Altruism And Self-Esteem

When I was corresponding with my former wife, she told me that her boyfriend was developing self-esteem. This does not begin to be the cause of the problem. His problem was not that he had low self-esteem. His problem was that he was an unappreciative pig. She gave him everything that she had to give, which was a lot. And all he could think of doing was beating up on her and the children.

So we have some people claiming that people become good by developing self-esteem. This is complete crap. In fact a strong case can be made that it is the other way around. If you have higher standards for yourself, then you will find it harder to feel good about yourself than if you have lower standards for yourself. The person with lower standards will have higher self-esteem; the person with higher standards will be a better person.

I have also heard such claims as that you need to love yourself before you can love another. Also absolute tripe. In fact it works the other way around. You love others for traits that you find lovable. Seeing these traits successfully expressed by another person, you know what you need to work for within yourself in order to be lovable in your own eyes.

Another related claim is that you need to start by loving yourself. Also complete nonsense. You do not start by loving yourself. You start by loving the people whom you find lovable. Then, once again, seeing such traits expressed successfully by another, you know what you need to do in order to be lovable in your own eyes.

So we see people making such claims as that romantic love is a search for external validation. In my case it is no such thing at all. It is not about what I feel about myself; it is about what I feel about the other person. I can validate myself all day long. That does not change what I feel for people I love.

Now maybe if all you care about is yourself, you would accept these kinds of attitudes. However I have higher standards for myself than that. My relationship with myself is my own business. Whereas when I have someone good in my life, it becomes a lot more than that.

Probably the saddest comment I've ever read was by a naturally altruistic woman who said that unless she could live for herself she could not live. This is an absolute outrage. Here was someone who had many good things to offer the world; but a wrongful ideology thwarted her in her goodness and told her to live by an inferior code of values. In fact there are many valid ways to live besides living for yourself. And what a sad state of affairs it is that it takes someone like me to point this out.

An even greater outrage is that the people who believe such a thing would portray as narcissistic or sociopathic a person who does not. This, once again, is absolute outrage. You thwart people in actual altruism and then you claim them to be lacking in altruism and as being more selfish than people who practice such beliefs. Not even the Soviets could come up with a more ridiculous set of lies.

I do not need to love myself in order to do meaningful things for other people. Nor do I need a high self-esteem for such a thing. What I need is to direct my efforts rightfully. And I have been doing that in many different situations.

So it is about time that this nonsense be seen through. Self-esteem or loving yourself or anything of the same sort does absolutely nothing. What actually does things is being willing to do what needs to be done for the sake of the world. And that does not start with self-love or self-esteem or anything of the sort. It starts with willingness to do the right thing, whatever it means for yourself.

The International Man Of Mystery

I call myself the International Man of Mystery. I was born in the Soviet Union. When I was 12 my family moved to America. When I was 30 I moved to Australia to marry my now-ex wife.

When I was in Russia they said that I was a Jew. I come to America, suddenly I become Russian. I come to Australia, suddenly I become an American.

I used to live for a while in the Australian state of Victoria. They call Victorians Mexicans - as in, south of the border. Maybe they should start calling the Tasmanians Cubans - as in, Communists.

English is quite an interesting language. There are any number of expressions in English that mean something completely different from what you would expect them to mean. I had a friend who came to America at age 13. When someone asked why he left, he said that it was because in Russia "the Jewish people don't feel themselves at home." 

I matched him when I said in a speech before my class that we must "reach our peak."

My father used to be an engineer designing drilling equipment. He composes his resume with the help of a Russian to English dictionary. He looks up the English for the Russian word for "drill" and finds the word "bore." So he puts on his resume, "boring engineer."

The Russian word for condom is "preservativ." So one day someone who's been in America for a long time told a more recent arrival that yogurt was made with "preservativs."

The first thing that kids want to know when faced with a kid from another country is swear words in their home language. So one day my father was pulling into the neighborhood to hear American kids shouting Russian swear words at each other.

Of course kids do interesting things with language even when they don't know the meaning of the words. When my stepson was four or five he threw a toy at me and shouted "sprachen ze deutzsch." I know I did not teach him that. I wonder where he got the reference.

