Metaphor For Western Civilization

When I was in Tucson, I saw a bus station whose design I believe to be metaphorical of the Western civilization.

At the bottom are four cylindrical pillars. Above them is a netted horizontal cross. At the top of the cross is a large rectangle. And the structure is surrounded by palm trees.

The pillars appear to be symbolic of the femine, or the intuitive; the cross, of Christianity; the rectangle, of the masculine, or the rational; and the palms, of nature.

From the position of the pillar, at the top is the cross. From the position of the pillar the rectangle is invisible. It is thought that the structure that one is holding up is the cross, and that it is the cross that is the organ of oppression.

From the position of the rectangle, at the bottom is the cross. From the position of the rectangle the pillars are invisible. It is thought that it is the cross that is supporting oneself.

From the position of the palms it becomes possible to see the whole thing.

Many spiritually-minded people therefore think that the load upon them is imposed by the cross. Now the pillars do in fact hold up the cross; but the rectangle is a much greater load. Once again, from their position, neither the pillars nor the rectangle see one another and believe that what they are dealing with is the cross. And while there is certainly value to the cross, it is important nevertheless that both the pillars and the rectangle know of one another and of what is their role in the civilization.

When one goes to nature, one sees the entire edifice. And then it becomes possible to correctly see who is actually doing what.

I think that it is important that more people have that perspective and properly credit the pillars for what they do.

Antisemitism: Subset-Superset Fallacy

According to some people, the problems of the world are caused by the Jews. They appear to be of the impression that without the Jews the world would be a better place. Here's something to ponder: America has nearly 6 million Jews, Poland has about 800. And yet America, not Poland, is the greatest power in the world.

One trick I've seen these people play is actually quite clever. They would take a wrongdoing that had Jewish participants and blame the whole thing on the Jews. They did it with slave trade, with Stalin's crimes, with human trafficking.

The error that they are making is what is known in mathematics as the subset-superset fallacy. That some Jews are jerks does not mean either that all Jews are jerks or that all jerks are Jews. Most of these wrongdoings included both Jewish people and non-Jewish people. As for the Jews, they also include people such as my mother - who has never hurt anyone – and any number of great contributors, from Albert Einstein to Steven Spielberg to Donald Rumsfeld to Ayn Rand.

That there were Jewish participants in a wrongdoing does not mean that the wrongdoing was authored by the Jews. Once again, most of these have had both Jewish and non-Jewish people. As for the Jewish people presently living, even in cases that there have been Jewish participants in wrongdoings, they have had nothing to do with it themselves. Many white people do not like being blamed for their ancestors' colonialism and slave trade. They need to lead by example and stop blaming contemporary Jews for the actions of Herod or Caiaphas or any other wrongdoer who happened to be a Jew.

If the point is that some Jews are bad people, that point is correct. But to claim that all Jews are bad, or that without the Jews the world would be a better place, is ridiculous. I know many Jewish people of great character and great intellect, who very much do improve the world with their actions. And they most certainly contribute more than do people who spread obvious falsehoods.

Are the Jews at the root of what's wrong with the world? Jews did not create the mafia or the inner city gangs. Jews did not invent the Taliban or Westboro Baptists. Jews did not cause global warming or gender war. Throughout humanity there have been many orders, and most of them had many things wrong with them. And most of these orders had no influence from the Jews. So if someone thinks that the world would be a better place without the Jews, they can look at Somalia, Pakistan and any number of places that have none to minimal Jewish influence and that are in much worse shape than any place with a significant Jewish presence.

Whereas where Jews are not discriminated against, they do great things. Over 100 Nobel prize laureates are Jewish; which, for a small population, is a great achievement. And also great are their contributions to science, finance and entertainment. Jews have been the most highly contributing constituency to the Western civilization; and someone who actually believes in advancing the Western civilization will pay homage to the Jews.

If you've been involved in the contemporary anti-Semitism: Cut your losses and do something productive. The legitimate aspects of your message – that not all Jews are good people – have been heard. But don't go around making ridiculous claims such as that all Jews are bad or that all bad people are Jews. And do not be under impression that the world would be a better place without the Jews. The Jews contribute vastly to the Western civilization and should be credited for what they do.

Iranian Bluster And Iranian Destiny

Iranian leader Rohini is threatening the mother of all wars against the United States.

What we see here is typical Iranian bluster.

I once had a friend from Turkey who said that the Iranian people talk big but don't do much. That appears to be the case here. The most that Iranians can hope from such a confrontation is a few missile hits at Jerusalem while their country goes the way of Iraq.

