Spirituality And Reality

There are many people who think that people with spiritual attitudes are not living in reality. This is wrong – dead wrong. Reality is far more complex than these people consider it to be. There are many things that are real that they do not believe to be real.

If their definition of reality is what can be discerned through physical senses, that is putting the cart before the horse. Senses exist to discern reality and not the other way around. For that matter we do not see ultraviolet or infrared radiation. That does not mean that it is not real.

Many people of similar attitudes believe that the people advocating for telepathy and suchlike are practicing “pseudoscience.” They define it as making extraordinary claims in absense of evidence. What actually happened was that some in-good-faith scientists had spiritual experiences and wanted to prove them. The academia reacted with a gimmick: That an extraordinary claim requires an extraordinary level of proof. This lead them to throw away much valid research. So some of these people left the academia and continued their research elsewhere. And when they came up with their findings and communicated them to the public, the academia fought back, including by claiming their work to be pseudoscience.

Now I see nothing extraordinary at all about something that the majority of humanity believes in. A far more extraordinary – as well as far more arrogant – claim is that the majority of humanity are fools and lunatics, and that the only people who are not fools and lunatics are people who do not believe in such things. So the academia decided to take a dishonest path; the people who had had spiritual experiences then split off to do their research elsewhere; and when that research was communicated, the academia responded by calling it pseudoscience.

One argument that I encountered is that such things happen only to those who believe in them. This is putting the cart before the horse. Most people who believe in such things do so because they have had such experiences. They did not start out believing in them. I for one started out as an atheist. However I have had many experiences with less than a billionth chance of happening whose only possible explanations are spiritual, and I do not care for one moment if me saying this will get me labeled a lunatic. Mental illness is when something exists in your head and nowhere else. When it corresponds with events elsewhere, it is not mental illness. It is reality.

Now I wish I could say that I would like other people to have the kinds of experiences that I have had. However I do not. Many of my experiences are scary. I would not want others to experience some of what I have been experiencing. I would not want others to have some of the concerns that I have. Not all of what is out there is good; and, in my experience, what actually is good is also very demanding.

So people who believe things such as what I've stated above simply have an incomplete view of reality. There is far more to reality than what they believe. And it is of crucial importance for the well-being of the world that such things be noted, as without them people overlook essential information and make very bad mistakes.

Property And Competence

Someone quite close to me once said that people with property were competent, and that people without property were not.

This is wrong. This is dead wrong.

Many teachers, scientists, police and military do not have much property. That does not begin to make them incompetent. The world owes vastly from what these people have to give. And the people who think that they are incompetent are fooling themselves and others.

I used to make quite a bit of money in the software industry. After that crashed, I put in a lot of effort into making contributions to culture. I translated five books of classical Russian poetry. I put a vast effort into addressing various issues facing the world. I am not wealthy, but I have made significant contributions.

Now some people claim that real contributions are rewarded monetarily. Sometimes that is the case, and sometime it is not. Nikola Tesla made vast contributions, but he died in poverty. Thomas Jefferson also made vast contributions, and yet he died deeply in debt.

Sometimes contributions are rewarded in one's lifetimes. Sometimes they are not. Some people strike gold during their lives, and some people make contributions from which others make money. There is – and there always will be – the room for both.Is

The winners-and-losers ethic is completely wrong. It is not about whether you are a winner or a loser; it is about what you contribute. And once again some people will see their contributions rewarded in their lifetime, and some will not.

Is it rightful for people to pursue property? I see no problem at all with people wanting to better their lot; but they should not be doing wrong things in the process. They should not be poisoning the planet. They should not be destroying other ways of life. They should not be making an ideology of consumption to claim coercively that other people must have the same things or else they are losers or worse.

I was born in the former Soviet Union, and while the people around me did not have much money by Western standards they did not have the kind of psychopathology that we see for example in the American ghetto. They weren't wealthy, but they did not feel inferior. And many of them lead a quite fulfilling existence without having a Hummer and a huge house.

I have an education in economics, and I know that capitalist economics produces prosperity. However there are many other valuable things besides prosperity, and it is imporant that people understand such things. I am not driven in this by envy or anything of the sort. I have been wealthy myself. That does not keep me from appreciating what else life has to offer.

Is property the universal measure of competence? No, it is not. There are many valid measures of competence. And it is important that people understand such things so that they are less likely to be either deceived or be robbed of their contributions.

The Errors Of Sam Vaknin

Sam Vaknin has made a name for himself by promoting on the Internet the concept of the narcissistic personality disorder. He is a good writer, and he has interested many people in his view. Having once been on an Internet forum in which he posted, I developed familiarity with some of his views.

One of his views was that Renaissance produced amateurs, and that Romanticism was a malignant 19^th century form of Renaissance. I consider both claims to be incorrect. There was nothing amateurish at all about Michelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci. As for the idea that Romanticism was malignant, that is compeletely wrong. Romanticism championed passion and genius, and it produced some of the greatest works that have ever been produced. And while it is rightful to affirm reason, it is not rightful to affirm bigotry; and this is what we see with many people who take objection to Romantic attitudes.

In his blistering diatribe against the Macedonian academics, he said that inside they were “atavistic poets.” As a poet I take objection to that claim. I for one am not atavistic at all. I am in favor of science and technology. That does not however prevent me from being in favor of passion or in favor of poetry. I see no reason at all why these things should be incompatible with one another. Both add vastly to the civilization. And we vastly benefit from both.

Are there poets who are against science and technology? Yes there are, but once again I am not one of them. Once again, I am in favor of science and technology. That does not keep me from being in favor of poetry and romantic passion as well.

Often people who think in different ways do not get along. Often people who think in ways that they consider to be rational are at loggerheads with people who think in ways that they consider emotional or superstitious. I have come to the conclusion that there is a need for both modalities. And I have been practicing both modalities, allowing me to come up with insight, using both modalities, that neither modality would have accomplished nearly as fast in and of itself.

He talked about what we owe ourselves and what we owe others. On the first count I have this to say: How dare you tell me what I owe myself. As for others, they can speak for themselves. They do not need Dr. Vaknin to do the job for them.

As for his claims about narcissistic people, well. Donald Trump is one. Bill Gates is one. Any number of other major contributors are ones as well. If it is narcissistic to have original ideas – or if it is narcissistic to seek great success – then the world owes vastly to its narcissists. Maybe Hitler was a narcissist; but so have been any number of people who did not kill anyone. The solution with these people is not psychological evisceration. The solution with these people is directing their attentions toward something valuable, at which point they will become a force for good rather than for ill.

Now there have been people claiming that I was a narcissist. However I care about many other people besides myself, and I have proven that repeatedly. I volunteer at the Salvation Army. I put vast intellectual and emotional effort into solving problems of other people. This leaves us with two possibilities: Either that I am not a narcissist or that narcissists are not necessarily bad. And it is much more important for people besides myself to see the latter conclusion.