Rednecks And Hippies

I have known a number of people who are commonly termed “rednecks.” I found that the conversation starter among them is either “with all taxes you're paying don't you feel like you're living in a socialist country” or “if I found my wife in bed with another man, I would shoot them both.”

I have known a number of women who've lived with such men, and many of them tell horror stories. And of course for a long time I held that constituency in contempt. However my life experiences have taught me respect for these people. They are strong. They are hard-working. They are ethical. And all of these traits are worthy of respect.

I have also known a number of hippies; and of course rednecks and hippies have for a long time been enemies. However they both appear to have had the same idea. They did not like life in the civilization, so they moved to the country to have free lives. Among these two, the rednecks did a better job. They did a better job of providing for themselves and of defending themselves.

Among the hippies, some stayed in the country and gave birth to the organic farming industry. Many more moved back to the civilization, where they used their intellect and creativity to create the computer industry and the Wall Street boom. Some among the first group see the second group as having sold out. However I see them as having made a better choice. Once again, they used their intellect and creativity to create something beneficial. And that is a much better choice than remaining potheads while contributing very little of merit to the country.

In dealing with any population, it is important to see both what they are right about and what they are wrong about. The rednecks are right to work hard and to encourage strength. Where they err is when they support violence against wives and children. There is absolutely no excuse for that. It is possible for people to become tough without having to face directionless violence or abusive behavior; and I, doing tons of rigorous exercise, am hardly a weak man.

What is the solution to this? As always, it is about seeing what people are right about and what they are wrong about. Strength and hard work are good values, and they should be kept. But there is much less to recommend domestic violence or abuse of children.

The country will continue to exist. The question is, in what form? I do not want to see these people eviscerated. But neither do I want to see these people to force wrongful and abusive attitudes on the civilization. Many of these people really do have valuable things to offer. And it is important that they be seen for this and treated with respect that is due what they contribute to the country.

The Iago Element In Society

“Othello” is one of the most brilliant pieces of work that I've ever read. Iago is a fictional character, however there are many people in real life who act like Iago.

When I was living on the Magnetic Island in Australia, a former lawyer turned alcoholic named David came to the island. David convinced the mother of my former wife's husband Malcolm that her son did not love her and that all he wanted from her was her house, which was completely untrue. It took Malcolm a lot of effort to rebuild his relationship with his mother.

I have seen any number of Iago acts – some done deliberately, some done from false beliefs. A man may genuinely love a woman, then his bar buddies would convince him that the woman is doing the wrong thing by him, or that she is a bad person, or that his feelings for the woman are unmanly, or that he owes it to other men to keep women down. This destroys even the best relationships.

I have seen this happen; I have also had this happen. I loved very deeply a woman named Michelle, and her stepmother told her that I was using her. To this day I do not know if that woman lied or if she really believed what she said. However I have continued to love Michelle, even when she no longer was with me.

My former wife was with a man whose parents were Jehovah's Witnesses, and his mother manipulated him to be horrible to her. My sister was married to a man whose mother manipulated him to be vicious to her, even though he loved her. Luckily my sister had a good guidance from her loving and knowledgeable mother, and she left that man before he could do anything truly ugly to her.

So what I advocate is for people to watch out for the Iago element in society. It is for people to see through this vile bullshit and have the courage to love whom they love whatever any Iago wants to claim about them.

Now some people think that the romantic type are lacking in insight. I for one am not lacking in insight at all. And I am willing to use my insight to take on all Iagos that are out there, so that people who love one another can have a good life with one another.

And this is the case for all sorts of people from whom I have nothing to gain in return.

Shakespeare was a brilliant writer, and many of the things that he has written have value in our own lives. I am not as good a writer as Shakespeare, but I do see value in building upon his insights. If an Iago of any gender is trying to poison you against the person you love, the correct response is punching him in the face. And an even more correct response is continuing to love whom you love, whatever these scumbags have to say about it.

Ego And Responsibility

There are people who believe that the world's problems are rooted in ego, and that doing anything at the political level is ego-driven and thus a part of the problem.

They are wrong – completely.

The problems of the world are not rooted in ego. They are rooted in wrong choices that people make. This can most certainly come from ego; but it can also come from any number of other things than ego. They can come from deliberate negative intent. Or they can come from error. And these, once again, can have any number of possible sources, from bad intent to bad thinking.

