Friday, November 30, 2012
Rush Limbaugh, or some talk show commentator, the other day noted that the whole Leftist agenda in vogue in America right now is about downgrading success, and showing hatred for and contempt about successful people. How did such an un-American trend become popular? We must struggle mightily to change that. Mitt should have been a hero for his astounding success, an acclaimed and admired exemplar for millions of poor and middle class people, any of whom could do what Mitt did, with determination, luck, hard work, a plan and focused effort. Honestly earned success is morally desirable, and is good for everyone. Let acting like Mitt be the norm for a generation of anarchist/individuators. Obama's a soak-the-rich and class envy program are terrible for each individual and disastrous for America Republicans in Congress cannot become the majority party, sweep both houses and the Presidency until they quit being conservative half-way and just flatly tell the people the truth every time, vote their conscience and let the chips fall where they will. This does not mean they should come across as uncaring and selfish--they are not. This does not mean they should not reach out to all citizens, and remind them that they are individuals and Americans first, before they are members of some identity group and joiners. This does not mean they they do not welcome everyone into the tent--they must. They must be united and sincerely propose to balance the budget within 18 months. They must do it 80% through cuts and 20% through tax increases. No more kicking the can down the road. The safety net will be hurt and people will suffer, but now we must right the ship or the ship of America will sink totally. The slack in the social net must be picked up by states, the church, the community, the charities and the welfare dependents themselves. It will not be pretty or painless, but this dependency on federal largesse must end. We must go off that fiscal cliff. We must make the hard choices today. Blame the conservatives, fine, but they must show leadership and courage, now, forever, consistently. Small government, balanced books, strong national defense, cautiously interventionist and engaged foreign policy, living by constitutional principles, restricting the federal EPA apparatus threatening to destroy our economy, our way of life, our liberty and civilization which runs on cheap, plentiful, and available energy. The ambassador of United Nations must oppose all world treaties and protect our sovereignty to forestall the growth of gentle, creeping communism seeking to set up a one world government, which the Bolsheviks were not able to set up via aggression and scheming. The only program that the Ambassador to United Nations (And senators here at home domestically should be working to get a constitutional amendment passed to give individuals practicing individualism and individuating legal protection as a protected class, protected against active discrimination and lack of equal opportunity.) should back is to set up a worldwide treaty to promote protected class status for all individuals on the planet. There should be a treaty to promote and launch constitutional government for all nations, which authorizes the setting up millions of anarchist states for all 200 nation
s, and to add these political protections and sodalities to the constitutions governing each of the 200 nation states.
Conservative must speak with one voice. They must reach out to all groups everywhere and fight person by person. Success is almost guaranteed for most or all people everywhere if they live in a country based on God, patriotism, free market solutions, small government, small institutions, local control, universal gun ownership and advanced training in being courageous fighters as part of a national militia of citizens. Where success is allowed to flourish, in a culture of freedom, tolerance and approval, without fear of governmental depriving people of their hard-earned wealth, the class of individuators getting it done will succeed. The nation will succeed as the indirect benefit to the community is that rising waters of success and prosperity will lift all boats.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Dennis Prager had a woman caller that has showed enormous courage, optimism and fight, despite suffering from a debilitating disease confining her to a wheel chair. She told him that she was happy in defiance of all the adversity that she has encountered. His response was that she was a great, significant woman, not famous but significant. He offered that many famous people are fluff in essence, insignificant people. He is wise once again. My dream, which will come about, would be for every or most young people to be trained in the art and science--that living religious act of worship of the Divinity--of maverizing. That genuine effort, per person, will make each of them great and significant. If fame would follow, that would be acceptable, but no big deal. Each knows what he is, and performs for his own sake, whether the world provides acknowledgement and accolades or not.
Colorado and one other state legalized the smoking of marijuana this past election day. This is being widely hailed as a success, a red letter day. The Left wants to regulate what kids eat in school, and use higher insurance rates to punish adults for overeating. I oppose these measures as further nanny-state creeping into areas of personal choice and liberty. People must be free to make bad choices without government regulation and interference. Still, the Left is not to be disputed in their disagreement with bad eating practices. In light of that sanctimonious disapproval with personal choices and habits indulged in by the private citizen, why is it a good thing to legalize lighting up? Pot cigarettes are a known to contain powerful carcinogenics. Who knows what other side effects they will bring to smokers? What is well-known is that dope-smokers are lethargic and listless. If I am right and God expects us to indidviduate to the best of our ability, to the outer limits of our talents, how can we achieve this desirable lifestyle when we are drug-induced zombies? We have a moral obligation to God to not pollute our bodies, and to lead clean and sober lives. Smoking dope illegally is immoral. Legalizing this foul practice sends the wrong message to children.