Mr. Vaknin made many statements against people whom he saw as emotive. But then he subscribed to the ideology that claims that people without what they see as regular human emotions are incurably evil. This is hypocrisy at its worst. Either emotions are good and people without them are evil; or emotions are bad and one should be what Mr. Vaknin claims to be a narcissist.

Now I did not start this battle, but I can finish it. Mr. Vaknin is wrong on any number of accounts, and they contradict with one another. I do not wish him ill, but I will confront wrong beliefs wherever I find them. And we see many wrong beliefs in the writings of Dr. Sam Vaknin.

Christianity And Conscience

Some common claims about Christianity are that it is stupid, that it is nonsense and that people who follow it are brainwashed fools. I used to believe some of these things, but I do not now.

Brainwashing can happen under any ideology. We see brainwashed Communists, brainwashed Muslims, brainwashed feminists. They understand how something is transmitted; they do not understand why it happened in the first place. Why are so many people around the world claiming Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior? It cannot be because they are brainwashed. Many of them believed different other things before they came to Christ.

The early Christians were not brainwashed at all. They were radicals fighting a very powerful and very cruel empire. They were persecuted. They had no selfish reason to believe what they did. Many of them died violent and painful deaths while affirming Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. And yet they ended up outlasting the Roman Empire. This could not be the case if they were brainwashed, and this could not be the case if Christianity is stupid. Something else must be going on.

The Romans were not ignorant. They had advanced knowledge of many things, from engineering to medicine. So why did Christianity outlast the Roman Empire?

Once again, this could not be the case if Chistianity were stupid.

Now there are many people who think that spiritual experience is mental illness. That is wrong. It is mental illness if it exists in your head and nowhere else. It is not mental illness if someone can walk on water or turn water into wine. It is not mental illness if it corresponds with events outside of your own head. Sometimes I wish that the experiences that I had were mental illness, as some of them are quite scary. However I do not have the luxury of such beliefs.

One claim in favor of Christ has been that he died for us. There have of course been many people who died for what they loved or for what they believed in. Spartacus died on the cross as well – for doing the right thing rather than the wrong thing. The difference is that Jesus did not just die on the cross. He also extends loving and generous guidance to people who seek Him. He did not just die for us. He is also helping us and teaching us how to live.

How does Jesus save us? Jesus saves us by delivering us from our sins and teaching us rightful thought and rightful behavior. Jesus saves us by showing us what is the rightful way to be. And then we use our own choice and our own action to do the right thing, however we may have behaved in the past.

When I was younger I was a troublemaker. Many people thought that the problem was with my psychology or with my personality. They were wrong. The problem was with the beliefs that I had. I was at that time a nihilist. Coming from the former Soviet Union, I once had a very strong conscience that was constituted of Communism. When I came to America, it got deconstructed, so I was left without a conscience; and people without a conscience do wrong things. I have found a much better conscience in Christ. So now I hold myself to a much higher standard of conduct. And I am completely convinced that anyone – including people whom some call “sociopaths,” “narcissists” or “perverts” - are capable of making the same choice.

Christianity is not stupid or anything close to being stupid. There is nothing at all stupid about Jesus. There is nothing at all stupid about Paul or Augustine. And if this can be conveyed to someone like me, who for a long time have been a militant atheist, then it also can be conveyed to everyone else.

Vindicating The Obsessives

According to some people, one of the worst things that a person can be is an obsessive. In fact there are many tasks that require obsessive focus, and being of an obsessive temperament can be an advantage in a number of pursuits.

If you are a researcher, being obsessive helps. If you are a priest or a teacher, being passionate helps. Some fields very much require obsessive approach; and the people who think that people with such temperaments are necessarily bad are wrong.

Now there are any number of people who do not want obsessive attention directed at them. That is fine; it can be directed at other things. The people with such temperaments should be steered toward pursuits that require obsessive focus. And of these there are many.

If someone can feel passionate about a person to the point of being obsessive about them, then he can do the same thing in other pursuits. He can become equally focused on God, or on a cause, or on a research project. There are many in psychology who think that such people are incurably sick; but all that this means is that they have no idea how to deal with them. Basically they do not know what they are doing. They do not know how to help such people. It does not mean that nobody can.

The solution with the obsessive types is to direct their obsessive attention toward pursuits that are viable. Direct them at God. Direct them at causes. Direct them at projects that require obsessive focus. Give them something to focus upon that they can feel passionately about and pursue relentlessly. The result will not only be these people doing something productive rather than annoying. It will be the world benefiting vastly from what they have to give.

Do You Really Dislike Others For Your Own Traits?

I have a good friend name Jeannie. She is a wonderful woman with a huge heart. Her father married a woman who was selfish and exploitative, and she did not like that woman. Then she attempted to make amends with her, and as she did she told me something to the effect of that people don't like other people for the traits that they reject in themselves.

No, this is wrong. This is completely wrong. People like others for traits that they like, whether or not they have the same traits, and they dislike others for traits that they dislike, whether or not they have the same traits. Sure, Hitler and Stalin, who were enemies, had many things in common with one another. But most American soldiers who hated Hitler did not have many qualities in common with him.

A similar claim is the Buddhist “law of attraction” - that like attracts like. Likewise wrong. People attract different things and for different reasons. Sometimes they attract people who are like themselves; sometimes they attract people who are not like themselves at all. The same person can attract terrible people and wonderful people within less than a month of one another. This would not be the case if the like attracts the like.

I have attracted both positive and negative attention from many people. Some of these people were like one another, and some were not. I have attracted the positive attention of a number of wonderful people. I have attracted the negative attention of a number of other people. I do not see much of a common thread that runs through both. Even among the people who hated me I have ended up seeing good traits. However they were in no way like the women whom I have loved.

Certainly there are times when people hate others for traits in themselves that they reject. But they may also hate others for traits that they have that they do not have at all. Jeannie is in no way like that woman. She is kind, ethical and compassionate. She had every right to dislike the woman who played her father for a fool, and it had nothing to do with her own traits. She never played anyone for a fool, and she never took advantage of anyone.

So it is important that this be clarified. Once again, sometimes people hate others for traits that they reject in themselves; sometimes they hate other for traits that they do not have at all. It is not about self-reflection or anything of the sort. It is about what you value as opposed to what you do not value. And this is the case, once again, whether or not you have the same traits yourself.

Obsessiveness And God

I had a friend named Linda who, after traveling many interesting paths, came to Christ. Sometimes people would ask her why she had such an obsessive personality, and she believed that the reason for this is that this is what God wants.

I think that she may have been putting the cart before the horse. She had an obsessive personality before she became a Christian. However the idea that God wants obsessive focus is correct.

Now there are many people who think that it is wrong to be obsessive. However, as any researcher would tell you, some tasks require an obsessive focus. I have been obsessive for as long as I can remember. I had many different obsessions. My current obsession is with God. I go to church a lot, I volunteer at a Salvation Army church, and I fellowship with several Christians.

