful; however I ended up realizing that he was not such a bad person after all. He got good at athletics and business, while remaining quite a sensitive type and retaining his interest in such things as romance.

These people had to become macho and strong in order to keep their sensitivity, or else be seen as weaklings and trodden down. They had to get good at all the macho stuff in order to get away with being what they were.

So here were people who had to get strong in order to get away with what they were in a time that was very competitive. And that appears to be an appropriate adaptation to the time that they faced.

Negative Qualities And Positive Potentials

Most innate qualities have capacities for both positive and negative outcomes. There are many times when people see something as a bad quality that can in fact be quite a good one.

For example, many people think that it's wrong to be obsessive. However there are many tasks that require obsessive focus, and a person capable of obsessive focus can in many cases accomplish a lot. He will focus on the task and keep doing it until it is complete. A person like that may end up doing valuable and meaningful things, and anyone involved in things such as research understands just how valuable this quality can be.

Then many people think that it's wrong to be “manipulative.” In business and politics it is not called being manipulative. It is called strategy. The same person who would be seen badly for such qualities as a child or a teenager can become excellent at these and other valuable tasks.

Or people think that it's wrong to have an intense temperament. Once again, there are many tasks where that is a benefit. If you are a priest, then being able to preach passionately is a virtue. If you are a teacher or a professor, being passionate in what you do is a virtue. If you are involved in a cause or in politics, such a thing helps a lot as well.

It is also often seen as wrong to be nitpicking or too cautious. In some situations – such as relationships – being nitpicking is in fact a disaster. However if you are an engineer, you better be nitpicking and cautious. You need to anticipate anything that can possibly go wrong. If you are an engineer and you are not nitpicking, you will design equipment that does not work.

Or it can be thought bad to be sensitive. However in many professions you should be sensitive. If you are a doctor or a counselor, you need to be sensitive. You need to be attentive to other people's needs. Sensitivity goes a long way in these pursuits and any number of others.

Probably the quality that gets most maligned is that of thinking differently from other people around you. This will get you accused of being crazy or worse. However most of what we have started as an original thought; and original thoughts happen in minds that think in original ways. The people who think in original ways contribute the most to the civilization, and it is completely wrong to attack them for being what they are.

One of the worst claims I've heard is that you have to be positive before you can have anything to offer or that negative thinking is at the root of the world's problems. That is completely wrong. There are problems that need to be solved. They are not solved through positive thinking; they are solved through real thought and real action. Positive thinking will not stop rainforest deforestation. Positive thinking will not solve world hunger. For a problem to be solved it first has to be acknowledged. If you are preventing problems from being acknowledged – under the claim that it is “negative” or anything of the sort – then you are preventing problems from being solved. And this causes far more problems than it solves. We face major problems. They require our attention. They will not be solved through positive thinking. They need to be seen for what they are, and they need to be effectively addressed.

And of course we have all sorts of thought against having “gumption” and what not. Once again, there are many situations in which such a thing is in order. Sometimes you need to take charge. Sometimes you need to blow your horn. Sometimes you need to think bold and act bold. This kind of thinking deters important action. Which means that it again causes more problems than it solves.

What else. Disobedience to authority. I ask this, How did America start? It did not start by people following the monarchic authority of the time. It started by people fighting for freedom. Not all authority is wrong, but claiming that disobedience to authority – any authority – makes you a sociopath or a narcissist is completely wrong. This would pathologize what made the current state of affairs possible; which means that people who claim such a thing are complete hypocrites.

Or – well. Being “dangerous.” My response to these kinds of claims is that I hope to be dangerous to people who think in these ways; I hope that more people be dangerous to people who think in these ways. What we have here is fascism. Anyone capable of making any kind of a difference is capable of making a wrong kind of a difference. That would make him dangerous. However he is also capable of making a right kind of a difference; and the world, once again, owes vastly to people who do such a thing.

Then there's this nonsense about self-esteem. Apparently you can't be a good person unless you have high self-esteem. This is completely wrong. I make the case instead that there is a negative, not positive, correlation between self-esteem and personal goodness. If you have higher standards for yourself then you will find it harder to meet these standards than if you have lower standards for yourself. The person with lower standards will have higher self-esteem; the person with higher standards will be a better person.

There are of course more – many more. Once again, the same propensities that can lead to negative outcomes can also lead to positive outcomes when rightfully directed. And it is toward doing just this that psychological thought must direct itself.

Challenges For Liberals And Conservatives

Both people who want to implement change and people who want to restore a previous state of existence first need to understand what they are dealing with.

The people who want to change the status quo – any status quo – need to understand why the status quo exists. If you want to change the gender roles, you need to understand why the gender roles are there. Once you do that you have two choices. One is to agree with the reasons for the status quo and keep it. The other is to see how the status quo is due to wrongful influences and be able to make a more convincing case for changing it.