North Korea has a genuinely powerful military, and Donald Trump was right in pursuing a diplomatic solution. Iran however does not have a powerful military. It could not even defeat the much smaller and much poorer Iraq. They thought they were brave to have the “human wave” technique in which the soldiers would make a charge against the enemy and get slaughtered. This is not strength. This is suicide.

Sure you know well enough how to beat up women. But don't try to mess with real strength. Americans would bomb you to shreds, and they would be right to bomb you to shreds. Indeed, as I hear from some Republicans in America, this is what they should have done from the start.

You want “a mother of all wars?” It would be a walkover. Theodore Roosevelt said that if you lack the power to back up your boast, your position becomes completely despicable. Maybe that would actually work for the benefit of Iran. I hear the moral police there are total pests, and many good people suffer from abuse by them.

So if you think that you can seriously challenge America, you will find out the consequences of that stance. And it would correct your psychotic beliefs on this subject. And that may actually work for the lasting benefit of Iranian people, who have been viciously mistreated by the Iranian leadership and many of whom are yearning for liberation from its grasp.

Finally, if the Iranian people correctly take the criticism such as that of my Turkish friend and make rightful improvements in their behavior, that will work for the better. Their behavior will improve, and their position will become more respectable. And then Iranian people will actually rise to their boast and become people who are worthy of respect.

Beauty And Value

When something that people want is not valued in society, its manifestations get exploited. People would get what they want, but they would fail to value it or reward it appropriately. The result will be exploitation of the people who have that quality.

We see this especially with beauty. Everyone wants beautiful women; nobody wants to treat them right. The result is beautiful women finding themselves in situations of mistreatment, where the man gets from them what he wants from them without treating them rightfully in return. Their experience is then used by feminists to claim that beauty is a stupid thing to strive for and that women who seek such a quality are going to be mistreated because, well, that's what men do.

The correct solution to that is to value the quality appropriately. It is to see a virtue as a virtue and reward it for what it is. It is to compensate people for the value that you are getting from them. It is to stop being a thief and an exploiter and reward people according to what they give you.

And at the societal level, it is seeing the virtue as a virtue and valuing it accordingly.

I have been close to a number of very beautiful women, and many of them experienced mistreatment both from their men and from nasty types of women – at work, in their neighborhoods, in the families into which they married, whatever. Apparently you cannot be beautiful and have other good qualities at the same time. Well no, you can have other good qualities. Just look at the Russian women. They are beautiful, strong, smart and willing to be good to men. And they are also much better human beings than women in feminism who attack beauty.

So the women possessing of beauty get shunned or much worse by feminist types of women. The men of goodwill are warned away from them by the ideology that wanting a beautiful woman is incompatible with spirituality, emotional depth or respect for women, or that a woman who's been in a bad situation has a low self-esteem. Where do they have left to go? To what's left – assholes. Which assholes then get to benefit from the woman's beauty and other good qualities while being ugly to her in return.

In this everyone loses. Men of goodwill are denied good relationships. Women of beauty get abused. Societies are robbed of their best product. And the assholes aren't even happy because they have it running through their heads that the woman is a bad person or a crappy wife. If only they knew what else was there out there, especially among the feminists, and how good they actually have it with such women.

So something good gets devalued, and the results are disastrous. The women possessing these qualities find themselves living hideous lives. People who stand to appreciate their good qualities are told to keep away from them. And the assholes who get to cash in on this are not even happy.

The solution at the societal level is to value virtues for what they are. It is to see beauty as a virtue and reward it accordingly to the benefit that it provides. It is to value things that people want and to quantify them appropriately. The result will be rational system in which what gives benefit is rewarded accordingly, and there is less theft and exploitation. This is the case with beauty; this is the case with intellect; this is the case with any other virtue.

Name beauty as a virtue, and stand by beauty as a virtue. And let it do its job of making the world a better place.

Feminism And John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill was a great English intellectual who wrote, among other things, a brilliant and passionate essay in favor of women's rights. The idealistic intellectuals in the John Stuart Mill mode have formed one of the most powerful forces for feminism in the world.

At this time feminism risks losing the John Stuart Mill constituency.

The reason is the feminists' behavior. When women behave in vicious and ugly ways, that alienates people who come from the position of wanting things to be fair or wanting things to be kind or not wanting people to be mistreated. These people were in support of women's rights because they saw men being ugly to women while women treated men well. And a person operating from the position of what is fair or what is righteous will always support the people who are kind rather than ones who are nasty. This means that when women become nasty themselves, they lose the support of people who come from idealistic considerations.