I have heard a priest say something to the effect that you can be hot for Jesus or you can be cold for Jesus, but you cannot be lukewarm for Jesus. God wants our full attention. It says in the Bible that God hates divided loyalties, and in another part of the Bible it says that you cannot serve God and mammon at the same time. Now as a father I most certainly need to make mammon. However I am willing to do so in a way that is pleasing to God. As it says in the Bible, seek ye God's righteousness first and all else will follow.

Now psychology takes a completely different view of the matter. They think that it is healthy to believe in God, but not healthy to believe in God intensely. This is in contradiction to the Bible. The Biblical God demands an intense focus. Anything else is divided loyalties.

I have an education in psychology, and I have interacted with many psychologists. Some know what they are doing and some do not. But one thing that I have found interesting is that any number of atheists have become believers in God after seeing psychologists. It appears that this is the influence of Dr. Scott Peck. He was a protestant who was a psychologist, and his influence has been a big one. Another influence that I suspect in this matter is Alcoholics Anonymous, whose founder had a religious experience and who demand that people believe in something.

One thing in which religion is vastly superior than psychology is on the matter of “sociopaths” and “narcissists.” While psychology damns these people and thinks that they can never be good, religion offers all sinners a path to redemption. As for the people of obsessive temperament, religion really is the solution. They can fixate on God and His righteousness; and as a result of that they can become righteous themselves and be a force to cultivate righteousness in others.

In India, there was a poet who was passionately in love with his wife. His wife told him that if he focused on God in the same way, he would become enlightened. The result has been a path called Bhakti Yoga. The people focus on God in love, and they become gifted with enlightenment.

So it appears valid that people with obsessive tendencies should in fact focus on God. And as they put their minds and their heart to Him completely, they would become fully people of God and be a powerful force for God in the world.

Poetry And The Bible

My two favorite Biblical figures are David and Solomon. The reason is that both were excellent poets; and Solomon was also a brilliant thinker.

Now there is something quite fishy about how Solomon was conceived. David took the wife of one of his soldiers and sent him to die in war, which is of course not a rightful course of action at all. However if he had not done that Solomon would not have been born; and we would not have the Proverbs, the Song of Songs and the golden age of Israel.

So there are some people who think that I did the wrong thing by marrying my wife when she was at the time with another person. I have several things to say on the subject. First, they were not even married. Secondly, she had been trying to leave that person for a long time before I had anything to do with the matter. And finally, their relationship was a complete rip-off for her. She was doing many things for that man; he wasn't doing much besides beating up on her and the kids. And finally, if I had not married her, Lilian would not have been born.

I did not kill that man or send him to die in war. Far from it. I honored his parental authority over their son, and I advocated for fatherhood to my former wife. The last stance did a lot to destroy my relationship with her. So now she is with another man. I am not attacking their relationship. Instead I've maintained a good relationship with her, and my daughter benefits from the attention of two loving and attentive parents.

I want this to be an example for other people. I want to show, by example, that you do not need to become an enemy of a woman if she leaves you. I want to show, by example, that there are much better things than domestic violence. And I want to show, by example, that love can survive even when a relationship ends.

Neither David nor Solomon lived what would be known now as the traditional lifestyle. They both had any number of wives, and Solomon also had many concubines. However both have been major contributors to the Bible; and both have done a lot for Israel.

Now I would consider it blasphemy to attempt to compare myself to Jesus. However it is not blasphemy to compare myself to David; and there are many things about David to which I can relate. His family thought nothing of him; but he wrote the Psalms and became the best king that Israel had. He did commit a sin regarding Uriah the Hittite. However he also did many much better things.

So we have many people attacking Bill Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinski. However Clinton did a lot more good than he did harm. Under him American economy added 23 million private sector jobs; and he was the only president in recent history to have done anything effective about the deficit.

So both King David and King Solomon were excellent poets. And while many these days do not have value for poetry, the best parts of the Bible are poetry. I want to see poetry resurrected. And one way in which this can be done is to remind people of the Psalms and the Song of Songs.

Loving Yourself And Loving Others: What Comes First?

I have heard many people say that unless you love yourself you cannot love another. This is completely wrong. In fact it works in the opposite direction. You love another for the traits that you find lovable, whether or not you have the same traits yourself. Then you can see which traits are lovable; then you know what you need to work on within yourself; then you love yourself.

When I was 19 I had a short but very passionate relationship with a woman named Michelle. I was very much in love with her. She was kind, warm, brilliant and compassionate. I was no such thing at that time in my life. But from knowing her I have seen what such traits look like. So I have been working to develop the same traits, and the more I do so the more I love myself.

Ayn Rand said that “before you can say I love you you must first say the I.” No, that is wrong. Once again, you love the next person for the traits that you find lovable, even if you do not have the same traits yourself. And, once again, seeing these traits expressed successfully in another person, you know what traits you need to develop yourself in order to be lovable in your own eyes.

I do not understand why this argument has not been made at a visible level. I have seen many people fall for this nonsense, and not all of these people are dumb. If nobody else is going to make this argument, then I will.

No, you do not start by loving yourself. You start by seeing the traits that you find lovable expressed in another. And then you need to make whatever changes you need to make in yourself in order to be lovable in your own eyes.

Loving Self Vs. Loving God

My mother once told me that it all starts with loving yourself. This is wrong – dead wrong. It all starts with loving God. Then God improves you; then there is more about yourself to love.

I have known a person who said that unless you have a high self-esteem you have nothing to offer other people. I have known a guru who told me that altruism is based on being three years old and your whole existence being based on the actions of people around you. I have known a naturally altruistic woman who said, following this kind of an indoctrination, that unless she could live for herself she could not live. She ended up dying at age 25. She was brilliant. She was compassionate. She was wise. And yet she ended up dying at an extremely early age because of what she was faced with.

So I have had a woman tell me that before you can be a good and compassionate person you had to work through your “emotional psychotic bullshit.” According to this code, there could not have been good people before the existence of therapy; and of course there have been many good people before existence of therapy. These attitudes are wrong in every possible way. And it is unconscionable that a great country could have fallen for such beliefs.

Now many people who have these convictions are of the belief that they are good people and that others are “sociopaths” and “narcissists.” In fact their beliefs are more cruel than anything that we see from the preceeding. I have once known a woman with psychology education saying on the Internet that some people will make it psychologically and that some will not. Her attitude was more cruel than anything that we see from “sociopaths” and “narcissists.”

For the most of recorded history, self-love was not encouraged and most certainly it was not coerced. In the country where I come from, people were taught to sacrifice for the greater good. When I came to America with the same values, I was called a commie and I was called an egomaniac. Then these people decided that I was selfish and that they were not. This is beyond ridiculous.

Should self-esteem and things of the sort be encouraged? Even if they are encouraged, they most certainly should not be coerced. I have come to the conclusion that self-esteem does not make people better; it makes them worse. If you have high standards for yourself, you will find it harder to feel good about yourself than if you have low standards for yourself. The person with lower standards will have a higher self-esteem; the person with higher standards will be a better person.