The people who want to restore a previous state of existence need to understand why the changes have happened. If you re-create a state of affairs before the change, you will be re-creating the state of affairs that lead to the change, which means that you will be met with similar forces that lead the change to take place. If you want to re-create 1950s, you will be re-creating conditions that lead to 1960s, which means that you will be met with something like 1960s further down the road. Similarly if you want to re-create the conditions preceding the labor movement, then you will be re-creating conditions that lead to the creation of the labor movement, which means that you will be slammed with something like the labor movement yet again.

In both cases it merits to understand the reasons for what one does not like. You need to understand the reasons for the status quo. You also need to understand the reasons for the changes from a pre-existing status quo.

Once that is done, you can either agree with the status quo or the changes; or you can see where either have gone wrong and pursue your course in a more informed and more effective way.

Gender Roles And Positive Middle Path

In most of the world, gender roles are very rigid, and conformity to them is required to an absolute.

In some of the world, gender is seen as an artificial construct, and any acknowledgement of differences between men and women is seen as sexism or even misogyny.

I have dealt with both worlds. Both worlds have influenced me, and both worlds see in me one another and are attacking me for what they see. And to both sets of attackers I say that they don't know what they are talking about. It is wrong to attack me for something that is present to a much greater extent in people from the place from which I came, and many of which features I fought – in some cases at a great cost to myself. And it is also wrong to attack me for something that I learned from the feminists when I, once again, got attacked by many feminists myself.

Both worlds are part-right and part-wrong. Men and women have a physical and emotional nature which is gendered; and men and women also have the mind and the will that both men and women have equally. Denying either denies people the right to half a life.

In matters where people are part-right and part-wrong, the correct solution is what I call the positive middle path. It is looking at what each side is right about and combining them while doing away with what's wrong in each. The first world is correct to say that there are natural differences between men and women. And the second world is correct to say that both men and women have the mind and the will and are in that aspect indeed equal.

So my solution is to take this positive middle path. It is to affirm both the physical and emotional nature, which is gendered, and the mind and the will, which are not. It is to recognize the existence of both aspects in people and look for ways in which both can be constructively fulfilled. And doing this will do far more for the well-being of both men and women than anything that either side is doing by attacking people like me.

"Sluts" And "Bitches"

I once knew a woman who said that, when she went to a club with her sister, she was flirting with men there and her sister called her a slut.

This should be examined a bit more.

If a woman is friendly and outgoing, she is seen as a slut. If a woman is not friendly and outgoing, she is seen as a bitch. Based on that definition, I would pick a slut any time.

If a woman is attractive, it is guaranteed that she will be attractive to other people besides yourself. It would take for her a will of steel to keep from falling for all the temptation that is out there. So you run a risk of having your woman be unfaithful. But think about it. Would you rather deal with that kind of thing? Or would you rather be dealing with a shrew?

In the baby boom generation, many women were what people now would regard to be sluts. In generation X, many were what people now would regard to be bitches. Once again, I would rather pick a slut over a bitch any time.

If you are friendly and outgoing, you run the risk of being seen as a slut. If you are not, many people will consider you to be a bitch. Which one, really, is worse?

My former boss once complained to me that he was “getting long in the tooth.” I told him that everyone gets old except the people who die young. I most certainly consider it wrong to worship youth and have contempt for old age. The people who take that stance deny themselves the input of people who have greater wisdom than do they. And that leads them to make various foolish decisions that mostly hurt themselves.

So whom do you want to be with: A woman who is friendly and outgoing and as such experiences lots of temptation? Or a woman who is nasty and mean-spirited and wants to make you her beast of burden and treat you like dirt? In one case, you will be running a risk of unfaithfulness. In the other case, you will be running the risk of being exploited and treated badly. Which one, really, is worse?

We will see various risks of malfeasance with various people. And the question that one needs to pose is, which risk is worse?

So we have had any number of men in history speaking badly of women. That is because they were applying to women impossible standards that no human woman could meet. Women, like men, are people. They are subject to various challenges and temptations. If you expect what you consider to be perfection, then you are going to be disappointed whomever you wind up with. If you are with a friendly and outgoing woman, you will be running the risk of infidelity. If you are with an unfriendly woman, you will be running the risk of being with a nagging wife.

In my situations, the choice is quite clear. I would much rather be with a “slut” than with a “bitch.” I have done lots of work on myself, and one of the things that I got rid of a long time ago was my tendency toward possessiveness. I can put up with marital infidelity; but I would not put up with being treated like dirt or constantly being run down.

I would not dream of dictating to other men what kind of relationships they can have. However it is important that they understand the possible challenges with whomever they choose to partner. A friendly and outgoing woman will be attractive to other men than themselves. A woman who is not friendly or outgoing will in many cases treat them badly.

