Brittney Spears Syndrome And Kevin Federline Syndrome

Even though the Brittney Spears – Kevin Federline train wreck happened a long time ago, there are lessons there that are still relevant for many people.

One is what I call the Brittney Spears Syndrome. The Brittney Spears is a super-attractive woman who, being super-attractive, gets lots of male attention. She finds this attention to be fake, shallow and hormone-driven; so she is responsive to a message that she finds more genuine. Message such as that she is a piece of dirt and deserves to be treated as one.

The other is what I call the Kevin Federline Syndrome. The Kevin Federline is a man from humble background who hates the elites and believes himself to be their moral superior and to understand life better than do they. His solution is to get together with the most attractive woman out there and treat her like dirt. This way he gets to be a part of the elites while also considering himself their superior and wiping his ass with their finest product.

When a Brittney Spears and a Kevin Federline get together, it is not just them who suffer. The children get the worst of it. The Kevin Federline destroys the child psychologically and sabotages whatever sensibilities the Brittney Spears tries to impart the child. And the Brittney Spears undermines whatever structures the Kevin Federline attempts to create for the child. The result is children who are confused or much worse.

Now Brittney Spears never did much for me; but my younger brother was in love with her. And if you love a woman, the last thing you want to see is for her to be in a situation of abuse. There are two main reasons for it. One is that you care about the woman and do not want to see her suffer. And the other is that you are offended that the woman has passed you over and married a jerk.

How do we avoid the kind of train wrecks we see with Brittney Spears and Kevin Federline? It is for the parties to be conscious. The Brittney Spears needs to get over herself and realize that there are people who actually love her – good people like Justin Timberlake, who is a good person and is willing to treat her rightfully even if she finds him familiar or boring. And Kevin Federline needs to get over his Nixonesque hatreds and go for a woman whom he can actually respect as a person.

A Kevin Federline could be a good husband – but not to a Brittney Spears, but to a woman whom he actually respects as a human being. As for a Brittney Spears, she stands to be dream-come-true for someone who is actually good as well as to have an amazing life with such a person. So both need to get a grip on themselves and figure out what would actually make them happy. In both cases there is a vast potential for happiness, if they make choices that are right.

Complaining Vs. Analysis

Sometimes, when I write on social issues, I am being accused of being negative or of being whining. I do neither of the above. For problems to be solved they have to be seen. I provide insight into the nature of the problems, as well as in many cases proposing viable solutions.

Some people think that the solution to everything is everyone taking responsibility for their lives. For them to do so effectively they need to have knowledge, and they need to have insight once again into what they are dealing with in the world. And this knowledge and this insight is not provided by people who act like grade-school coaches. It is provided by people who honestly examine the issues and come up with informed analysis and informed solutions.

Then there is the claim that any such aspirations – toward altruism or saving the world or anything of the sort - are a power trip. I for one do not care who has power for as long as the things that need to be done are done. I am not interested in ruling; I am interested in influencing with my thought. I have original thought on many issues, and it is a thought that can and should be useful to others.

I am not doing what I am doing in order to whine. My life has been an enviable one, and I know it. I very rarely write about my life, and when I do in most cases it is not in a complaining way. I would consider it obscene in fact for me to be complaining about my life when I know what folks in Haiti are dealing with. I do no such thing. Instead I analyze social issues in order that they can rightfully be addressed.

So no, I am not doing what I am doing in order to complain. I am doing what I am doing in order to contribute. And I hope that people find my contributions useful and apply them toward solving the problems that I see and that I have some idea as to how to solve.

Strength, Ethics And Self-Control

Yesterday I was getting a ride from a friend, and he and his other friend were talking about how they both knew how to confront people and how they could reduce people to tears. They were talking about how they wanted to refrain from hurting people and to keep their verbal strength in check.

I told them that they needed to practice ethics and self-control. In fact this is necessary with any kind of strength, mental or physical. Strength, by itself, can be a very destructive force. It must be wielded rightfully and intelligently. Do not go around beating up random people. Do not go home and beat your wife. Instead use the strength as a tool of enforcing peace, using it only as necessary when dealing with people who choose to do wrongful things and aren't willing to stop when confronted rationally.

Now there have been women – especially in the baby boom generation - who were afraid of men's strength; who out of that consideration effectively castrated their sons. This was not a provident course of action. Their sons became weak and lacking in confidence, and they were run over by various people, especially mean-spirited young women. Some of these young men have found strength in things such as gangs and Jihadism. Any number of them followed Eminem. They became in some cases severely violent, especially against their female partners. They didn't learn strength from their families; so they found strength in things that are in many cases very destructive and very wrong. What these women have done is inflict upon the world a bunch of Eminems. And that was in no way favorable to women's cause.

Strength can most certainly be a destructive thing. But when combined with ethics and self-control it can be a great thing. This is what is taught in martial arts. This is also what is taught in the military. The problem is not with strength but with lack of ethics and self-control. The solution is not to prevent the teaching of strength, but teaching ethics and self-control as part of it.

As for domestic violence, it should be seen as a failure of character. It is a failure of ethics and self-control. Both ethics and self-control demand discretion as to what you do with your fists and your mouth. It should not be confronted only from the liberal perspective of it being violent or misogynistic. It should also be confronted from the conservative perspective of character.

As with many other things, the problem is the confusion between a value and the misuses of the value. Strength can most certainly be used for wrong; but it is not a wrong thing in itself. Same is the case with just about anything else – money, logic, beauty, patriotism, intelligence, moral values, you name it. All of these things can be used for wrong. That does not make them wrong in themselves.