So I have taken a break from the attitudes of people such as my mother. I am not starting by loving myself. I am starting by loving God. And I expect God to improve me in any number of ways, so that there will be more about myself to love.

Baby Boomer Parents And Meaning

There are many people who want different things. Some want a big house and a fast car; some want sex and love; some want family; some want comfort. I have had many different good things in my life, but what interests me the most is meaning. I want my life to be a meaningful one. And I have found meaning in God.

Many of the baby boomer parents have found inscrutable why their children have gone to religion. They were of the opinion that they were perfect parents. The correct answer to that is that it is not about what kind of a parent you are. People want meaning; people will want meaning. And it is completely rightful that they go to religion for such a thing.

Once again, it is not about what kind of a parent you are. It is about what people seek. People will seek meaning, and they should seek meaning. And such is not found in many of the beliefs of the baby boomers.

So we have all sorts of nonsense about “winners and losers” or “self-esteem” or “adequacy” or other things of the sort. I refuse to live according to such beliefs. They are cruel. They are abusive. They are wrong. And if you think that this is “reality,” the correct answer is that it is not such thing. You have not created the Sun. You have not created the planet on which you live. You have not created your country. It is ridiculous to think that such things are “reality.” They are no such thing. They are an adaptation. Now an adaptation is certainly real. But it completely wrong to call it reality or see anyone who is not a part of it as not living in reality.

Are we animals or evolving matter? I have many reasons to say that we are not. I have had many experiences with less than a billionth chance of happening whose only possible explanations are religious ones; and so have many others. Now the academia has taken a dishonest stance on this matter claiming such things as that “extraordinary claims require an extraordinary level of proof.” I see nothing at all extraordinary about something that the bulk of humanity believes in. A far more extraordinary – and far more narcissistic - claim is that the bulk of humanity are fools and lunatics, and that the only people who are not are people who have no religious beliefs.

So I have found meaning to my life in a number of places. They include contributing to culture and thought; but more importantly they include God. I seek to do what I need for God, and I seek to do what I need to do for civilization. And that is a much fuller perspective than that of the Muslim lady or of the people who think in terms of “winners and losers,” “self-esteem” or “adequacy.”

Responsibility And "Narcissism"

I once was seeing a counselor named Nancy. Nancy's message to me was that I needed to take responsibility for my life but that I could not be “grandiose.” What she did not understand was that, for me, “grandiose” goals are realistic. I was a child prodigy, and I finished University of Virginia when I was 18.

Now there have been some people portraying me as a bum; but I have not been bumming around. During the 1990s tech boom, I produced software that, to the best of my knowledge, is still being used. I have translated five books of classical Russian poetry (https://sites.google.com/site/ibshambat) and a bunch of Russian popular songs (https://sites.google.com/site/ibshambat/russian-songs) into English. And I have contributed original and interesting thought (https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought) on a range of subjects.

Now we have a lot of talk about “narcissism”; but according to the definition of the narcisstic personality disorder the world owes a lot 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 major contributors have been narcissists. This is especially the case with America. If there is such a thing as narcissism, then Rockefeller, Gates, Trump and any number of others have been narcissists. And if it is narcissistic to object to social authority, then the same would apply to the ancestors of all white people in the “New World,” who left their countries, their homes and their ways of life in order to seek freedom elsewhere. Do not claim that you are protecting your society if you are destroying what made it great – or even possible at all.

Is it wrong to be “grandiose”? While there are many people who would be better off with a humble role, there are others for whom such things are realistic. I do not seek to rule anyone, and I do not seek to kill anyone. I seek to contribute; and I have contributed in many different ways.

Does that mean that one should be – cruel, selfish, shallow? Absolutely not. It means that one should give what one has to give. Now there are any number of people who tried to convince me that what I was doing was useless; but it has been far from useless. My translations are being used in dissertations. As for my thought, it has applications in a number of pursuits, including ones as important as economics and politics.

So it is important that attitudes such as Nancy's be challenged. In my case she was simply wrong. Such people are also wrong in any number of other cases. My former wife, who was the youngest person at her time to have had her art exhibited at a major art exhibit in Melbourne, got attacked a lot for being an artist. However she has done some significant things – including a heroic thing that has cost her much danger and financial loss – for her country. She ended up contributing far more than the people who thought that they were “winners” and that she was a slut. She has done something heroic. And I have seen psychologists discourage people from striving for the heroic, when without heroism on the part of some people their country would not exist.

So then some of these people also advocate “positive thinking.” “Positive thinking” causes more problems than it solves. If you think positive, you fail to anticipate problems and you do foolish things. Being “positive” can make you attractive to other people. It will not however solve the world's problems. However positive you are, if you flood the atmosphere with carbon dioxide while cutting down the trees that absorb carbon dioxide, you will have problems. The “negative thinkers” have not caused these problems. The people who think in foolish ways have.

As for responsibility, I would not take talk of such a thing from people who've left the world a worse place than they have found. I would take talk of such a thing from people who are actually responsible. Responsibility is not correctly defined as having a huge house and a Hummer. Responsibility is correctly defined as leaving the world a better place than you have found it. And if all that is advocated is what these people see as responsibility, then we have problems.

It took me a lot of mental effort to deconstruct this person's garbage. I do not know about others, but in my case the wrong things that people say stick in my head until I refute them. I have done that with a number of things, and I hope that my efforts toward that effect also help others. We see many people with psychological skill pushing completely wrongful attitudes. And it takes someone who also has similar skills to deconstruct them and free people from their trash.

Troubled Families And Government Care

For a long time I was anti-family. I come from a troubled background, and for a long time I wanted nothing to do with family at all. Then I had a family of my own, and I realized how stupid I had been. My daughter is the best thing that ever happened to me. She loves me very much, and I love her.

Now there are some who believe that family is sacrosanct. There are others to whom family is a dirty word. I have known a brilliant physicist and astrologer named Robert. He was in favor of love, but he was against family. I am now in favor of both.

It took me the efforts of many people to come to this point. It is not an easy thing at all to get someone as rigidly set in my ways as I had been to see reason. I am now grateful for the efforts of these people, even though at the time I had not been.

What is my view of family? Simply that it is as good as the people who are a part of it. Same is the case with anything human, including things such as business and government. I have been blessed with a wonderful child who has always been a sweetheart. But then of course there are many people who get bad kids, and there are many people who are bad themselves and treat their children badly.

Now one project of some in Far Left has been to do away with family. I've known a woman whose mother attempted to kill her when she was 13. She ran, and she wound up in government care. Her view of government care was not good. They had no love for her, and they treated her and others there badly. She ended up saying that she would rather have put up with her mother and her crazy stuff instead of going through what she had gone through.