Me escaping the world or meditating away my ego would solve absolutely nothing. It may improve my state of mind or even my character; but it will not solve things such as global warming and gender war. What would solve our problems is direct, honest, intelligent action toward that effect. And there are plenty of things that need to be done in the world.

Am I driven in this by ego? No. I am driven in this by wanting my daughter to inherit a better world than did I. I am driven in this by love, which is what spiritual people are meant to be driven by.

Even if someone is motivated by ego, that does not mean that he is going to be doing wrong. Bill Gates is an egomaniac, but he computerized the world and contributed billions of dollars toward fighting AIDS in Africa. Certainly ego can go wrong; but it also can go right. Yes Hitler had a big ego; but so do any number of major contributors, and most of them are not doing evil.

Another claim I have heard is that I am driven by power. I for one do not seek to kill or to rule anyone. I seek to influence thought with better ideas. And there are plenty of these at https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought.

Now there are many of such people who talk about responsibility; but I do not see them practicing it. Responsibility does not mean having a huge house and a Hummer. Responsibility means leaving the world a better place than you have found it. It is completely wrong to portray concern for such things as lack of responsibility or “victim consciousness” or anything of the sort. You are here. You are taking up resources. It is your responsibility to make the place better for you having been in it.

Should we throw away spirituality? No. We should however throw away bad thinking, and in these situations this is what we see. Positive thinking or anything of the sort solves absolutely nothing. In fact it causes more problems than it solves. You think positive, you fail to anticipate problems, you do foolish things.

Negative thinking is not the solution either. A negative thinker would portray anything good as yet another, sneakier way to do evil; and after being treated that way by a number of people who have that mentality I finally had enough of it and decided to cut them out of my life. Negative thinking would have us convinced that we are not able to solve our problems. That is completely wrong. We most certainly are capable of solving our problems. It just takes intelligence and guts.

Neither positive thinking nor negative thinking begin to be the solution. The real solution is real thinking and real action in its pursuit. Removing ourselves from the fire accomplishes nothing. We need to apply ourselves toward solving the world's problems. It does not matter if someone thinks that this is of the ego. What matters is leaving the world a better place than we have found it; and that can have any number of possible motivations. In my case, once again, the motivation is love.

So it is time that real problems be confronted by real action. And that means among other things throwing away deceptions such as what we see in the New Age movement and doing what actually needs to be done. And there are plenty of things that need to be done.

Wrongful Demands And Wrongful Concepts Of Mental Health

Many of the beliefs that are out there are not only false, they are precisely false. They are the precise opposite of what actually is the case. For example I have been called a misogynist. I am such a misogynist that I've written extensive, beautiful poetry for several different women. I am such a misogynist that I sacrificed a very nice setup in America to move to Australia to be with a woman I've loved. I am such a misogynist that I am a loving, responsible father to my daughter and am constantly going out of my way to do what needs to be done by her.

What we see here is not only a lie; it is a Big Lie. It is representing things as the opposite of what they are. When R. D. Laing called the common concept of mental health as “being out of one's mind,” he was absolutely correct. Once in a therapy session I said that I was being taught to capitulate, at which point a therapist said that I was being taught to capitulate to mental health. The problem is that this person's concept of mental health is mean, ideologically driven and wrong. And I would rather join the Taliban than practice this concept of mental health.

Is it really mental health to be hateful to love and beauty? Is it really mental health to abuse people who are partial toward the same? Is it really mental health to have no value for arts or for poetry? Or are we seeing here a form of fascism that has no business claiming to exist in countries that are intended to be free?

Now I am perfectly willing to examine myself; but I am not going to do so according to attitudes that are wrong. I will not examine myself according to errors of Freud or Adler or self-esteem psychologists or New Agers or anything of the sort. These people are wrong – dead wrong. And I refuse to assay myself according to such beliefs.

What I am willing to do instead is examine these ideologies. And I have done so – extensively. There are many essays on my site at https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought that examine things of this sort. You assay me, expect me to assay you right back. And don't expect me to be more gentle toward you than you are being toward me.

For me, acquiescing to such beliefs is just as unacceptable as it was for Ayn Rand to adapt to Communism. I would rather be dead than believe things of this sort. Do not force on me something that is against my most valued principles. Do not claim such things to be mental health either. They are no such thing as mental health; they are lies.