So take then a completely different approach. Teach strength; also teach ethics and self-control. And find yourselves raising excellent men who are both strong and morally upstanding and who are a boon to their countries and to the world.

Sam Vaknin, Narcissism And God

Dr. Sam Vaknin got into trouble for white-collar crime; after which he made a name for himself by publicizing – in quite a well-written manner – the concept of the narcissistic personality disorder, which he believed had lead him to white-collar crime.

Whether consciously contrived or not, his modus operandi was quite a brilliant one. He got to have fame and redemption at the same time. I see absolutely nothing wrong with either goal, and if they are achieved honestly then they are to the credit of the person who has achieved them.

Now I have scored quite high on the narcissistic dimension (while being very low on the sociopathic dimension). There were any number of people who wanted me to work on my personality or my self-esteem; but I rejected that approach. Instead I have been working – I believe with the help of God – on my character, which is a much more fundamental source of thought and action. The result has been someone whom most people I knew saw as a bad person becoming what most people I know see as a good person. God has been teaching me honesty, responsibility, compassion, humility, diligence, courage. All of which were things that I have lacked.

In the film “I, Psychopath,” Mr. Vaknin came across as aggressive and testy. Whereas many people who know me now see me as a gentle person. I was not always a gentle person. There were times in my life when I acted like a complete asshole. If God can fix me, then God can fix anyone else.

Psychiatry does not know at this time how to rightfully treat many of these disorders, so it does the next best thing and claim these people to be hopeless cases. When someone calls you a hopeless case, all it means is that he has nothing useful to offer you. The correct solution is to avoid such people and look for insight and guidance elsewhere. And probably the best place to look for such a thing is from God. If Jesus could turn Matthew and Paul into good people, then no case is hopeless. And the correct solution in such cases is to avoid the psychologists who believe such things and go instead to the church.

Ironically, what I have been doing has been working. These days most people I know see me as a good guy. So I advocate bypassing the people who see you as hopeless and can only torture you our of that consideration. Instead go to God. In my experience God does not reject people. Instead God sees what you could be. And then God helps you become what you can and should be, whatever you happen to be at the time.

As for Dr. Vaknin, the biggest problem is his hypocrisy. He has been getting both redemption and fame; but he appears to see fame as a narcissistic goal, and he appears to see narcissism as incurable. I do not know if he has improved through his experiences. What I do know is that damning people is wrong. And I recommend a solution that redeems everyone and gives everyone – even narcissists – a chance at being good people and doing the right things with their lives.

Natures And Their Potentials

Different errors are bred from different natures. Sometimes potential goodness actualizes in bad things, and the solution is to direct potential goodness into being actual goodness.

Compassion is a good quality; however sometimes it gets used wrongfully. A woman may have compassion for men, so she would be sleeping with everyone. A man may have compassion for women, so he would try to help them by having relationships with them. The correct solution in this scenario is to show the person that what they are doing is incorrect, and then direct their attention to doing things that are good for real.

Patriotism is a good quality as well; however it stops being a good quality if it leads people to start wars. Once again it must be channeled correctly – into making one's country the best place that it can be. This is something that Americans understand better than do say Russians; and on this matter Americans have much to teach both Russia and the rest of the world.

With people who are troublemakers, the correct solution is to show them the wrongness of their ways. Some can be convinced rationally just how much more they have it here than they would have elsewhere. With ones who would not do that, the correct solution is putting them through hardship. That way they will both learn to be strong and develop appreciation for what they had before. And that will give them the insight that they need to live rightfully.

Not all errors are spawned of the same source. There are many possible sources for error. Sometimes good natures can lead to wrong outcomes, such as when a person sympathizes with wrongdoers or accepts into her heart the lies of war-mongerers. Sometimes bad natures can lead to good outcomes, as when a naturally aggressive person learns ethics and temperance and uses his strength to keep the peace. In all of these cases, the correct solution is looking at what one is dealing with and figuring out how to direct it correctly.

So we see some people claiming that sociopaths and suchlike are evil and can only be evil whatever they do. No, that is wrong. Anything capable of choice is capable of choosing rightfully. And then there are people who, as a Torres Islander friend of mine said, think that their shit does not stink. That is also wrong. I have seen even the kindest people act in vicious ways when believing things that are untrue, and there are many perfectly good citizens who do horrible things during wars and other conflicts. Some natures are in fact better than others. However there is also the role of choice. And choice redeems even those of us who have bad natures.

The correct solution in such situations is to see the nature for what it is and then take a two-pronged approach of correcting the nature's potentials for wrong and directing it to do what is good. The amount of effort put into such things will depend on the person's nature. You do not turn a dog into a cat or a cat into a dog. You teach the cat to be the best cat that it can be, and you teach the dog to be the best dog that it can be. And then you prevail upon cats and dogs to be good to one another.

"Inadequate" - At What?

I often hear about someone or else being “inadequate.” My question is: Inadequate – at what?

Bill Gates is not an adequate physical match for a gangster. Yet Bill Gates is a multibillionaire, and the gangster is behind bars. Obviously Mr. Gates must be adequate at something.

Would people use their strengths to compensate for their weaknesses? I do not see why not. If you have a strong brain but are not gifted with natural physical strength, you would use your brain to get ahead, and I do not expect people to act differently. Similarly if someone possesses a fertile imagination but is not good at logic, then such a person would be expected to use her creative talents to do what the people who are good at logic and only at logic cannot do.