So we are seeing some in conservatives saying that, according to liberal policies, government is going to be raising many of the children. That is certainly undesirable. Even if the parent is a bad person, children love them and care for them. I have known people who were raised with abusive parents, and I have known people whose parents left them. The children raised in abusive situations both love and hate their parents. The children whose parents left them hate them, period.

Is family something that deserves to be honored? Yes, it is. It is however not something that should be deified. Anything human is capable of being good and bad. There most certainly need to be laws – and credible enforcement of laws – in place to prevent some of the situations that I have known, such as when a person kills his child, rapes his child since he was 3 or breaks every bone in the child's body. However that does not mean that families should be broken up or that children wind up in government care.

Some things should be illegal. There needs to be a real-world reason for parents to treat their children rightfully. However it is not right at all to break up families, especially for minor reasons, such as minor violence or verbal abuse. My former wife's boyfriend before me did wrong things to his son, but I ended up concluding that they were not grave enough to disqualify him from being a parent. That as opposed to the father of her daughter before him, who did things that were grave enough. So that while, as is typical in such situations, I and her former boyfriend do not get along, I never attempted to replace him as a father, and I never attempted to keep him from being the boy's father or from having a meaningful relationship with the boy. This stance did a lot to destroy my relationship with my former wife. However I believe that this stance is the rightful one.

Now many people who end up working for such things as government care start out with idealistic considerations. But many of them end up quite nasty. According to the person I listed, they treat the children as criminals even though they have not committed any crime. And these children, having had it drilled into their heads that they are trash, do in fact become criminals.

So I believe that family really is something that should be respected. However once again it is not something that should be deified. Nothing human deserves to be deified. It is composed of sinful people. We see this with things such as business and government; we also see this with family.

Do not break apart families, even in case where there is abuse. Instead punish the people who do genuinely bad things with significant prison terms so that people know that a crime behind closed doors is still a crime. Domestic violence is a crime – rightfully. So are such things as incest. But do not deny children the attention of loving parents. And do not let significant numbers of children be raised by people who do not care about them and see and treat them like trash.

Bunnies, Turtles And Wolves In Sheep's Clothing

One common metaphor is that of the turtle and the bunny. The bunny has faster legs; but the turtle overtakes the bunny through consistent determined effort.

What does the bunny do when this happens? In many cases, I have seen the bunnies copying the turtles. We see women copying men. We see Asian, Hindu and black people copying the white man. In many cases these people become successful. And in many cases, we see them lose their best qualities.

We see this for example with the Brazilian soccer team. For a long time they had the flair but not the discipline. They would play scintillating soccer, but they would lose. So then they had a coach who decided to get to the root of the problem. Under him the Brazilians would play boring soccer, but they would win. In the last World Cup they had neither the dicipline nor the flair; and they played boring soccer and went down in flaming defeat.

We have seen similar things with feminist-minded women. They started to act like men. Many of them did in fact become professionally successful; but they lost their best qualities. I do not want to be with a man. If I wanted to be with a man, I'd be gay. I want to be with a woman. And I have in fact been with some amazing women, most of whom experienced attack from feminists for being the way they were.

This process has lead to a widespread use of the term “wolf in sheep's clothing.” A wolf in sheep's clothing is a bad person who pretends to be a good person. In this situation, the wolves have copied the sheep. They have learned to act like the sheep in order to fool the sheep. We see salesmen pretending to be nice people while wanting your money. We see players pretending to be nice people in order to get you trapped in a bad situation. Here, the wolves have learned from the sheep and have been using the sheep facade to prey on the sheep.

Now there have been people portraying me as a wolf in sheep's clothing; however I have proven by my behavior again and again that I am no such thing. First of all I am not interested in sheep. I like gazelles – artistic women. Secondly I am not interested in preying on anyone. In my relationships I have been giving, and even though my former wife is now with another man I remain good to her. What we see here is stereotypes that are correct for some people being used wrongfully. I am not a sheep and I am not a wolf.

One thing that happens of course when another species learn turtles' tricks is the turtles crying bloody murder. We have many people howling for example about the Jews. They are being accused of such things as being greedy. I consider it funny when people who think that “money talks bullshit walks” or that unless you are a multi-millionaire you're a loser claiming such things. They are being accused of being brutal. I consider it funny when people who think that unless you are strong and cruel you're a coward saying such things. They are being accused of being manipulative and dishonest. Once again, I consider it funny when people whose ancestors have fooled much of the world and broke numerous treaties saying such things. There were many brainy idealistic types who worked very hard at being scientists and teachers, only to see science get defunded, educational system get gutted and people who were a part of these systems portrayed as losers. So any number of them went into business or technology; and the same people who claimed them to be losers are now howling that they are taking over.

Should bunnies learn the ways of the turtles? Yes. But they should not stop being bunnies in the process. I do not want to see a world full of turtles. I like bunnies and any number of other species. I want to see richness and variety of life. So by all means learn the ways of the turtles. But do not stop in the process being what you are.

Thinking And Feeling: Mutual Virtue Or Mutual Sin

There are many people who take a negative view of feelings. To such people the question to ask is, Why are the feelings there at all?

If we have evolved, then feelings and thinking alike have evolved for the benefit of the species. If we have been created, then both are there by divine design. And if our nature is fallen and corrupted by the sin of Adam, then that extends to feelings and thinking alike.

In either case the two are equal – either in mutual virtue or in mutual sin. So for example we see Luther saying that reason is a whore.

Both feeling and thinking can go right, and both can go wrong. Feeling is capable of nurturing life, forming loving relationships and producing excellent art, priestry and literature; it is also capable of doing many stupid things. Thinking is capable of producing science and technology; it is also capable of coming up with things such as Marxism and logical positivism. In either case, we see something that can go right and something that can go wrong.

With two capacities that are capable of going either right or wrong, the correct solution is not to side fully with either capacity. It is to have a strong use of both capacities. That way both check one another where they are going wrong; and both can come together to produce something that neither is capable of producing by itself.

To people who think that feelings are a “lower function” or anything of the sort, the scariest thing in the world is a feeling-oriented person with a brain. So their solution is to demonize such people. Keep making cases that they are evil. In fact it is these people who come up with the most insightful observations. That is because, once again, they have use of two capacities rather than one, and the two can come together to achieve what neither can accomplish by itself. This is a model that I've articulated for other matters: Synthesis within the framework of check and balance. Let feeling and thinking form check and balance upon one another in their capacity for wrongdoing; and let the two synthesize with one another to accomplish what neither can accomplish by itself.

So the correct solution is to encourage both thinking and feeling. Train children in both sciences and arts. And arrive at more full, more integrated, people, who have use of two capacities that can work together to accomplish what neither can accomplish by itself.

Insecurity And Domestic Violence

Once there lived a great man named Julius Nyerere. He was the president of Tanzania; and while most other African leaders were spending their time in office conducting civil wars or enriching themselves at the expense of their people, Nyerere worked hard to create the most peaceful, stable and socially responsible country in Africa.