I am a Russian romantic. That is what I have always been; that is what I always will be. I am willing to work hard, look after my family and follow the law; I am not willing to give up my cherished principles. Do not try to force on me your false concept of mental health. It is no such thing as mental health; and the more you force it on me the more effort I will put into refuting it.

So here it is. I am willing to follow your law and to work within your system; I am not willing to give up my way of thinking and follow yours. And if you are genuinely intelligent you will give up trying to make me think your way and allow me to think my way while demanding the things and only the things that you have a legitimate right to demand.

Nixon, Federline And The High-Born

For a long time I found Richard Nixon to be a very interesting person. I believe that he gets a bad rap. He did a lot of things that the Left should be grateful for. He opened the door to China. He started the EPA. He replaced the conscript army with a professional army. And he was also a loving husband and loving father.

There is however a problem that I have seen about Richard Nixon. It appears that at the core of his motivation was hatred of the high-born. I consider that to be wrong. The high-born did not choose to be high-born. They just happened to be high-born. You do not hate people for something that they have not chosen to be. It's as wrong as hating the Jews or hating the blacks.

I attended a private school on a full scholarship. My parents were immigrants who, being immigrants, weren't as wealthy as most other parents, and a number of people in that school treated me badly. However I have also had negative attention from any number of people who were not high-born, and that included people whom I once lionized: the self-made men. Probably my worst experience with anyone was with two people on the Internet who came from poor backgrounds and made good in the computer industry. Now there are certainly any number of people from high-born who act like jerks; but there are just as many jerks who were not high-born, as any woman who's had to deal with men from the inner city or men from the rural South would tell you.

I once knew a man from a similar background, a Reagan conservative and a millionaire named Gary who married a woman named Julia who was descended from English royalty. He was absolutely horrible to her. We see similar dynamics between Kevin Federline and Brittney Spears. These men appear to be of the opinion that they are better than the “elites.” They think that they have better morals and better understanding of life. Their solution is getting together with the most attractive woman out there and treating her like dirt. That way they get to be part of the elites while considering themselves better than the elites and while wiping their ass with their finest product.

On this matter Nixon made a much better choice than either of the above. He did not go for a princess. He went for a woman whom he could respect as a human being, and he and her had a great marriage. Instead he directed his hatred of the high-born to political pursuits. And he ended up becoming much more powerful than either of the preceding – rightfully.

I was with Julia as well, and I loved her. I wrote her a poetry book that became widely read in DC. I was also married to a woman who was descended from Irish royalty, and we remain on good terms even though we are no longer together. I am attracted to artistic women, and I also like them as people. And that makes a much better basis for relationship than does what Gary or Keven Federline did. As they say, one man's trash is another man's treasure.

So here we see three different people who came from the same psychology. They were driven by hatred of the high-born. And all of them found ways to be highly destructive. However while Kevin Federline was merely destructive, Nixon accomplished a number of important things, and he also had a good marriage, which neither of the other two were able to do.

All of the above were status-climbers. And status-climbing can be done in any number of ways, some more respectable than others. And while I have respect for Nixon, I have very little for Kevin Federline. As for Gary, he can be commended on his professional successes but not on how he treated his wife.

The position from which these people come is understandable. Understandable however is not the same thing as right. If not for the “elites,” America would not have existed in the first place. The people who founded America were high-born intellectuals. Their ideals made possible for there to be such a thing as America. And for American people to hate such people is to militate against what made America possible in the first place.

Far be it from me to attack the ideal of equality. But when some people are being hated and viciously mistreated for coming from one class rather than the other, someone needs to step in and say that this is wrong. It was wrong for Gary to brutally abuse Julia. It was wrong for Kevin Federline to treat Brittney Spears the way he treated her. And it was wrong for Nixon to make a lifetime cause of attacking the high-born.

Clinton came from humble background as well; but he was not driven by hatred of the high-born. He was one of the most benevolent presidents that America has seen, and under him America gained 23 million private-sector jobs and had the only surplus in decades. Clinton is the proof that men from poor backgrounds do not have to be bullies in order to rise in society. And it is a far more promising direction for people who come from humble backgrounds and seek a better life.