We must not build and position impediments on the road in front of us, the road to recovery and happiness. Probably nobody knows more about being happy and how to achieve this dispositional outlook than the sage Dennis Prager I was listening to his happiness hour radio show yesterday as I drove around. Prager advises that the only way to be happy is to display, live, be and believe that one can be happy and that such mental state is possible, if one maintains a positive attitude, no matter what occurs each day. Prager allowed that we are often dissatisfied with where we are at in life. Our dissatisfaction can be negative, because we feel wretched that our life has no direction. Our dissatisfaction may be the positive frustration of the gifted researcher not yet able to discover the medicine that will cure Type II diabetes. Prager commands the listener to differentiate between being dissatisfied (That is fine because our dissatisfaction impels us to try harder, to grow and achieve.) and being unhappy. He warns that we should be happy whether or not we are dissatisfied or not, and we should be happy regardless of whether we are experiencing good fortune or bad fortune at the moment. He also spoke of his increasing impatience with and intolerance towards unhappy people as he has grown older. He is totally right about this. Living each day with a positive attitude becomes a good habit and a way of life. If a quarterback can be retrained to throw the ball faster and smoother, then each person can be trained by parents, teachers and the pastor to think happy thoughts, feel happy feelings, and live as a happy person. Once a youth is offered this training and knows the techniques for learning to be happy--plus instructed in how to self-realize, remaining unhappy is her fault for failing to train herself to be upbeat while working everyday for the rest of her life to keep her emotional batteries charged. The failure to individuate adds an intangible reason to be depressed: if one individuates not, then the self does not respect the self, and that leads to self-loathing and unhappiness. Granted there are very depressed people just crippled by their genetic, emotional disability, but Prager's system for learning to be happy would offer them more relief in most cases than taking drugs.His method would alleviate their suffering.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Every boss categorizes workers into two groups (keepers and non-keepers). If this boss is wise, fair, humane and just, she will not give the keepers a hard time, and will follow progressive discipline with the non-keepers so they still have a chance to stay if they so choose to do. Where the boss is a bureaucratic thug, the head of the clique, rewarding those that conform and flatter, and punishing and running out those that non-conform and rebel, he will keep and reward the sycophants (who he classifies as keepers), and will demote and run out the non-keepers (likely his best employees but they have to go). The rule of thumb seems to be that whether the worker is a good or bad person, or a good or bad worker, their staying or being run out by their bosses, kind or mean, is determined by which category that the boss assigns them to. If they are keepers, then justifications are fabricated so they can stay and perhaps be rewarded. If their are non-keepers, both just and unjust rationales will be presented to push them out the door. The negative pre-characterization is made first, and then progressive disciplines greases the exit chute.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Today I was returning home from deer hunting and I read a National Guard Recruitment poster advertising and inviting young people to join up and become part of something greater than themselves. Both Liberals and Conservatives are ethical altruists, although Liberals pure more purely altruist, and Conservatives are modified altruists, allowing for some egoistic pursuits like wealth accumulation via working in the free market system. I liked better the old army recruitment of a few years of one touting the fantasy of being an army of one, in one of the most collectivist, hidebound institutions conceivable. As an ethical egoist, I champion the rights of the individual over the rights of the group most of the time. Joining the National Guard is worthy but dangerous (if activated to spend a year in Afghanistan), and defending the nation is the duty of all of us. As an egoist, I deny vehemently that there is any cause to be served that is greater than the duty to serve the self and its needs first and foremost. Serving in the National Guard is a respectable, admirable undertaking, but it is not doing something greater than personal pursuit of happiness. That and self-development are the missions that God commands each of us to chase after during out lifetimes here on this mortal coil.