The problem becomes when this whole adequacy thing becomes binding on people. It is wrong – completely wrong. No human being is an adequate match for a tiger. He uses better technology to outsmart the tiger, and in so doing advances the lot of humanity. We owe quite a lot to this process; and to somehow pathologize it is to deny a very important force in creating the world that we have now.

And, even worse, it is to deny the world the contributions of the very same kind of people who have made the present state possible.

So when someone is being called inadequate or anything of the sort, the correct response is, At what? Most people are good at some things and not others. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with people using their areas of superiority to compensate for whatever weaknesses they may have.

Saving Souls And Saving The World

We are presently faced with a number of possible bad scenarios. I recommend a two-pronged approach. Save as many souls as you can by preaching Jesus, and do whatever is in our power to prevent threats that do not come from God.

Augustine said, “Pray as though everything depended on God. Work as though everything depended on you.” That is what we are obligated to do here. We have to do what we can to convince God to avert apocalyptic situations. And we also have to do what we can to prevent apocalyptic, catastrophic or seriously bad scenarios that do not come from God.

In short, we need to save both souls and bodies. We need to bring people to God; we also need to save the planet and avoid things like epidemics and wars. And we are also required to both abide by the Biblical teachings and respect scientific knowledge, so that we are doing what is both morally rightful and informed.

This then becomes the true definition of responsibility: Action that is both morally rightful and informed. Without moral values, people do wrong things. Without knowledge, people likewise do wrong things that they consider to be right but that aren't. They do such things as poisoning the oceans and the atmosphere and think that they are behaving responsibly. They aren't. Responsibility requires both values and knowledge; then one knows what is the right thing to do and does it.

The Bible provides a values framework within which to work. Science provides knowledge. The outcome of understanding both is action that is both righteous and informed. We recognize manmade problems such as global warming, and we convert to better technologies. We practice accountability and demand the same of our leaders. We do things such as building bases on Mars, so that if anything happens to the Earth a part of us survives.

Now there is a lot of hostility between the science-minded and the religious; but there have been many brilliant people in Christianity, and there have been many highly ethical people in science. My mathematics teacher was saying that there is no contradiction between Christianity and science. Quoting Augustine again, “Miracles are not contrary to nature, but only contrary to what we know about nature.” And as a former atheist who had many experiences with less than a billionth chance of happening whose only possible explanations are religious or spiritual, I say with full certainty that there is absolutely nothing stupid or illogical about religion.

As for science, while there are many people who see academics as a bunch of clueless, immoral, effete intellectuals with no common sense, their whole lifestyle is based on science. Without science they would not have their trucks or their phones or their TVs. And denying scientific fact does not begin to qualify as Christian values. Neither ignorance nor dishonesty are righteous, and a true Christian would call these people on their sin.

I seek to apply here what I call the positive middle path. I seek to apply both the Bible and science. The Bible provides moral guidance; science provides factual guidance. Put together what the two are right about, and we get action that is both morally rightful and informed.

Among the conservatives, the attitude I've encountered is "be good and do well." Among the liberals, the attitude I've encountered is "do good and be well." Put what the two are right about together, and get "be good and do good."

This is what we need to apply toward solving the world's problems. This would solve problems that are both manmade and natural. As for the problems of God, maybe us being good enough would convince Him to avert Armageddon. The solution is “Be good, and do good.” And it is with this attitude that we may actually face the challenges that we face.

Real World: Nature And Civilization

I once was with an extraordinarily beautiful artist named Julia Howard. Julia loved beautiful things in nature and made magnificent paintings and photographs. Many people were saying that she did not live in reality.

These people have an inadequate understanding of what reality is. Nature is just as real as they are, and there is amazing richness and variety in nature – richness and variety beyond anything that they have created themselves. And from observing life in all its richness and variety these people stand not only to enrich their lives but also arrive at greater and fuller understanding of reality.

Now I am not saying that socio-economic reality is not real. I am saying that there is much more to reality than many people recognize. The business world can take people over and lead them into completely wrongful directions. I have seen even the kindest people acting in mean and abusive ways when they were lost in that world. They thought that what they were a part of was reality proper. No, it is a part of reality. There is much more to reality than they believe. And after they retired, some recaptured the beauty that they had known previously and made it, through their art or their writings, part of the human reality of the world.

As it impacts upon people, reality consists of both nature and civilization. Both worlds need to be in the best shape that they can be, and people must have the benefits of both worlds. The worst approach we see in the Berbers and the Anasazi, who turned huge stretches of greenery into desert without contributing much of anything to the civilization. There are two complementary semi-solutions: The purely natural lifestyle of Native Americans and the purely technological lifestyle of American Midwest. The full solution is found in place such as California, where people are enjoying the comforts of technological lifestyle while also valuing and taking care of nature.

Both worlds are completely real. And both need to be in the best shape that they can be. The first reflects reality as not created by people. The second reflects reality as created by people. Once again, both must be in the best shape that they can be.

Is the economic infrastructure real? Of course it is. But, once again, so is nature. And while people have come up with many impressive and useful things, they also stand a lot to learn from nature. A reality that they have not created and that they cannot at this time re-create.

I have the influence of both Ayn Rand and Ward Churchill, both of whom I read at approximately the same time. Both of them were part-right. Ayn Rand was right to champion the civilization, wrong to have no respect for nature. Ward Churchill was right to defend indigenous lifestyles, wrong to demonize the Western Civilization. Both worlds contain amazing richness, and both worlds can, and should, get along.