So men need to go into either situations knowing of the perils that they will be likely to face. And then they can make the choice knowingly and deal with its consequences without becoming misogynistic or worse.

Romanticism And Rage

There are many people who want one to look inside, and that is fine. When I look inside what I find the most is rage over what happened to my people. By “my people” I don't mean the Russians or the Jews. By “my people” I mean the classical liberals and the Romantics. Basically, our women have been treated as punching bags and our men have been treated as criminals. And now, to add even more insult to injury, we have some in feminism accusing our type of misogyny when it is misogyny that our type did the most to fight.

Claim that anger is incompatible with love or enlightenment, I do not care. If you love a woman you will be angry if some idiot doctor kills her through medical malpractice. Expecting anything else is not enlightenment or love, it is foolishness. So I am angry, and for a very legitimate reason. My kind of people has been viciously mistreated from all sides, with eyes – by some – not only toward mistreatment but toward extermination. And I have every reason to be angry about that.

So the same people who take part in these extermination campaigns then go around posturing that they are compassionate or considerate people. They are neither of the above. They are fascists. They have decided that some people are evil and can only be evil whatever they do. This militates against most basic reason – something that these people likewise claim to be their value. Anything capable of choice is capable of rightful choice. Their mentality is irrational, it is cruel and it is wrong. What they have done is perpetrate, under the banner of science, the worst witch hunt in the history of the United States. They have decided, once again, that some people are evil and can only be evil whatever they do, however hard they work and whatever work they do on themselves. And the same people who have been running this horrible witch hunt have been going around pretending to be compassionate people.

One of the most ridiculous things that I have seen from these people is portraying the people who actually have been bullied as bullies, and the people who actually have altruistic values as narcissists or sociopaths. This is beyond wrong. This is precisely wrong. This is presenting things as their opposites. What we find here is a mentality that is not only incorrect but in fact the opposite of what actually is the case. What we find here is a Big Lie; and I for one cannot begin to figure out how such a thing has happened in America of all places.

Regarding America, well. I spent the first 12 years of my life in the former Soviet Union, and these two countries did not get along. I did absorb a lot of anti-American propaganda as a child; but as an adult I've had to figure out who was right and about what, and I ended up agreeing on many things with the Americans. But one thing that I do not agree and will not agree about is the direction that has been taken against romantic-minded people. Romantic-minded women are not “codependents,” and romantic-minded men are not “predators” or “misogynists.” We are simply people who can see lovable qualities in other people and love them rightfully as a result.

Oh wow, it reasons. We thought that it was a brute beast. That you thought that shows just how wrong your thinking is, on this matter and on many others. You think you own reason? But your own mentality is completely irrational. You have decided that some people can only do evil whatever they do, which is probably one of the most irrational claims that have ever been made at any kind of a credible level.

So here I am, addressing all this ugliness that has been dished out, especially against the kind of people I care about. Maybe I should just shut up and enjoy my blessings, which are many; but these are things that need to be said. Most people who need to see this said are very gentle souls, and even if they are strong people – and some of them very much have been – they would not want to do this. At which point an asshole like me stands to come along and do the job for them.

Michelle, Julia, Melanie: This is for you. And I hope that other people who care about the kinds of things that we care about make a rightful use of these arguments.

Truth, Power And Scammers

Once a person made a claim that the reason for seeking truth is seeking power. This is something that a scammer might say. What she was actually saying was that people should be ignorant and be prey to con men and hucksters. And that is not a rightful set of values to have.

What I have found out is that God would not reveal to us everything that He is, or else we will try to be God ourselves. What He would do is reveal to people whatever they need to know in order to do His will for them. Many people would then make the mistake of equating what they have been revealed with the whole of God. And if they persist in their errors, God would reveal something else to someone else in order to correct that error.

So, for example, the Victorians thought that God was about morals, but they forgot about compassion. At one point God appears to have revealed Himself to William Booth, who then started the Salvation Army. The biggest point of that appears to have been that God wanted to show that He was not only a God of righteousness but also a God of compassion.

A similar thing happened with Bill Wilson, the founders of Alcoholics Anonymous. People at that time treated drinkers like trash; and God wanted to give these people back their humanity. So He revealed Himself to Bill Wilson, who started an organization that keeps millions of people sober while also teaching them to be better people.

In 1970s people believed in peace and love; but many of them acted in unrighteous ways. So it appears that God has inspired the Christian Right to remind people that He was not only a God of love but also a God of righteousness.

Once again, I do not anticipate God revealing everything that He is. When people think that they know all of God, they start trying to become God themselves and turn into the likes of Stalin. So He would reveal to select people whatever is necessary for them to do His will. And if they make the mistake of equating what they have been revealed with the whole of God, He will reveal something else to somebody else to correct that error.