Nyerere had a son who was nothing like him. He was an asshole. Julius Nyerere's son married a woman named Leticia, who was running a printing press in Tanzania. Leticia was beautiful and intelligent. She came from the country, and she got higher education in the former Soviet Union. The man however was violent and abusive. So Leticia was finally able to flee with her children to the United States, where she worked as an accountant. Leticia and I became good friends, and at her request I wrote her biography in poetry. Then she went back to Tanzania, where she became a member of the parliament. Eventually she died at a young age from causes I do not know.

Julius Nyerere liked Leticia, and he told her that his son was insecure. Now many people blame men's insecurity for things such as domestic violence; however I do not believe that cause to be correct. I do not consider myself an especially secure person, but I was never violent to women in my life. So I do not see Julius Nyerere's explanation for his son's behavior as valid.

Instead it appears to be an issue of ethics rather than psychology. Some people think that they are justified in beating their wives. My former wife's father is a successful businessman and does not have reasons for being insecure; however he used to beat her mother and told her boyfriend that it was OK to hit her. I find that behavior to be despicable. This is not the right way to treat one's daughter.

Now some people in America have seized on that and been attacking people whom they regarded to be losers or insecure. As if those men weren't suffering enough already. Meanwhile they have been going for people such as Rob Porter, who most definitely is not a loser. And from these men these women learned what actual reasons there are for domestic violence.

I used to be with a magnificent artist named Julia. Her former husband was a millionaire, but he was severely violent toward her. Once again, this is not a loser, a sociopath or anything of the sort. This is a man who has bad values.

This goes on and on. Some people decide that it's the people who have been bullied in school or at home that are the problem. They call them such things as sociopaths and narcissists. Meanwhile they have created an unbelievably cruel culture in which they portray anyone who is not like them as losers and freaks. This is beyond hypocrisy. This is people believing a Big Lie. Their entire perceptions are completely wrong. Not only that, they are precisely wrong. Precisely the wrong people get rewarded, and precisely the wrong people get attacked.

So we are seeing here a precise inversion of reality. We are seeing here reward for precisely the wrong people and attack against precisely the wrong people. I took a strong stance against domestic violence – at huge emotional expense to myself - since I was 3; but these people have accused me of being a misogynist. Once again, this is beyond hypocrisy.

Why would Rob Porter or Julius Nyerere's son or Julia's ex-husband not be confronted on their wrongful behavior, while all sorts of innocent men are mistreated? Probably the people who have these beliefs do not have the guts. It is much easier to take it out on young men nearest the liberal centers of learning and culture who are the least misogynistic men out there than confront real abusers. And so we are seeing these self-proclaimed feminists be vicious to all sorts of innocent men while submitting to real abusers.

Is the reason for these men's behavior insecurity? No, it is bad ethics. Even an insecure man is capable of self-control. And the solution is not to attack the men whom they regard to be insecure, but to have the courage and will to confront real abusers, however powerful they may be.

Romantic Love And Family Values

A common situation that keeps cropping up is that of people falling in love with people whose families are hostile to theirs.

One semi-solution to this has been found in Romeo and Juliet. I regard Romeo and Juliet to not just be a play about romantic love, but rather a metaphor for Europe’s transformation from feudalism to civilization. Through the lovers’ sacrifice the families realize the pointlessness of their feud and come together to work on building a civilization. This happened during Renaissance; and the result has been a continent turning from one of the worst places in the world to the lasting centrepiece of a great civilization – a great civilization that continues to dominate the world to this day.

Another semi-solution has been found in Huckleberry Finn. The feuding families kill one another off, while the lovers swim the river to build a life for themselves. This thinking has been a major influence in American art and American thought, and it continues to influence many people around the world to this day.

The problem with the first arrangement is that the lovers get sacrificed. The problem with the second arrangement – besides the families killing each other off – is that it results in rootlessness, in which the partners are disconnected from the people from whom they have come. When there are problems in the relationship, there is nobody to support them. Often the love turns bad, and people have nowhere to turn to. Meanwhile the parents lose touch with the children whom they have raised. So we see many very unhappy people.

I propose a better solution than either of the above. I propose a solution that benefits both the lovers and their families. The solution that I propose is for partners to get together and bring their families together, so that both the love and the family can persist.

I have seen this done successfully – for example by my former wife and her new husband. But also from her example I have seen a situation in which her former boyfriend’s mother poisoned him against her and brought her to treat her like dirt, however hard she was working on the relationship and however much she was doing for him, which was a great deal. Sometimes families’ influence can get poisonous. Sometimes also the lover’s influence can be poisonous against the family, as when a partner convinces the other partner that their family are trash. However when this works, this works wonders. And it does not only work wonders for the lovers. It works wonders for the civilization. It creates genuine, lasting peace in which both family love and romantic love can triumph. And this, I regard as the full solution.

I expect such situations to keep cropping up. I do not expect human nature to change, and I do not expect people to cease having either family relationships or romantic attractions. So this is the solution that I propose. Let lovers get together and bring their families together.

Allow both family love and romantic love to triumph.

And, by doing this on a large scale, do much to help create real peace.

The 1960s ideal of peace and love has been largely discredited. But here is a practical way in which this ideal can actually be achieved. Allow romantic love to persist, while also maintaining family relationships. Bring families together so that they can coexist peacefully. Allow both romantic love and family values. And thus create a wholesome and beautiful life.

I am not saying that this would be easy. I have listed some of the possible problems. However it is a valid thing to strive for. And I hope that many people around the world take this path.

Respecting Parents And Teachers

One commandment in the Bible is to honor your father and mother. I would like to clarify what it means to honor your father and mother.

It is to have their best interests in mind and respect them as people, without necessarily agreeing with things that they believe that they are wrong.

When I was a child, I had a terrible relationship with my father. As an adult, after having dealt with the world, I came to appreciate and respect him. He put a vast effort into building a good relationship with me, and I respect these efforts. And coming from that perspective, it has become possible for me to correct the wrongful ideas that he had without being nasty or vicious about it.

Now most people will have something right with them and something wrong with them. The correct meaning of loving one's neighbor is not agreeing with everything that they do, but rather seeking their best while correcting what they are doing that are wrong. And we will find plenty of that in just about everyone.

So the solution that I believe God has inspired in me has been to do the full set. It is to love one's parents and seek their best while correcting them where they are wrong. For a long time my father thought that my interest in poetry and poetry translation was useless; but I have been able to show him that it was not useless at all. My translations of Russian poetry are being read all around the Internet and being used in dissertations.

Sometimes it also is beneficial to advocate for one's actual influences. One of my influences in this has been a teacher of mine named Hughlings Himwich, who was featured at one point on the cover page of USA Today. He wanted me to translate Russian poetry into English. I did that, extensively. If someone thinks that my interest in poetry is driven by narcissism or anything of the sort, it is far more rightful to point out my actual influences.