When I was young, I was both a yuppie and a hippie. I made good money in the computer industry, and I was having various adventures and contact with nature. Once again, both sides have a half of the picture. Once focuses on civilization, the other focuses on nature. The two should work together. So that when an Anglican minister tells me that we have an obligation to take care of both nature and one another, he is speaking a home truth.

For a long time many people saw nature as something to be conquered; and indeed the people who went to the frontier and made it habitable for people while suffering vicious hardships deserve respect. However there is nothing at all respectable about Brazilian farmers burning rich and beautiful environments in order to make room for ranches that last two years then turn into a mud plain. There is nothing respectable about denying global warming or clinging to destructive technologies when there are many technologies that stand to fulfil humanit's needs at present and greater levels with fewer destructive effects. And there is nothing respectable about seeing a part of reality as the whole of reality while blindly plundering natural treasures that one has not created and cannot re-create.

Many people have stated that the happiest lifestyle is to cultivate a garden. The Amish, though they lack our amenities, appear to be quite happy. Once again, I do not advocate anything such as doing away with the civilization. The ultra-liberal Dr. Elizabeth Hubbard, who used to go on the Internet as Doctress Neutopia, stated that a large-scale move to the land would only create Appalachia on a large scale. I advocate for the full solution, where we have both nature and civilization and have the benefit of both worlds.

So that while people in business are dealing with the real world, so was Julia Howard. And her contributions of beauty and wisdom found in nature have been rightfully acclaimed by many highly competent and completely rational people and imparted a very important perspective that many people would have missed.

The Character Of Saint Paul

I have been reading the Book of Acts; and the main character there is Paul. I have found amazing things about this person's character.

He was always a man of conviction; but he started out acting in very cruel ways. Then Jesus appeared to him, and that changed him. He retained his strength of conviction, his strength and his brilliance. He put these things in service of Jesus Christ. As a result of that he became one of the most important moral teachers of all times.

From Christ he learned love, compassion and temperance. These things moderated his natural tendencies and, more importantly, put them in service of a better purpose. He went through vicious hardship and persecution. Instead of returning the like for like, he met the hatred that he encountered with love and righteousness. He remained as strong and determined as he always had been. He put these things in their rightful place – as agent of enforcement of better values.

His story ended up being a happy one. He triumphed over the persecution and became a beloved figure for many.

Without Christ, he would have continued to be just another fanatical thug. However Christ taught him what he needed to know in order to become a better person. He made no excuses for himself. He said repeatedly that he was a sinner. However he was a sinner who was redeemed by Christ. And he persisted in preaching Christ while facing the worst that the world had to offer.

Now there are many people who dislike Paul, some calling him a misogynist. However while he made statements about women being there to serve men, he also stated that the man should love his wife as his own flesh. I have known a number of priests, and their wives tend to be happy. That is because these priests follow this injunction. And another injunction that they follow is Paul's injunction toward patience and self-control – something that teaches them to avoid such things as domestic violence, that many others who consider themselves Christians fail to do. There are many men who believe that they should be head of the wife, but they fail to love the wife and they fail to control themselves with the wife. This is Phariseeism. The correct response to domestic violence is not that it is misogyny or violence, but that it is a failure of character.

What I find most admirable about Paul, once again, is his willingness to reciprocate hatred with love and righteousness. This is not something that is common to men who start from the place of cruelty, as did he. This is something that Jesus taught him. The result was someone who used his innate skills in service of better purpose. And the result was the most poweful moral teacher of all time.

Why My Own Salvation Is Not Enough

The Bible says that everyone who does not know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior is going to hell. Now me accepting Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior may solve that problem for me; but I care about many other people besides myself. I know many people who did not know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior who were wonderful people. My grandmother was one. Michelle was one. My former wife and my daughter are ones. Me accepting Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior will not begin to allay my concerns.

If this is the case, then I have the responsibility to preach Christ to as many people as I can. But once again, I know many good people who died without knowing Jesus. So what am I to do?

So I get intuitions telling me that unless I do 10,000 pushups I am causing a war, or that if I go on the Internet to compose my book I am causing a super-volcano eruption. Where do these intuitions come from? I cannot simply dismiss them. I look at the clock and I see numbers such as 2:22. What is the rightful thing here for me to be doing?

I do not want the Revelations scenario for two reasons. One is that it means that most people will go to hell, which I most certainly do not want to see happen. The other is that it means that the world would be destroyed, which I likewise do not want to see happen. For me to simply accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior without doing anything about either problem is not satisfactory to me. If either thing were to happen, I would not be able to forgive myself and would go to hell on my own volition.

So there are people who say that what I am doing is a delusion. It may very well be a delusion; however I cannot take these kinds of risks. I cannot allow myself to be responsible for a disaster scenario or an apocalyptic scenario. I cannot allow myself to be responsible for people I've loved going to hell, or for that matter for anyone else going to hell. I would not wish an eternity of hellfire on anyone, not even Hitler. Clearly there are people who need to suffer the consequences of their actions; but I do not see an eternity of hellfire as a fitting punishment for just about anything.

As for our planet, I see no reason at all why beautiful and innocent plants and animals should bear the burden of our wrongdoing, and I likewise do not want to see it destroyed.

Should Judas or Herod or Caiaphas be in hell? I do not think even that. Jesus only was dead for three days and then resurrected, which means that attempting to kill him was a wasted effort. He triumphed over death. He resurrected. The 100 million Native Americans who were killed by Spanish and English colonials did not.

Which means that the people who attack Jews for trying to kill Jesus have much greater and much more recent crimes in their history, and if sins of fathers really are visited upon the sons then the descendants of all these Spanish and English colonials should suffer.