Why really should anyone who is interested in making a better world support Third Wave feminists? They are mean. They are cruel. They are arrogant and vicious. They think they are strong, independent women? Let them fight their own battles themselves. Do not enlist in it men whom they would ridiculously describe as misogynists or wolves in sheep's clothing or any other thing that they are not.

It makes absolutely no sense to support one gender against the other gender. What makes sense is to support good behavior in both genders and oppose bad behavior in both. From the rational standpoint, anyone capable of choice can be good or bad. So it makes no sense to side either with women against men or with men against women. It makes sense to side with women and men who are willing to behave rightfully.

An intellectual idealist would therefore be far more likely to adopt this stance. At the time of John Stuart Mill, the vast majority of wrongdoing was being done by men. This is no longer the case. There are plenty of women doing ugly things, both to men and to other women. In my case, I've had many women I care about mistreated by other women. Which means that caring about them and loving them means confronting the forces that treat them viciously, whatever their gender.

So I would like to see people of intellectual bent recognize this reality. Anything human is capable of choice, and anything capable of choice can be good or bad. Do not support women because they are women; support good women and good men. And then put into place social incentives that actually lead to the world becoming better.

Jew-Blaming

I've dealt on the Internet with some Jew-haters, and what they like to do is take a wrongdoing that had some Jewish participants and blame the whole thing on the Jews.

I've seen this done with human trafficking; with Stalin's atrocities; and with colonialism and slave trade. The claim is that Jews orchestrated the whole thing. That is wrong. That is completely wrong. In all of the above the leaders were not Jewish; and the Jews who took part in the wrongdoing did not cause it to take place. And even ones that did say nothing about Jewish people living now.

Are there Jews who are jerks? Of course there are Jews who are jerks. However not all Jews are jerks, and not all jerks are Jews. England, Spain, Germany, Russia and any number of other places have had tons of jerks in their history. And most of these jerks were not Jewish.

So we have lists of people – supposedly Jewish – involved in such things as slave trade. Yet many on the lists I have seen do not even have Jewish names. Gomez, Yagoda, Yezhov, and others, are not Jewish names. They are Spanish, Russian, what have you. So maybe there were Jews involved in these wrongdoings. That does not mean that the Jews have caused it or that contemporary Jews are to be blamed for them.

So it is time that people see things more clearly. Yes there have been bad Jews; but that does not mean either that Jews are bad or that the only bad people are Jews. Most of these wrongdoings were initiated by white Gentiles. And even if they involved Jews, they were not started by Jews nor are they the fault of the Jews living today.

Jews And Colonialism

A frequent justification for the anti-Jewish stance is that the Jews killed Jesus. When it is pointed out that this was almost 2000 years ago, and that the Jews living now had nothing to do with it, the usual response is that the sins of the fathers are visited on the sons.

So then does the fact that the ancestors of these people took part in colonialism and slave trade mean that these people should suffer for these sins? Jesus was one person, and he resurrected anyway. Whereas 100 million people who died during Spanish and English colonialism in Americas did not.

One thing I see as a political researcher is arguments made about how the slave trade and colonialism happened not against people living now but against people living then. Fair enough. But decide what course you are going to pursue. Are you going to keep attacking the Jews – and thus logically leave yourself open to being attacked for colonialism and slave trade? Or are you going to recognize that Adam Sandler and Herod are not the same person, and one should not be blamed for the actions of the other?

As for myself, my mind on this is clear. There is absolutely no justification for attacking people now living for something that they did not do and what they would not have done. I did not crucify Jesus. I follow Jesus. And I refuse to be blamed for something that I had nothing to do with.

Whereas with colonialism and slave trade, there are any number of arguments to attack people now living. One argument I have heard is that white people living today benefit from a system that involved slave trade and colonialism. People who live in glass houses should not be throwing bricks. Slave trade and colonialism – and a huge mass murder that was a part of them - are much greater crimes than execution of someone who did not even die.

Should white people now living be attacked for living in a system that involved atrocity? I do not know the answer to that. Should the residents of the Soviet Union have been attacked for Stalin's atrocities? Should the Germans now living be attacked for Nazism? This is a debate that should be held on a large scale. But one thing is absolutely for certain. It is wrong to blame the Jews for the death of Jesus while excusing much greater and much more recent crimes by Spanish and English slave traders and colonists.

So it is time that more people be alerted to this hypocrisy. I refuse to be blamed for things that I had nothing to do with. And more Jewish people should come out and say outright the same thing.