The Error Of Fascists And Libertarians

Fascists and libertarians both make the same error, from opposite directions. They believe that there is a qualitative difference between people who are a part of the state and people who are not a part of the state. Fascists think that people inside the state are better than people outside the state; the libertarians think the opposite. In fact I see no reason why either one would be better than the other.

I have lived for extended periods of time in both the former Soviet Union and in United States. In both places I heard horror stories. The difference was that while in the Soviet Union the worst perpetrator was the government, in America they were private. I mean someone having every bone in his body broken when he was a child, and another person having his brother killed by his father and being anally raped by his father since he was three. I mean the mafia killing an inventor and corrupting every lawyer that his daughter attempted to hire. I mean a man breaking a woman's skull so badly that she needed 40 stitches and walking away with the child.

Whenever a human phenomenon is deified, it is given powers that it does not deserve. As such it uses these powers for wrong things. If state is deified, then it becomes an organ of brutality and oppression. If family, or community, or the public or the society, is deified, then it becomes an organ of wrongdoing as well. Once again, I see no reason to see one as better or worse than the other.

I once had the inspiration that the English civilization and the American society work in opposite directions. The English impose a solution from the top; the Americans build up through spontaneous activity. This can be visualized as a downward-pointing triangle on the part of the English and an upward-pointing triangle on the part of the Americans. When the two triangles intersect we get David's Star: What appears to be the divinely ordained solution.

I work with two concepts: Checks-and-balances and synthesis. Both have been used to create superpowers. However neither is complete in itself. Checks-and-balances by itself leads to gridlock, and synthesis by itself leads to totalitarianism. What we need is a combination of the two. At the bottom level, each party protects its rightful prerogatives and in so doing checks the other's capacity for wrongdoing. And at the top they work together to accomplish what neither can accomplish by itself.

Both the state and not-the-state are capable of various forms of wrongdoing. They are also both capable of doing things that are right. When dealing with entities that are capable of both right and wrong, the correct solution is checking their wrongdoing and supporting them in what they do that is right. This, once again, is the case both for people inside the state and people outside the state.

The state, when left to its own devices, can do terrible things. So can the general public. But both are also capable of doing right. So the solution, once again, is David's Star. Synthesis within the framework of check-and-balance. Allow each triangle to check the other's capacity for wrongdoing and work together to accomplish what neither can by itself.

In places where this is done, we see any number of positive outcomes. We see this for example in Israel, and the place is doing well enough. We also see this in some Asian countries and some European countries. The two forces check and balance each other, and then they work together to achieve what neither can achieve by itself. The entities that have the capacity for oppression are checked by people's affirmation of their legitimate interests such as life and liberty. The entities that want to eat up all the resources are checked by people who care about the future.

Both fascists and libertarians are in error. There is no reason to think that people in the state would be better or worse than people outside the state. I propose the model of synthesis within the framework of check-and-balance, allowing people in both places to check each other's capacity for wrongdoing and work together to achieve positive results.

Addressing Gender Relations In Russia

After a member of Russian parliament harassed two young female journalists, they decided to call attention to this and related problems.

There are a number of things involved here. One is that, yes, in Russia things like sexual harassment and domestic violence are through the roof. However neither do we want to see the kind of madness that happened in America in 1990s, when a man would lose his job for looking at a woman the wrong way. The wrongs need to be addressed correctly without causing wrongs in the process.

There needs to be change in laws; but more importantly there needs to be change in culture. A change in laws that is not accompanied by a change in culture is not a lasting change. There were many people living under Communism who had other ideas. They instilled these ideas into their children. So that going to the government was seen as the worst kind of betrayal, even on matters on which the government was right. In such situations, when a family member breaks a law, often the family is under intense pressure to hide it. And that is especially true of children and wives.

A cautionary story toward that effect is what happened in the American South. There appears to be a lot of incest in that area; and the government has noticed. One of the things that it has been doing is taking children away. The locals responded correctly by citing government overreach and not correctly by encouraging conspiracy theories and the government-as-the-Great-Satan theory. This has lead to movements that remain powerful to this day. There was a change in laws; it was not accompanied by a change in culture. The result was the culture reacting with vengeance and taking their dissatisfaction all the way to DC.

The Russians therefore need to change the culture of brutality against women. And this must be done not by appealing to liberal values, which these people do not have, but to their own values.

