Fairy Tales And Political Correctness

In the Salvation Army's magazine “Others,” Amanda Merrett has made a case for exclusion of fairy tales from the curriculum, stating that they postulated the view that women are objects or that they are only seen as valuable when with a man.

There are many reasons to challenge this point of view.

One of Merrett's examples was in “Beauty And The Beast.” She stated that it “normalizes a dangerous idea that a man's aggressive behavior can be affectionate.” That does not begin to be the message of “Beauty And The Beast.” The true message of the fairy tale is that a woman has been able to turn a bad person into a good person, which is highly empowering to women and sees them as not being less than men but in many ways men's superior. And another message is that a woman can get away from a powerful man who wants her for an acquisition and is willing to do nasty things in his aggressive wooing of her. Both messages are empowering to women.

Somewhat similar is a message in “Peter Pan.” By kissing Peter Pan, Wendy was able to give him the strength that he needed to defeat Captain Hook. Once again, the message here is that women have power – power that men by themselves do not have.

Another of Merrett's examples was Ariel giving up her voice in order to be with a prince whom she did not know. For a symmetry, we have “Cinderella,” in which a prince chooses for his wife a girl from a humble background whom he knew nothing about. In both cases a huge risk is taken – one by a woman, the other by a man. This is, once again, symmetrical, and there is nothing sexist about it.

“Cinderella” is empowering especially to women from the rough side of town. It shows a woman who was degraded at home by her female relatives captivating a prince. Unfortunately, other females degrading the kinder, prettier girls appears to be in fashion these days. Which means that stories like “Cinderella” will be more in demand.

In real life, one of the most best-selling children's authors of all time was a woman named Beatrix Potter. She did not become famous through men. She became famous through her own efforts. And her accomplishment is far greater than that of women who profane the West's literary tradition without replacing it with anything of nearly the same quality.

Are there fairy tales with themes that are misogynistic? In Russia there is “Baba Yaga,” a witch who lives in the woods and eats children. There is not much of an excuse for that. However in the fairy tales mentioned we do not see misogyny. Once again, in many respects the message here is favorable to women.

To the people who take objection to West's literary and cultural legacy, I pose a challenge. Create something of similar quality to the works that you attack. Create something that compares to “Beauty And The Beast.” For that matter, create something that compares to works of Shakespeare. And then you will be a transformative influence instead of a destructive influence, ushering in something that is better than what it stands to replace.

Natural Consequences And Artificial Consequences

When I was 12 or 13, a Russian immigrant lady advised my father to use corporal punishment on me. She said that I was a smart boy and that I would get the point.

What she did not understand was that I was in fact too smart a boy to fall for such a transparent manipulation. The distinction that needs to be made is between actions' natural consequences and their artificial consequences. In the first case we see a logical outgrowth of the action itself. In the second case is a consequence assigned to the action by others. If a parent chooses to be violent to their child, that is not the natural consequence of the child's actions. It is an artificial consequence assigned to the child's actions by the parents.

We see this around us all the time – this confusion between natural consequences and artificial consequences. We see this especially in the matter of love. When love is attacked from many different sides – by toxic feminists, by predatory psychologists, by unethical divorce lawyers – love will be at a disadvantage. Most love relationships will fail. At which point the people responsible for this state of affairs will howl victory and say that they have been right about love all along.

For a long time we saw this with women as well. They were treated as slaves. If you are a slave and you have intelligence or other strengthening qualities, then that will make you dangerous to people who want to see you and yours remaining a slave. So for a long time the women of intellect were seen as danger to society. Most of them were persecuted, in order to keep up the lie that women are stupid and should be slaves. And the ones who would not had to learn brilliant manipulation, which of course was used to claim that women were evil.

Now there are many situations in which artificial consequences are assigned rightfully. If you rob someone or commit murder, then you should go to jail. However let us not deceive ourselves into thinking that this is a natural consequence of such behavior. It is not. It is an artificial consequence assigned to it – in this case rightfully – by society.