Often the parents and the teachers are at loggerheads with each other. Many parents think that what the teachers are teaching their children is wrong. Many Christian parents think that it is wrong that their children are taught evolution. Many business-oriented parents think that it is wrong that their children are taught things that they regard to be impractical. Many traditional parents think that it is wrong that their children are taught feminism or political correctness. I want to solve this problem. I want to fix this rift. I want to see teachers and parents get along. And I especially want to see the children get the best from both their parents and their teachers.

I wish the best for both my parents and my teachers. I want to reconcile this situation and see similar kinds of situations reconciled everywhere else. I want to see the children get the best from both their parents and their teachers. I am willing to honor my parents, and I will advise others to do so. But I will also look at ways in which they can correct whatever their parents believe that is wrong.

Anyone – parent, teacher, child, what have you – is capable of thinking and doing wrong things. The correct solution is not to disrespect either but to correct their errors while keeping their best interests in mind. And I sincerely hope that many other people do the same thing, whoever have been their parents and whoever have been their teachers.

Confucianism And Communism

One main tenet of Conficianism is that the son should do what the father does. This is completely wrong. Where would we be if Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson or Henry Ford did what their fathers did?

Marxism was credible in China. It was credible in China because Conficianism created a rigidly stratified society in which people were born into classes; and the idea that one class was exploiting the other was credible. It was also credible in India, which had a similar system with the castes. Marxism was not credible in America, and the charge against it was not lead by the “elites” but by the regular people. That is because in America we do not have this kind of stratification, and people can rise as high – or fall as low – as their efforts would take them.

We see some people seeking to re-create similar conditions in the West. We see this especially with the Jehovah's Witnesses. And what I say to these people is this. They did not do what their parents did. They joined Jehovah's Witnesses, of which their parents were not a part. This means that they do not have the logical prerogative to demand such things of their children.

Now it is completely valid to see what you do as being important. It is not at all valid to see what others do as not important. I have seen among doctors, engineers and the military among others the attitude that only what they do matters and that nothing else does. This attitude is wrong. There are many different things that need to be done, and there are many important pursuits. Once again, it is valid to see what you do as important. It is not valid to see what others do as not important. What an engineer does is important; but so is what the farmer or the salesman or the businessman does. And of course it is the artists who get claimed the most as doing the least of value; yet the Western civilization derives a vast bulk of its pride from Shakespeare, Michelangelo and Mozart.

The people who want to re-create conditions such as those of Confucianism will be re-creating conditions preceding the rise of Marxism. This means that they will be re-creating conditions that lead to the rise of Marxism, and they will be slammed with something like Marxism, yet again. Some people just don't learn their lesson. We see people wanting to take things back to 1950s, which means that they will be re-creating conditions that lead to 1960s, and they will be slammed with something like 1960s, yet again. Same is the case with people who want to take things back to the way they were before there was a labor movement. Don't these people ever learn?

Now there are many valuable things that have come out of China. But that is not due to Conficianism. That is due to the fact that here is a vast country with many hard-working and disciplined people. If they had practiced Christianity instead of Confucianism, they would have gone even farther than they have gone. The Chinese have learned a lot from the West, and they have rightfully applied the workable methodologies such as science and business. So now China is again rising, and it well should.

But one thing that happens when countries rise is that they empower wrongful ideas within them. When Muslims learn technology, they use it to fly airplanes into skyscrapers. The Hindus and the Chinese have done a lot to influence Western society. Some of these influences – such as yoga and meditation – are valid. Others, such as Confucianism, are not.

Now many people in the West have not taken seriously the threat that is posed by things such as Confucianism. I want to help them to see that threat. Once again, if the son did what the father does, then most of what we have in the Western civilization would not have existed. Most of our major contributors did not do what their fathers did. They did their own thing. And if they had done what their fathers had done, then these contributions would not have happened. We would not have Newton's laws. We would not have American democracy. We would not have our industrial might.

The liberal-minded cultures in the West have embraced political correctness, in which they have abetted these wrongful attitudes. And it is oddly now the conservatives who are doing the most to preserve our cherished freedoms. I want to see the Left get its head out of its ass and see what is happening. Confucianism is wrong. The caste system is wrong. A son should not do what his father does; the son should do what he is himself good at. And it is completely wrong for people claiming allegiance to liberalism to adopt such attitudes.

In places with systems such as Confucianism, once again, Marxism is credible. In places where there is no such stratification, it is not. The best way to prevent things like Marxism from happening is to prevent social stratification, and to allow people the freedom to do their own thing whatever their parents had done. So if you want to prevent Communism, prevent social stratification. And if you want to preserve liberty, then protect the liberty for people to make their own choices in life.

I think that this is something on which both the Left and the Right should agree. And they should present a united front to fighting this kind of stratification. Once again, in rigidly stratified societies, things such as Marxism are credible. So if you want to prevent Communism or to protect your freedoms, then you should be confronting such things as Confucianism and not only take the defensive posture but in fact go on the offensive.

Psychopaths And Free Will

According to many people, sociopaths are evil and can only be evil whatever they do. As someone said on the Internet, a sociopath by definition cannot be a good person. This is wrong. This is completely wrong. Anything capable of choice is capable of righful choice. This includes sociopaths.

My parents kept calling each other psychopaths; but both were good enough people. They worked hard. They were responsible. They were dedicated to their children. My aunt claimed that my father had no human qualities. That is wrong. When my grandmother spiraled into a clinical depression, he took her to Moscow to get help while my aunt did about that absolutely nothing. When I was being a little shit, he would try to show his love for me. And he put in a lot of will into bringing his family to America and making it there even though it was a difficult thing to do, so that his sons did not have to face deadly conditions of Russian military. He did say mean things; but many other people said meaner things. As for my mother, she is someone whom most people see, rightfully, as a good person.

Should we encourage unscrupulous behavior? Absolutely not. We should encourage righful choice based on values. We should encourage people to do the right thing, whatever may be wrong with their brains. We should encourage free will. And this will take us out of horrible bestial dynamics and elevate us to being actual human beings.

If someone is sick in the head, the correct solution is not to attack them but to guide them to better choices. This once again is the case for sociopaths. It is to show them where they are doing wrong; and it is to get them to use their human will and intelligence to correct whatever may be wrong with their natural tendencies.

Now there are many people who, if left to their own devices, will do wrong things. Probably the best solution to that is the Bible. The Bible teaches ethics that anyone, including a sociopath, can correctly apply. And this will teach these people to do the right thing, whatever may be wrong with them.

When I was speaking on such issues on the Internet, a woman asked me why I was supporting the scum of the earth. My response to that is that they are not the scum of the earth. They are people. I do not like demonization, and I do not like witch hunts. And this is exactly what we see here.

What we have seen is the worst witch hunt in the history of America. What we have seen is wrongful claims that some people are evil and can only be evil whatever they do. This, once again, is completely irrational, just as much as it is cruel. Anything capable of choice is capable of righful choice. And it is completely wrong to demonize these people and claim that they can only do wrong.