And yet I do not want to see even that.

So right now I do not know what is the correct course of action. Once again, me accepting Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior may serve my selfish purposes, but it would do nothing for anyone else. And I care about many people and things besides myself. Which means that I have an obligation to do what I can toward the effect of saving them, even if I myself am saved.

Is Only What You Do Important?

I have known – closely – many different kinds of people; and I found in many of them the attitude that what they do is important and that nothing else is.

I have seen this in engineers and software professionals who think that they are the only sane and rational people in the world and that everyone else is lazy, crazy, dishonest or stupid.

I have seen this in children of lawyers, salesmen and businessmen who think that academic learning is worthless and that all that matters in life is social skills and common sense.

I have seen this in military people who think that everyone except themselves and their friends is a sissy.

I have seen this in doctors who think that they are better than everyone else because they finished medical school.

This attitude is worse than narcissistic. This attitude is completely destructive. It is valid to consider what you do to be important. It is completely wrong to consider that nothing else is. Where would we be if everyone was a lawyer or a salesman? Where would we be if everyone was an engineer? Where would we be if everyone was a soldier? We need all these, and more.

And since we need one another, we need to learn to relate to one another in ways that work.

So we see among some the semi-Confucian attitude that the son should do what the father has done. Where would we be if Thomas Jefferson, Isaac Newton and Bill Gates did what their fathers had done? We see among others the semi-caste system attitude that if you are raised by less wealthy people you are scum. And yet America benefits vastly from many people who came from poverty and rose through their efforts. Both attitudes have to go and be gone forever. They have no place in America, and they have no place in the contemporary world. Most major contributors did not do what their parents did; and many of them came from poverty. And neither the Chinese Confucianism nor the Hindu caste system has produced anything approaching what America has achieved.

So we see some parents wanting their children to do what they have done, when they themselves did not do what their parents had done – rightfully. And we see some students from higher backgrounds abusing students from lower backgrounds when neither situation's is either their merit or their fault. And it is time that more people say not only that this is wrong, but that this is completely incompatible with the country that America has been intended to be.

But neither should one encourage the attitude such as that of Richard Nixon, who hated the high-born even in case – such as that of John Kennedy - that the high-born were better people than was he. Or attitudes that we see among some in technology sector that anyone with business or political skills is deceitful or manipulative or sociopathic. Or the belief that the military people are stupid brutes, or that the highly educated are elitist snobs, or that artists and thinkers are narcissistic bums. Once again, all of the above are necessary. And even if you do not believe in the Christian value of treating the other person the way that you yourself would like to be treated, you need to figure out better ways of relating to one another for a simple reason that you need one another for your country to survive.

Now it may very well be difficult for people who think in different ways to get along. Salesmen have to think one way; engineers another. A salesman, in order to amount to anything as a salesman, has to be a positive person. He has to think positive. An engineer cannot afford to think positive. An engineer has to think analytically. An engineer has to anticipate anything that can possibly go wrong with the product. An engineer who thinks positive will design equipment that will blow up on use.

So we see engineers seeing salesmen as neon balloons and salesmen seeing engineers as negative ninnies. In fact all that both are doing is think in ways that are appropriate to their professions. And unless they understand the reasons for one another's thinking, the people who think in ways that differ from one another will not get along.

The correct solution is not to devalue the salesman or the engineer. The correct solution is understanding why they think the way in which they think and relating appropriately. And it is also separating the valid from the invalid.

It is valid to affirm both social skills and academic intelligence and not valid to attack either.

It is valid to see what you do as important and not valid to think that nothing else is.

And it is also valid to remember what America is meant to be about, and not copy the worst features of China and India and use them to hold down the potential of America's people while completely forgetting the attitude that actually built the greatest country that the world has ever known.

Antichrist And Redemption

There are many people within Christianity who believe that we are living in the end times. I do not want that scenario for two reasons. One is that I do not want to see the majority of the world going to hell. And the other is that I like the beauty and richness and variety of life on this planet.

In the Bible, God has been known to change His mind. He was going to wipe out the Jews, but Moses convinced Him not to do that. If we are really good, then maybe – just maybe – God would reconsider.

Jerry Falwell stated in 1990s that the Antichrist was a Jewish person of foreign extraction, in his 20's, living in America. That of course fits me, whether or not it is me. If there is such a person as the Antichrist, my advice to him would be to not do his part. Instead come to Jesus. And then he would not be doing the part of bringing on a very undesirable state of affairs, and if God still decides to destroy the world then at least he has not done his part.

Now there are many people who have psychoses telling them that they are Jesus. In Israel, there is a special mental hospital for all the people who come there and decide that they are Jesus or God. Whereas I do not know of many people who think that they are the Antichrist. I do not know if I am the Antichrist. However whoever happens to be the Antichrist should take my advice.

I am a complete believer in redemption. The reason is that I have had many realizations in recent years about how I have been a jerk in any number of situations, and I repent my actions in these situations. I have also seen any number of people turn from bad people into good people after they were exposed to better beliefs or guidance, or after they realized things on their own. This means that I believe that even the Antichrist can be redeemed. As for Lucifer, I do not know if he can be redeemed; but I am of the opinion that even that is possible.

I have a daughter whom I want to have a long and happy life and whom I want to see good conditions. On our part there are two things that we need to do. One is do what we can to show God that we are worthy of sparing. The other is doing whatever is in our power to solve the problems of the world. As Augustine said, “Pray as if everything depended on God; work as if everything depended on you.” I am doing both.