So it is important to make a distinction between natural consequences and artificial consequences. If you choose to beat your child, that is not the natural consequence of your child's behavior. That is an artificial consequence that you have assigned to the child's deeds. As for myself, I hold myself to a higher standard of conduct as a parent. And I hope that other parents take my advice and allow the child to learn the actions' natural consequences and navigate life intelligently as a result.

Rationality And Love

There are some people who are of the opinion that romantic love is irrational.

For an opposing view, we have John Nash, a pioneering mathematician, stating that truth is found in the equations of love.

The World War II generation was hardly irrational; but many of them practiced love – successfully. I know a man who was Vice President of the National Academy Of Science – as well as a military colonel – who started his marriage with love at first sight. To the best of my knowledge his marriage continued “till death do us part,” and they raised a very successful family while continuing to love one another till a very late age.

One persistent problem I find in people who think themselves rational is that they consider as being irrational anything that runs by a different logic than what they themselves practice. Something is not exactly the way they think, so it must be irrational. This kind of arrogance and stupidity gives birth to such claims as “taken as a whole the universe is absurd” or “the only absolute is that there are no absolutes.” You have projected your method upon the world; and, when finding the world run by a different method, consider the world itself to be irrational. That is the worst form of hubris that I've ever come across.

To these people, the correct response is that the method exists to discern reality rather than the other way around. Logic exists to discern the universe; universe does not exist to be logical in your eyes. One error this leads to, according to its own mechanism, is the error of nihilism – an error of which I myself was guilty when I was a teenager. If you believe that reality is what can be proven, then the logical outcome of the fact that nothing can be proven to a man with brain damage or a man who refuses to listen to evidence is that nothing is real, and it's Strawberry Fields Forever. So it is important to adjust the definition of what is real. What is real is what exists, whatever your opinion on it may be.

That you cannot understand the logic of something does not mean that it is illogical. It means that your understanding of the matter is not advanced enough. And the correct solution is improving your understanding, so that you can parse it into your supposedly logical worldview.

The correct place of logic is to understand things, not to stomp on things that one wrongfully considers to be irrational. And that is the case with love and any number of other important things.

Credibility And Money

I never wanted money for the sake of money; but there was a time when I wanted money because I believed that it would afford me greater credibility. I found out since then that this is not the case. I was in San Francisco in 1998 and then again in 2000. The first time around I was making a lot of money; the second time around I was homeless. People found me more interesting the second time than the first time. That is because in 1998 I was yet another boring, boastful yuppie; whereas in 2000 I was doing something interesting and original and had interesting things to say.

Credibility can be achieved in any number of ways. Some people achieve credibility by accomplishing impressive things. Others achieve credibility by developing in-depth insight or having life experience. Others still achieve credibility by developing strong character, courage and strength. I have made efforts in all of these directions, and there are any number of people who value what I have to say. I have found in all cases that not only did this enhance credibility but it also enhanced the quality of the material offered. What results in these cases is greater wisdom, and then it becomes possible to communicate things that are wise and have credibility for it.

With what I have to say on the Internet, there are some people who like and are frequently grateful for what I write, and there are others who attack me. Most of the ones who attack me have very little of anything original to contribute. Some of them have more education than me; some of them are more skillful at arguing than me. But very few of them have actually anything to say.

So I suppose the forums that are open to writers are also open to bullies, and one should get used to that kind of thing. However that does not mean taking the abuse lying down. I have in fact found that at times the people who attack you learn to respect you if you defend yourself well; and I have known people who started out flaming each other who became friends as they interacted.

Back to the original subject. Money can be a path to credibility, but there are any number of other paths to credibility as well. And I advocate very much the character path and the experience path to those who want to both have something meaningful to say and to be taken seriously.

Changing Yourself Vs. Changing The World

One of Michael Jackson's most famous efforts was a song that went,

I'm starting with the man in the mirror

I'm asking him to change his ways …

If you want to make the world a better place,

Take a look at yourself, and then make the change.

He was part-right.

Problems have different causes, and they have different solutions. If the problem is with you, then solving it means changing yourself. If the problem is with something else, then that is where the effort should be directed. We have both internal and external problems; and these are resolved through internal or external action.