So I want to see these bestial dynamics overcome through re-introduction of free will. Once again, even if you are a sociopath you can choose to act rightfully. And doing that will do far more to solve criminal and related problems than anything that people who howl about sociopaths ever do.

Relationships And Exploitation

Before my former wife Melanie was with me, she was with a man whose name starts with B. Some people saw him as a loser; but I do not see him as a loser. I see him as something much worse than a loser. I see him as an exploiter. He was with a wonderful woman who gave him everything he possibly could have wanted. And instead of appreciating and rewarding her for everything that she was doing for him, all he could think of doing was beating up on her and the children and going around backstabbing her to everyone.

When my relationship with Melanie broke down, B. attempted to get me on his side. I ended up deciding instead to side with Melanie. My choice was not based on “lust” or on self-interest. Neither of the preceding was served by the situation. My choice was based on rational assayment of what both parties were doing.

Yes, Melanie does have a temper; and yes, sometimes Melanie says angry things. But then she thinks things through and comes up with a rational and compassionate solution. This is not a bad person. This is a very good person. And if I, as someone whom she has left, can say this, then so should anyone else.

At the church, the priest asked what is the meaning of “agape” love. I said that it is doing the right thing by the other person, whether or not it works for you. This is how I am choosing to approach this situation. Unlike any number of other women out there, Melanie has decency; and she has recognized the value of this approach.

Now B. had many arguments to claim that Melanie was a bad person. My response to that is that if you are getting things of value out of a relationship, you are obligated to be good to the other person whatever you think their personality to be. If you think that your woman is bad, then do not be with her. Find someone whom you can respect. And if you are getting things out of the relationship – and he got tons – then you are obligated to be good to your partner whatever you think of her character. Anything else is theft.

I am sick and tired of people thinking badly of the partners from whom they are getting things of value from being with them. If you think that your partner is a bad person, then by all means leave her. And if you are getting things of value from being with your partner, then you are obligated to treat your partner right.

Once again, I am not driven in this by either “lust” or self-interest. Neither of these are being met in the present situation. I am driven in this by the sense of fairness and righteousness. Here is a woman who did absolutely everything in her power to give her man the life that he wanted. And instead of rewarding her accordingly, he insisted on beating down on her and backstabbing her to other people.

I want more people to see through this kind of behavior. I want more people to see the dishonesty at its core. I want to see more people recognize when someone is being exploited. And I want more people to do thing about such a thing.

So if you are being exploited, as was Melanie, the solution is to call the partner's bluff. It is to say things to the effect of, If I am so bad then why the fuck are you with me? And it is for other people to avoid similar situations, so that they do not have to suffer what Melanie suffered after she left B.

Love And Happiness

Robert Tkotch, a physicist and astrologer, wrote on his site (http://www.starcenter.com), “Do you know, O restless wandering one, that if you love not you live in vain?” A man named Max, with a wealth of psychological knowledge, responded, “Or not.”

On this matter Max was right. There are many valid reasons to live besides love, and there are many people who live happily without love. Having a loving companion can most certainly be a source of great happiness; but there are other sources of happiness and meaning.

One song that has been playing since about 2006 says, “you got a reason to live, say I don't want to be in love.” I most certainly am not coercing people to be in love. However when love does happen, it should be supported rather than attacked. And in my experience most of the relationships that I had got attacked.

Of course we have seen people deciding that love was wrong for one or another reason. Some claim that it is a patriarchial racket, or narcissism, or “search for external validation.” It is not such thing. Love is not about what you feel about yourself. Love is about what you feel about the other person. I can validate myself all day long. That does not change what I feel for the people I love.

Would narcissism lead one to abandon a very nice setup in America to move to Australia to be with a woman he loves? Would narcissism lead one to write a poetry book for a woman? These claims are completely wrong; and they have had a deleterious effect on society.

The World War II generation tended to make matches that started with love. For the most part they lead successful lives. The baby boomers, in likewise believing in love, did not believe anything unrealistic. Their problem was that they expected of their partners ridiculous things; and people who expect ridiculous things are likely to be disappointed.

So then we had Generation X going on against love. As they themselves had relationships, many of them started to love their partners. Many of them ended up having successful relationships. They did not start out believing in love; but they ended up making it happen.

When I was at the university, the thought on the campus was very much anti-love. I ended up fighting that state of affairs, both there and elsewhere. Not everything that I did in the process was right; but then I was 17. In my adult life I had very genuine and passionate relationships. And out of them, besides happiness that I experienced, came poetry that has been well received in many places.

So that while love is not the only possible source of meaning and happiness, it is one such source. People should be allowed such a thing, and it should not be misconstrued. I want more people to have the kinds of experiences that I have had. It would greatly enrich their lives. And it would also make things better for other people.

Sex Offenders And Free Will

I once had a conversation with a very intelligent American woman named Celeste about criminals. She said that we do not rehabilitate sex offenders.

I have had profound religious experiences, and I know for certain that anyone can choose to act rightfully. We are not animals. We have choice and we have will. So that even if someone has sexual cravings for children, he does not have to give in to these cravings. He can choose to act rightfully whatever his nature or his psychology tells him to do.

I have known a number of homosexuals who became Christians. Now I do not see homosexuality in the same way in which many people see pedophilia; but these people were able to overcome their natural tendencies and live in a manner that accords with the teachings of the Bible. If homosexuals can do this, then so can pedophiles and other sex offenders.

Once again, we are not animals. We have choice and we have will. Even someone with the most diseased psychology can choose to act rightfully. The solution for them is to stop listening to the desires of the flesh and to live according to the law of God.

So we have many people claiming that some people are evil and can only be evil whatever they do. This contradicts most basic reason. If we are responsible for our 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.

Now I am most certainly not in favor of men raping children. But neither am I in favor of witch hunts. And this is exactly what we have here. We have people claiming that some people are evil and can only be evil whatever they do. This is irrational, this is cruel and this is wrong.

In my experience, teenagers these days are dangerous. I have a friend who went to jail for a year and lost everything that he had because he got drunk and chatted up a 16-year-old. My solution to that is to not have anything to do with teenagers at all. Do not make eye contact. Do not pay them any attention. Simply pass them by and do not look like the mark.

If someone has errant sexual urges, it does not mean that he is a demon. He is a human being. Human beings are capable of controlling what they do. Simply do not give in to these kinds of sexual urges. Keep your mind on God and God's righteousness. And then you can choose to act rightfully and be a good person, whatever your psychology happens to be.

If Paul, David and any number of other sinners could become men of God, then so can anyone else. This, once again, includes the sex offenders. Do not listen to your flesh's cravings. Listen to the mind of God. And then you will do the right thing even if you are – a sociopath, a “pervert,” a narcissist, what have you.

So in this whole mess the solution is introducing free will. It is introducing intelligent choice based on values. It is reminding us that we are not animals but people. And this will do far more to solve these kinds of problems than anything that the participators in these witch hunts seek to do.