They value character, or so they claim. Character means controlling what you are doing with your fists and your mouth. Domestic violence should be seen as a failure of character and shamed as such.

Another value that they have is national greatness. The culture of brutality against women is a vast national embarrassment before the world. It makes Russian men look like pigs. Russia is a country that derives a large portion of its national pride from its cultural heritage. For a country that trades on its culture to have the culture of brutality against women is totally self-defeating.

So the argument needs to be made that this kind of behavior is contradictory to their values and their aspirations. The argument needs to be made that this behavior is wrong according to the values that they actually claim to have. The more this is done, the more there is the change in the culture. And that will result in lasting improvement for Russian women, one that is not identified with an ideology and that can become a part of Russian culture for many generations to come.

Demanding Wisdom Of Our Leaders

It appears that Russia and England are having a fight because of a poisoning. It is important that things be put into perspective.

In relations – and that also includes international relations – some conflict is inevitable. What speaks for or against the parties involved is how that conflict is managed. If people are killing each other because they have disagreements, that speaks against them. If they handle it in a prudent manner, it speaks for them.

In international relations, this is especially important. At stake here are destinies of nations and billions of lives. It is especially important that conflicts of that sort be handled providently. And that means demanding wisdom of our leaders and practicing wisdom ourselves.

Donald Trump prides himself on his negotiating skills; and I think that he may well be right about that. It may very well be necessary to put those skills to use in present situations. War should be seen as failure of politics, and all pressure must be put on political leaders to create negotiated rather than military solutions. That does not mean being weak. That means using military might as a weapon of last resort.

It is sometimes said that the way that people are, so is the state. If this is true, then people stand to improve their countries through rightful behavior. I have been practicing deliberate rightful behavior even in situations that did not require it, and so have many others. If someone who's been maligned as much as I have can do this, then so can Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump.

So it is time that people everywhere put this kind of pressure upon their leaders. Demand of them wisdom and rightful conduct while practicing the same ourselves. And that will create better people and better countries, meaning a better world.

Police Brutality And Respect For The Law

Nearly 2000 years ago, the Roman police put on Jesus a crown of thorns and a robe that said “King of the Jews.”

Given recent happenings in Australian state of Victoria, it appears that police has not changed much since that time.

Now the man whom they attacked was not Jesus; he was however innocent. And the entire episode got caught on camera, which is not something that happens often. And if an episode of police brutality gets caught on camera, imagine how many other episodes of police brutality go undetected.

I knew of a woman who had been raped while in a mental hospital. When she told the staff, they hosed her down with ice-cold water. I have known women who were brutally attacked by men, which men then went to the police and told them that the woman attacked them. And I also know people who've put in heroic effort into fighting corruption in the court system, only to get slandered and falsely litigated in absense of evidence.

Sometimes police corruption runs in departments. There have been three major movies – Chinatown, Changeling and another one whose name I forget – about corruption in the Los Angeles police department. Of course there is even harder evidence for corruption in that department: the Rodney King tapes. It appears that some departments resist efforts to correct them. And it appears that we see the same thing in Victoria.

Sometimes efforts to fight police corruption do bear fruit. It has been done effectively in Brazil, where police used to be so corrupt as to shoot sewer children for sport. It obviously also has to be done in Australia. It is wrong for police to act in sadistic and dishonorable manner; and the police acting in such a manner discredits law enforcement and law as such.

It is this that is the real damage done here. If police act like they did in that episode, then that discredits the law. This in turn leads many people to violate the law who otherwise would respect it. And that is very bad for the country.

If the police want people to follow the law – as they should – then they need to be leading by example. You do not hose people down with ice water for informing that they have been raped. You do not repeatedly spray someone with pepper spray while saying “how do you like the taste of it maite.” You do not – as happened in America – undress a woman and leave her naked in a cell for six hours because she called the police when her cousin got violent. You dedicate your life to enfocing the law, follow the law yourself. Otherwise any gangster can say that the police are a bunch of hypocrites and “pigs” and that the city should belong to the gangsters.

So it is time that more police departments perform audits of their employees. Once again, police violating the law discredits the law. And the more the police get a grip on themselves, the fewer people see them as hypocrites and the more people actually have respect for the law.