I used to have a problem of being physically weak. I solved it by doing rigorous exercise. However me working on myself would not begin to solve global warming, federal debt or gender war. These problems are external to myself, and they must be faced and solved as they are.

Working on yourself has two positive effects. One is that it improves you. The other is that it shows other people a better way to live. Both are valid endeavors. When I maintained a good relationship with my former wife after she left me, it was an action with positive effects besides to me and my former wife. There were a number of people who were watching the situation to see how it would go; and for it to have gone well showed them that they do not need to crucify a partner if she should leave them, and that it is possible to solve such problems in a humane and civilized way.

However me, or Michael Jackson, or anyone else, working on themselves will not solve problems such as global warming and federal debt. These problems need to be solved externally to ourselves.

AA's Serenity Prayer says, “God give me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change, courage to change the things that I can and the wisdom to know the difference.” A Republican candidate in West Virginia wrote on his site, “I am no longer accepting the things that I cannot change, I am changing the things that I cannot accept.” He is right. Some things we should not accept. Some things are not solved by working on yourself but on working on the world. Sometimes you need to change the man in the mirror. Sometimes you need to change something else.

So the wisdom here is the crucial part. And it is very much possible to err in either direction. If the problem is with you, then improve you. If the problem is with something else, then make the change there. For most people there will be a need for both directions. And they will be called upon to have the wisdom to know what to do in what situation.

Being Full Of Self Vs. Being Full Of Crap

The question I pose here is not a usual one, but it should be stated regardless. It is as follows: What is worse – to be regarded as being full of self or to be regarded as being full of crap?

It appears that these are the only two options. You can identify with yourself, or you can identify with something outside yourself. If you identify with yourself, you will be seen as being full of self. If you identify with something outside yourself, you will be seen as being full of crap. Anything you identify with outside of yourself, someone will see as a con or a power trip or another surreptitious way to do evil.

So these are our two options: Identifying with self and identifying with something outside the self. In either case you are going to get attacked. In the first case you will be seen as being full of self; in the second case you will be seen as being full of crap. With some people you just can't win.

What then is the solution to this quandary? Probably calling such people on their hypocrisy, which I have not seen done with this particular population – in this case, the cynical element, particularly in Generation X. They have made their hypothesis unfalsifiable. You are damned if you do, damned if you don't. This means that their claims are bogus, and there is no reason to listen to what they have to say. It is like the Republicans saying that liberals are losers if they don't make money and hypocrites if they do make money. Whatever you do, you are a baddy. This is completely wrong way to believe.

So it is time that more be done to challenge these attitudes. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, is a completely wrong standard to have. As for myself, my attitude is that a being that exists both as himself and as part of a greater whole will naturally have inclinations toward both, and there is nothing wrong about it. Do good and do well. The more this is done, the greater the world benefits, and that means both as individuals and as a collective.

Heroism, Altruism And Love

Three major values that have taken a hit in recent years have been heroism, altruism and love. I seek to bring these values back.

A hero is a strong person with good values who uses his strength on behalf of other people, especially as concerns standing up to strong people whose values are not as good as his. A typical fictional hero is Beowulf, who killed a monster that was killing people. A significant heroism in real life has been America's involvement in the Second World War. And closer to home, I have seen heroism performed by my former wife Melanie, who faced danger to life, financial loss and loss of reputation by revealing corruption in family courts.

According to some people, wanting to be a hero is compensation for low self-esteem. The Americans who fought in the Second World War will tell you how full of shit these people are. And without them, the people who believe such things would be chanting Heil Hitler. Why on earth would someone go to war to protect people who believe such a thing? Many of them also think that the people who die or suffer do so because they caused it through negativity in their consciousness. So why would anyone fight to protect them if they will say that the person who did so suffered for their negativity or low self-esteem?

Altruism is willingness to go out of one's way to benefit other people. On altruism, I've heard the claim it is based on being three years old and having everything around you depend on others. There is a problem with that claim. I volunteer for the Salvation Army. The organization does not consist of three-year-olds. It consists of honest, responsible people working hard to make the world a better place. A related claim – that saving the world is a front for wanting to rule it – is also refuted by this situation. The Salvation Army does not seek to rule the world; and Texas Oil and Wall Street do not pretend to be wanting to save it.