So this is what I recommend. Become so good that God may think of sparing you. And also do what you can to solve manmade problems and non-manmade problems facing the world.

Class Struggles And Teenage Abuse

When I was a student at University of Virginia, I had something to eat at a food place. I heard someone working there say that he is a peasant and that's all he will ever be.

Sometimes I get angry when I hear such attitudes. I used to attend a private school, and I had an English teacher trying to tell me that I cannot have some thoughts or some ideas because I was not a great writer but just some little person. That is a very irresponsible thing to say to a student. America is meant to be a place where dreams can come true through determined effort; and I for one am certainly willing to put in such an effort.

Now I have seen some people who are high-born having negative attitude toward others. There was a teacher at the school that my stepson attended who was calling the parents of her students peasants. However I have also seen it work the other way around. I knew a blue-collar person in Australia who said that some middle-class guy whom his relative or friend married thought that his shit does not stink. And I had a girlfriend, coming from the rough side of town, who had a very negative view of people from higher backgrounds, and she extended that attitude also to me.

We see both all the time. Nixon, who came from a poor background, had hatred of the high-born. I have also known people from distinguished backgrounds who hated people from “lower classes.” I do not see why this kind of thing should happen at all, especially in America. We have had aristocratic Thomas Jefferson and FDR; we have also had the plebeian Nixon and Clinton. Once again, I see no reason at all why these attitudes should exist, especially in America.

One of the worst thing I've seen people from rougher backgrounds do is destroy ambition and intelligence in their youth. They think that they are arrogant, or that they are “know-it-alls,” or that they think they are better than “everybody else.” What qualifies these people to speak for “everybody else” - 7 billion people, most of them nothing like themselves? Of whatever arrogance they are accusing such kids, theirs is far greater. The ambition and intelligence that some kids have, when channeled correctly, results in major contributions to the country and the society. Whereas very little of any kind of benefit is due to attitudes such as this.

So I had a very smart and very beautiful girlfriend from “that side of town,” and her experience with her peers was a horrible one. They did everything in their power to grind her down. When she came to me, some of these attitudes had rubbed off of her, and she was hateful to some of the people I knew who came from more fortunate backgrounds. In some situations she was also hateful to me. This is wrong. This is dead wrong.

My own experience was based on being in a private school, as a poor immigrant from the former Soviet Union. I was very precocious, and the message that I got from other students was that academic intelligence is worthless and that the only thing that matters in life is common sense and social skills. Now you may want that attitude if you are raising salesmen and lawyers. However the country needs much more than just that. It also needs engineers, doctors, scientists and many others. And these people better have an academic intelligence.

In both cases we see very irresponsible behavior. The best minds get damaged, and the country loses vastly as a result. Many of these kids become hostile, destructive or even criminal. And this is very, very bad for the country.

So it is time that such behavior be confronted, as it costs greatly to America. And it is time that more people understand the implications of their behavior and learn to practice more rightful and more responsible conduct.

Skepticism And Christianity

I had extensive dealings with people on the Internet who called themselves the skeptics. They did not act like skeptics; they acted like jerks. When someone told about a study that appeared to validate the existence of psychic powers, someone said that the study was faulty. I asked her why it was faulty. She said, “Because it produced the wrong result, dickhead.” Now it is certainly valid to test the claims that people make, especially about things that not everybody experiences. However it is not at all valid to decide that such things cannot exist, and that religion and spirituality is for fools and lunatics. There have been many people much smarter than them – people such as Solomon, Paul, Augustine and Eckhart – who fully believed in God and had many educated things to say on the subject. I would most certainly be rather dealing with one of these people than with people such as the above. I did not start out religious. I started out as a Commie. However I had many experiences with less than a billionth chance of happening whose only possible explanations were of the spiritual nature (https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought/logic-religion-and-spiritual-experience). When I seriously got involved in such things, I wanted to prove them to everyone. That got me labeled as a lunatic or worse. I have no reason to lie about such things at all. I am not making money that way. I had very real experiences, and I wanted to show people what they were failing to consider in their computation of their worldview. And in my case this has been many things. One thing that I did wrong was dismiss Christianity. I ended up finding out that Jesus was very much real, and that His powers are good. He has been transforming me from someone whom most people saw as a jerk to someone whom most people see as a good person. I experience His presence a lot, and it is a very wise and powerful presence. The people who started Christianity likewise did not have reasons to lie. They were persecuted. Why would people take these kinds of risks with their lives unless if they know that they are doing the right thing? They were not affiliated with the government or anyone trying to control the population. They were not looking for power. Certainly the religion can be used to control the population, but so can many things besides religion. With Christianity, we see a force that converted both the rulers and the ruled. When Marx saw an order based on exploitation he saw religion as part of the problem - “opium for the masses.” Of course Communism itself became a much bigger “opium,” as has what some Marxists call in America “the ideology of mass consumption.” However that is not how Christianity began. As for contemporary adherents of Christianity, many of them have traveled other paths before coming to Christ; and they cannot therefore be accused of being brainwashed or bigoted. I am likewise in no way a bigot. Once again, I started out as a Commie. However I had many experiences whose only possible explanations are of spiritual nature. I have known people who would have such experiences and not want their implications, so they would deny the experience. That is not logical; it is dishonest. What are the implications? That there are consequences to what we do. That we need to hold ourselves to a certain standard of behavior. That we must strive to be good. Not everyone wants these implications; so, once again, they deny their experiences. And some of them become the most vicious of these “skeptics.” I do not want these “skeptics” to suffer or go to hell. I want them to change their ways. I want them to recognize the same kinds of things that I and many, many others have recognized. I do not have the luxury of atheistic beliefs, even though often I wish I did. However even when I myself am trending in that direction, God would do something to remind me. So some people want to see something that is undeniable to everyone. There have in fact been such things. There was Jesus walking on water. There was Rasputin surviving bullet and poisoning. There was a man in India who survived without water for a ridiculously long period of time. Some people think that such things are impossible, so they deny them. But they cannot be denied. The problem is with these people's worldview. Certainly there is merit in things such as physics and chemistry and climate science, and there are many people who need to pay to such things more attention. But there is also merit in things such as what I have described. I had a brilliant mathematics teacher who was a devout Christian. He was loved by just about everybody, and he continued teaching well into his retirement. He told me that there was no contradiction between science and Christianity. I knew a man who wrote a book, to my best guess still sold on college campuses, to state that the axioms of modern physics are compatible with the existence of God. The people who think that only the atheists are rational or sane are fooling themselves. Many of them are also rude and mean and nowhere nearly as smart as they think they are. If Christianity was for morons, it could not have outlasted the Roman Empire, which was very powerful and had advanced knowledge of many things. Certainly some adherents of Christianity are only copying their upbringing; but why did so many people become Christians in the first place? They were not bigots. They were not brainwashed. They were not sheep. They were brave and intelligent people facing vicious persecution, and they held to their beliefs – and made them count – in face of severe violence and death from entities wielding far more political power than did they. Would people such as the ones I described do such a thing? Doubtfully. They are strong of tongue, but I do not think that most of them are as strong of heart. As for myself, once again, I cannot legitimately doubt what I have experienced. And I certainly hope that my testimony here motivates others to look further and deeper and correct their wrongful worldview and behavior. As for myself, I can say with full certainty that Christ has been making me a better person. I was doing many things wrong in the past that I did not realize to be wrong until Christ showed me why they were wrong. If this can happen to a militant atheist that I used to be, then it can also happen to these skeptics. And for people who have such convictions I would like to encourage looking further into why a religion started by disaffected radicals rose to the leadership of the world, and what this means for their own beliefs and their own behavior.