Is the interest in truth driven by the interest in power? It can be driven by any number of things, the most important one of these being seeing through the rackets around oneself in order to see things clearly. What one does with that knowledge is up to oneself. What I have done is see through these rackets and communicate the understanding to people who need it. I am not running for political office. I seek to correct wrong things that are there.

Now it may very well be valid that some forms of knowledge be hidden from some people. However in no way is it valid to attack the seeking of truth. Once again, there can be any number of reasons why someone may be a truth-seeker; and while some may very well be driven by power there are any number of others such as myself who are driven by wisdom and by the interest in seeing through lies.

So it is time that virtues be seen as virtues and flaws be seen as flaws. Making people prey to scammers is not a rightful value. Seeing through falsehoods and arriving at actual wisdom is. And it is time that ideologies of scammers be seen for what they are and be replaced with things of actual wisdom and rightfulness.

Getting Poison Out Of One's Mind

A feminist author claimed that I had women issues because of my former wife. No, that is not true. My former wife is a good enough person. I have an attitude because in much earlier age many people saw me as a monster or a psycho, and I have found it very difficult to get their rubbish out of my mind.

Now Christ demands forgiveness; but the issue here is not forgiveness. The issue is how can you remove from your head vile poison that has found its way there and would not go away. One thing I do all the time is refute the source mentalities of the poison. I have done that with things that have been poisoning me, and I have also done that with things that have been poisoning many others.

Of course once you do that you are going to incite the people who have beliefs that one is working to deconstruct. And in some cases not everything that these people believe is incorrect. Most people are right about some things and wrong about others. So it does not work to demonize. It does however work to get rid of things that are untruthful and also things that have been messing with you.

Some of the people who made these kinds of claims did so in the name of feminism; so I fought any number of things in feminism. Others made them in the name of psychology; so I have been throwing into question many theories in psychology. Of course neither feminism nor psychology as such are bad. However if something is really messing with you, you better deconstruct it.

One positive effect of that is helping others who have been wrongfully dealt with by similar things. One negative effect is that of incurring the wrath of people who practice such convictions. My response is that I have the right to get poison out of my head, and if it helps others to get poison out of their heads as well then I have done something good.

So no, this is not about my former wife or about anyone else I have been with. This is about wrongful beliefs to which I have been exposed and which, once again, I have been having a very hard time getting out of my head. I have no ill will toward her or to anyone else I have been with. I want to get rid of wrongful and poisonous ideas – both for my own sake and for that of many others.

Once that is done, I can shut up about such things and focus on doing what I need to do in my own life.

Personality Psychology And Fascism

I have an education in psychology, and much of what I have seen in psychology – especially in personality psychology – has been completely wrong.

According to the definition of the narcissistic personality disorder, the world owes most of what it has to its narcissists. If it is narcissistic to seek great success – or if it is narcissistic to have original ideas – then most of the world's most major contributors – especially in America – have been narcissists. Do not claim that you are supporting your society if you are destroying what made it great or even possible at all.

According to the definition of the sociopathic personality disorder, these people are evil and can only be evil whatever they do. This contradicts the most basic reason. If people are responsible for their actions then anyone can choose to act rightfully; and if some people cannot choose to act rightfully whatever they do then people are not responsible for their actions. This mentality is irrational, it is cruel and it is wrong.

According to the definition of the schizoid disorder, the world owes its moral instruction to schizoids. Many people – and that includes me – have very good reason for believing what they believe. They – and that, once again, includes me – have had many experiences with less than a billionth chance of happening whose only possible explanations are religious. The people who take this stance militate against the instruction of many people much better than themselves. And that makes them the problem.

According to the definition of the borderline disorder, some people are disqualified from having relationships because they had a bad childhood. I can think of no more cruel stance than that. These are the people who need such a thing the most. And the people who want to disqualify them from having such a thing have no business claiming to be compassionate people.

Finally, with histrionic disorder, I do not see why it should be a disorder at all. I see nothing wrong at all with calling attention to yourself, especially if you have something original to say.

So now we are seeing these people fighting what they regard to be bigotry and misogyny. And I am not supporting these people one bit. I owe absolutely nothing to people who choose to treat me like dirt. If you are the strong and independent women that you consider yourselves to be, then go fight alt-right types yourselves and do not depend on someone whom you ridiculously regard to be a misogynist.

When Stalin and Hitler are fighting each other, the correct solution is not to side with either one. It is to let Stalin and Hitler keep fighting each other and not support either villain.

So there was a man who was a boyfriend of a woman I fell in love with, who was saying that I was dangerous. My response to that is that I hope to be dangerous to people like him, and I hope that more people be dangerous to people like him. What we see here is absolute fascism. And fascism has no business existing in countries that claim to be free.

So I will let Stalin and Hitler keep fighting each other. And don't ask for my help. After all, why would you want any help from someone whom you regard to be a misogynist?