With love, we see any number of wrong claims as well. One is that it is search for external validation, which supposedly should come from within. That is completely wrong. Love is not about what you feel about yourself but about what you feel about the other person. Nor is it a patriarchial racket. Many champions of love – from Elizabeth Barrett Browning to Anna Akhmatova to Murabai – were women. And it most certainly is not a narcissistic fantasy. I've known World War II generation households that started with love at first sight and blossomed into wholesome family life and kept going strong when the partners were in their 80s. Maybe the more selfish among the baby boomers would be described by this concept of love. But I have higher standards for myself than that.

All of these are good values that have been misrepresented. And there is a need for all of these values. And if nobody else will make a stance for them, then I will.

Do Countries Deserve Their Governments?

One claim I have heard is that every country deserves its government.

There is a problem with that claim. While some countries have only had bad governments, most have had some good ones and some bad ones. Nigeria had a bad government in 1990s; and after the death of dictator Sani Abacha the country perked up. It has had several elected governments in a row, and economically it has been booming. According to the logic of the statement, Nigeria deserves both the good and the bad governments that it had had. And that would mean that Nigerian people are qualitatively different now than they were in 1990s – a claim that is quite unsuitable to be believed.

I come from Russia, and while Russian governments there have been heavy-handed, there are ways to go between Stalin and Peter the Great. Russians do look up to strong leader; which means that whoever is the leader there has more power than he does in the United States. If they have a good guy in charge things are good; if they have a baddy in charge they aren't. Did Russia deserve both Stalin and Khruschev? Did the character of its people really change that much with the death of a hideous despot and the selection of a mostly decent person? You get the idea.

If the claim is that people need to impose upon their leaders accountability to the public, that claim is correct. However attacking the people when they are already suffering enough under one or another despot is completely unrightful behavior. There can be any number of reasons why a country could get the government that it gets. If – as happened in Sierra Leone - the military orchestrates a coup and throws out an elected government, then runs around the countryside cutting off people's hands, then no, the people of the country do not deserve such a government. They do not need attack, they need help.

So that while it is important that people have reason to create decent governments, let us not blind ourselves to situations in which bad people get into power regardless of people's input and use that power to do wrong. Once again, the same country can have good governments and bad governments within a short time of one another. In many situations compassion and understanding are in order. Do not blame the people who get their hands hacked off by the military. Confront the military that does it and then leave people free to create a functional government.

On Being "Grandiose"

I once had a counselor named Nancy who, upon me bringing up the importance of religious matters, said that I was being grandiose.

What she did not understand was that, for me, grandiose goals are perfectly realistic. I was recognized as a genuis since an early age, and I finished University of Virginia at age 18. With the education and the attention that I have had, I consider it imperative for me to make major contributions.

I have in fact made some such. I translated five books of classical Russian poetry into English. I have my name on a patent. I am well-known and respected as a poet in several scenes. I have contributed original and useful thought on a range of subjects, with practical applications in everything from journalism to economics and psychology. Even so, I have been willing to work in humble capacities, either for reasons of personal loyalty or for reasons of believing in the cause. My present employment is in research for a non-partisan political information site. It does not pay very much, but it benefits democracy, and its owner is a good friend.

The idea for translating Russian poetry came from an extraordinary teacher named Hughlings Himwich. He took personal interest in me, and he saw in me an extraordinary ability that deserved to be expressed. Now my translations are being used in dissertations, and while I've had many people claiming that there was no value for what I was doing, in fact great value has been achieved.

One of the worst things that can happen is to have a counselor who dislikes you. Such a person can do grave damage. One thing that I have had to do in my life is deconstruct the various forms of foolishness that people have used against me. To these people my response is that I did not start that fight, but I can finish it.