God And Sociopaths

There was a situation in the Old Testament in which the Israelis wanted a king. God was not happy about that, but He obliged. He got them a king named Saul, who was quite a bad king. He allowed them to have what they wanted to have, and He allowed them to live with the consequences.

God would do that in some situations. When I was a teenager I wanted my life to be free from violence. It largely has been; but there have been situations in which it would have been better to endure violence than it was to endure the things that I have endured. My desire was obliged, and it was met with consequences.

And once one is met with the consequences of one's choice, one realizes why God wanted it as He wanted.

God is God both of compassion and righteousness. Some people have one or the other; some have neither; and some have both. I went from someone with neither to someone with both. Jesus has worked on me to teach me both. Some people think that any number of people – such as the “sociopaths” and the “perverts” - are incurably evil. I say that just about no evil is incurable.

In many cases the problem is not one of personality at all. In many cases the problem is one of conviction. There may not be cure for “sexual perversions,” but there is a cure for acting on them and it's called self-control. There may not be a cure for sociopathic tendencies, but there is a cure for acting on them, and that is understanding the consequences of one's actions.

So we see some actual sociopaths rising to the top of corporate hierarchy and others who are not sociopaths being treated terribly under the claim that they are ones. Generally we will not find evil where we would expect it. Usually we would find it where we will least expect it. Many men who become terrible to their wives wear a genial front, and everyone thinks that they are nice guys. They use these skills to con women into being with them, and they use the same skills to convince others that they are the good guy and that the woman is bad.

Why did God choose Saul? Probably because He, once again, was unhappy about the Israelites wanting a king and wanted them to face the consequences of their disobedience. God was happiest when Israel was run by the judges. Israel was never a democracy. For most of its time it was either run by kings or by alien rulers. God has been invoked in defense of both monarchy and democracy. However God's way appears to be that people should be run by Him.

So if you are particularly insistent sometimes God would grant you what you want, but you will have to deal with the consequences. And once you do you will know why God wanted things the way that He wanted them to be.

Personality And Motivation

When I was at the university, many people were working on themselves to become the best people that they could be. I believed that I did not have very long to live and that for me to be doing this would be wasted effort. But now that it appears I am here for the long term, I am putting in that effort.

I would most certainly like to be the best person that I can be. And right now, most people in my life see me as a good person. There were people accusing me of being such things as a sociopath and a narcissist; however the people who actually knew what they were doing did not have that opinion. I was told by a psychiatrist that I have the heart of a humanitarian. And indeed one of the most fulfilling things that I have done is volunteer for the Salvation Army.

My problem was not one of chemistry or personality. My problem was one of conviction. I was at that time a nihilist. I thought that character and similar things were neurological delusions. Of course now I no longer believe that; and since I no longer believe that I am acting and thinking in a completely different way.

Before being a nihilist, I was a Soviet Communist. I had a very strongly constituted conscience. I wanted to do meaningful and rightful things. Communism was a wrong solution, and it got deconstructed; at which point I was left without a conscience. And people without a conscience do wrong things.

What many people face in teenage years is unbelievable hypocrisy. They are treated cruelly and told to survive and status-climb at all costs. Then the people who have such convictions and act in such way decide that the kids who are not motivated that way are the problem, and that they are selfish and cruel instead. I cannot think of a more deceptive ideology. A person starts out with principles and ideals and desire to do what they can to make the world a better place. He is met with people who see such things as Communism or egomania or delusion. Instead they say that they, pulling this trick, are good, and that the person is bad. This is worse than ridiculous.