That is not something I accuse Prager of very often. He seems to me to be one of the wisest people in America. Ethically, I believe he is an altruistic conservative. People require traditional faith and values to guide them to be moral beings. He believes that people are naturally selfish, self-indulgent, driven by animal urges, and the self-esteem movement fails because it heightens these negative human traits. Prager would counsel that the self-esteem movement is a high-falutin psychological cover for hedonistic self-indulgence. These poor souls are deprived of that vital sense of duty to give back to society, to discipline and restrain the self for the greater good, and to serve a cause larger than the self. To love and give back to family, congreagation and community are what gives life purpose, worth and meaning. Ethically, my Mavellonialist philosophy is egoistic conservativism. People do need to rely upon, be trained in and practice traditional Western values and faith as handed down by our Judeo-Christian forebearers. I would add that the Greek ethical system of egoism and self-development in pursuit of personal happiness must be added to the caldron. Ethical conservatives are more inclined to believe in original sin. Ethical liberals believe human nature at birth is tabula rasa, either genetically benevolent or morally neutral. The twisting of the psyche of a good baby into an evil adult is envrionnmentally produced. Both ethical liberals and ethical conservatives likely espouse that the human will is free. By contrast, I think the human will is programmed by the milieu and that an evil milieu and corrupt basic human nature empower Satan to make us more evil, more destructive and crazier than we need to be. Life in many ways is a stacked deck, and much needless, senseless suffering is what we bequeath to each new generation. Humans are by nature and tabula rasa doomed to lead wicked, truncated, un-fulfilling lives. By contrast, once they are inculcated from birth with wholesome, egoistic self-love and self-appreciation, their wills become freeer and morally healthy. Enlightened self-interest or wholesome, logical, temperate eogism will make each person better, make the world a better place to live in, and pleases God immensely. Prager just needs to blend his standard moral philosophy of conservative altruism with my ethics of conservative egoism to come up with a superior life code that allows people to self-direct, self-appreciate and self-discipline in ways advantageous for society and the individual at the same time.
As an advocate on Mavellonialist political theory with its special emphasis on anarchist, individualism it may be a disconnect to laud people with a sense of duty to to serve the public. Nothing could be further from the truth. The drive to desinstitutionalize society and replace it with enlightened anarchy can only be made workable when for each person, the political role played by such citizen/politician, is all wrapped up into one role, per citizen. Each citizen must possess a very highly developed and active sense of duty to public service. He runs his own affairs and his private domain of freedom is greatly enlarged, but what makes this function is universal agreement and participation by the billions of anarchist individualists, working together to make the public services required inside and overlapping their contiguous domains completed, to be administered and to be carried out cheaply, efficiently and harmoniously by all motivated by their personal sense of public service--not unlike a farmer on the North Dakota township board also being the operator running the road grader so the snow is plowed and mail routes stay open. Ultimate freedom, ultimate privatization, and the devolution of institutions are all possible as every self-actualized super-citizen does his public duty while pursuing his private dream. A daunting obligation it will be to serve the common weal this way, but it is doable. The consent of these self-governing leaders/followers is to be as free and independent as morally, economically and practically is workable, while cooperating and getting the common things done, with community needs met at the same time. A critic will severely criticize me for being a hopeless idealist here, asking how this impractical scheme is workable in real life. All I can say is the rise and spread of individualism and deinstitutionalizing society should be done, slowly, peacefully, nonviolently, carefully with thousands of experiments at the local and state levels to see what works and what does not work, and then the successes can be shared with neighboring sodalities for them to experiment with.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
This dialectical expression often appears in Agatha Christie novels; it is an appellation characterizing a man with a criminal personality or one engaged in outlaw behaviors. It would seem that a wrong one, is a man of bad will. He seeks to enrich himself or gratify his outrageous desires even if it means going against society's wishes or law. It would seem to me that the non-individuated person is more robot than free agent. Correspondingly, his will is determined by other antecedents than his free choice. If he is a wrong one, than he has been programmed to be a lawbreaker. As the individual individuates, his will becomes freer and freer in proportion to his development as a self-actualizer, with the accompanying increase of consciousness and personal awareness. Were such a person to be a wrong one, he would have chosen the life of an outlaw; he would be a Professor Moriarity or perhaps a Mafia don. A right one would be a person of good will, be his will and state chosen or determined for him. As he indviduates, he will choose to have a good will, and correspondingly, he will think, talk, act and live as a right one, one of good will. Indeed, most of the time to individuate is to choose to to be a right one, for the act of individuating is typically a process sponsored, guided and mentored by God. Still there are wrong ones that are individuated. Lera's hand in this is here also.