Once again, for some people grandiose is realistic. There have been many major contributors, and we continue to owe to them. If Thomas Jefferson had listened to Nancy, Nancy would be a peasant in Ireland living till age 30 and being beaten every day. And in attacking similar attitude in others, one attacks a lot of what made one's condition possible in the first place.

I have lived in America long enough to know that bold thinking is a virtue, and one that makes countries great. Considering such things to be unrealistic is failing to have an adequate concept of reality. The reality of our lives owes to many people who think bold. And if Steven Jobs or John Lennon or Theodore Roosevelt had followed Nancy's advice, we would not have much of what we have.

Now there are clearly situations in which people have expectations that are unrealistic for them, and it works for the betterment for them to adjust their expectations. However bold thinking has a vast role in improving reality of the world, and Americans especially should know that. I seek to challenge this thinking, and I seek to correct these errors. Grandiose has worked for many people. And many regular people owe much to those who have taken that path.

Bible And The Jews

Among the anti-Jew agitators these days, I have seen ones who say that Jews killed Jesus and ones who say that the Bible is a Jewish fable used to control people. Both are wrong.

I did not kill Jesus, and I refuse to be blamed for the actions of Herod or Caiaphas. If the claim is that sins of ancestors are visited upon their descendants, then Americans, English, Spanish, Germans and others have had much greater and much more recent atrocities in their history than the execution of Jesus by the Jews. Jesus resurrected after three days. The 100 million inhabitants of the American continent who died from Spanish and English colonialism did not.

As for the Bible being made up, that is completely wrong as well. Why on earth would the Jews make up something like that? The stories do not do glory to them; they do glory to God. In fact in many places in the Bible the Jews are portrayed in a negative light. There is the account of them revolting during Exodus and worshipping the golden calf. There are accounts of evil kings like Saul, Ahab and Athaliah. If the Bible had been a self-serving tale by the Jews, then it would have portrayed the Jews positively. It did not.

So there are some who equate Jews with the killers of Jesus; and there are others who think that the entire Judeo-Christian tradition is bogus and a racket run by the Jews. Then why did it outlast the Roman Empire? The Romans had advanced knowledge of many subjects but Judaism and Christianity outlasted the Romans. Clearly there must be wisdom and strength to what they practice.

Most historical narratives are in fact self-serving. Nearly contemporary with Jesus was Roman historian named Livy, who wrote about Roman history in highly patriotic way. The Bible however is not patriotic to the Jews. The Bible records many wrong things done by the Jews. This means that it cannot be a self-serving document and is not done in favor of Jews but in favor of God.

So it is time that both claims be addressed. The first one, again, is that I am not responsible for the actions of Herod, and that it is hypocritical to blame people for sins of their long past ancestors when one has had much greater and much more recent sins in his history. And the second is that the Bible cannot be a Jewish racket or any kind of racket, as if it had been a self-serving document it would have portrayed Jews positively. I have not seen anyone make these statements; so if nobody else will do so, then I will.

What We As Jews Have To Do

In The Merchant Of Venice, Shakespeare writes about a Jewish merchant named Shylock. Shylock gives this speech:

“Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?”

Then he loans out money, and when it was not returned demanded as his bond a pount of flesh. He keeps demanding that pound of flesh, until a judge named Portia calls him on his hypocrisy.

There is in fact a merit to this story. If one is to demand tolerance from others, then one must practice compassion toward others as well. And we as Jews need to learn how to treat non-Jews rightfully.

There is now a lot of anti-Jewish agitation around the world, and that calls for two things. One is confronting the false arguments and false claims that are being presented. More important is to show by our actions that our accusers are wrong. It is to hold ourselves to a high standard while dealing with non-Jewish people and to treat them rightfully.

That does not mean not being loyal to the Jewish heritage. It means seeing where others have done the right thing and where they deserve respect. It means respecting what's good in people who are not of Jewish heritage. It means following Moses' commandment to be good to foreigners, as we have ourselves been foreigners in Egypt.

So that while much work does need to be made by way of confronting slanders against Jews, even more work needs to be made by way of making these slanders non-credible. And that calls upon us to be good to the Gentiles whatever we may think about their beliefs.