We see the same thing with the baby boomers. They started out being kind and generous and wanting to make the world a better place. They were met with a mentality of selfishness; and now they are being accused of being selfish or narcissistic, and the people who used to beat them up are seen as good and law-abiding citizens. What kind of a sense does that make?

There are many ways to motivate people, and there are many ways not to motivate people. If you motivate a child by telling him that he needs to be a certain way or else he is a loser or a freak or worse, then that will not work with children who come from conscientious considerations. Instead it will alienate them and lead them to become one's enemies. What it may do in some situations is set off a power struggle that the person will fight to his death. The correct way to motivate a child like that is to inspire him toward accomplishment. And this is what teachers and parents who actually know what they are doing tend to do.

So what I have seen myself being faced with is unbelievable hypocrisy. They teach and practice cruelty and nastiness, and then they claim that it is the people against whom they are being cruel and nasty that are the ones with the cruelty problem. The person comes from idealistic considerations. He is told instead to live by the code of cruelty. And then the people who live by this code of cruelty tell him that it is he that is evil instead.

I would like to see more people see through such things. I would like more people who are vulnerable to this kind of thing to understand what they are dealing with. That way they will know what they are dealing with, and they may be able to figure out how.

God's Purpose And Wrong Paths

Julia, the lady for whom I wrote my first poetry book “Poems to Julia,” had a brother named Alex who was a priest. Alex told me that I had a brilliant mind, and that God wanted me to put it in His service. I am starting to think that what he wanted was right.

I had an amazing experience at the church today and really felt the presence of God. In fact I have had many experiences of spiritual nature all my life. My parents were engineers, and an attitude common to engineers is that they are the only sane and rational people in the world and that everyone else is lazy, crazy or stupid. This attitude comes across to me now as narcissistic. There have been many brilliant people through history who did not have their worldview, and it was not limited to junkies or lunatics. Engineers like to ascribe narcissism to artistic types; but I have found their attitude to be more narcissistic than that of the artists. There are very few artists who think that they are the only important people in the world or that they are the only sane and rational people in the world. There are many engineers who think just that.

So they – and any number of others - thought that my experiences were mental illness. It is mental illness if it only exists in your head. It is not mental illness if it corresponds with events outside of your head, and I have had many such experiences. Many people do not want to deal with implications of such experiences, so they look for ways to deny them. I however refuse to take that dishonest path.

I have looked for explanations in many places, and I found wrong ideas in most.

I was turned off the New Age because they believed that everything that happens to people is a reflection of what's in their consciousness. Don't tell that to 500,000 heroic Americans who died in the Second World War. This is an idea that excuses people from compassion and ethics. It is something that one might believe if he has lived all his life in a safe and wealthy country; and it leads people to take credit for conditions that were created by others while themselves acting like jerks.

Positive thinking causes more problems than it solves. You think positive, you fail to anticipate problems, you do foolish things. You cut down the rainforest, the rainforest is cut down regardless of how positive you are. You poison the oceans, the oceans are poisoned regardless of how positive you are. Many of these people blame the problems of the world on “negative thinkers.” Many of them actually cause more problems than do the people they demonize.

I was turned off of Buddhism because of their “law of attraction” - that like attracts like. Sometimes that is the case, sometimes that is not the case. The same person can attract both wonderful people and terrible people, sometimes within a very short period of time from one another, and I have done both all my life. This could not be the case if the like attracted like. There is also the idea that suffering is based in desire. No, it is not. Suffering can be based in any number of things. Desire does not cause hunger or illness. And happiness too can be based in many things as well.

Hinduism has created the caste system, where if you are born in the wrong family you will be treated like dirt all your life whatever you do. They believe that everything that happens to people is a result of their karma. This absolves them of the responsibility to better the lot of the people of the world, as well as to fight crime and other abuses. This idea would tell them that if I were to rape and kill them that would be their karma. No, it would not be their karma. It would be my own choice. And if they think that it is the other person's karma, they would blame the other person for what has been done to her. This, once again, is completely unethical.

Confucianism wants the son to do what the father did. This is very wrong. Where would we be if Thomas Jefferson, John Rockefeller or Isaac Newton did what their fathers did? It also deifies the social order. No human phenomenon deserves to be deified, otherwise we get such things as the cult of personality or the “divine right of kings.”

Witchcraft is dangerous and irresponsible. As someone who gets some very bad thoughts and very bad moods, I cannot run the risk of having these kinds of powers.

Islam promises boys in heaven and permits men to take women as sex slaves.

Judaism leads to Christianity. Psalm 110 says, “The LORD says to my lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.'” Who is “my lord” except Jesus?

Whereas Christianity has everything. Ethics, compassion, purpose, power, you name it. The gospels – written by four different commentators – list the same stories. These people has absolutely no reason to lie. They were persecuted. They faced a very powerful and very cruel empire, that had an advanced knowledge of many subjects; and yet they ended up outlasting the Roman Empire. This means that it is not just “stupidity” or “brainwashing” or “opium for the masses” or anything of the sort. Something else must be going on here. There is nothing stupid about Jesus or Paul or Augustine. There have been many brilliant minds that strongly espoused Christianity, and many of them were far more intelligent - as well as much better people - than skeptics.

So the preacher was talking about how the body needs all its parts. What this means at the social level is that there is a need for everyone. C. S. Lewis wrote about how all Christians are part of the body of Christ.

Maybe God really does have a purpose for me, and I am waiting for Him to tell me what it is.