CCP

it is hard to know the truth, but CCP is extremely dangerous. I suspect world domination is their aim by 2050. Putin may have similar hopes but his much smaller population and smaller economy may restrict his ambitions.

Critical Race Theory

Dr James Lindsay, editor and writer of New Discourses, has a magazine motto--"Pursuing objective truth in subjective darkness": I like his mission. He wrote in this magazine a fantastic article explaining CRT. He wrote this article on June 12, 2020. Its title: "Eight Big Reasons Critical Race Theory Is Terrible for Dealing With Racism. Let me quote him: "As unlikely as it seems, a highly obscure academic theory known as Critical Race Theoryhas completely mainstreamed in society, and now everyone is discussing it." James lays out bullet points to summary his article:" . believes racism is present in every aspect of life, every relationship, and every interaction and therefore has its advocates look for it everywhere . relies on 'interest convergence' (white people only give black people opportunities and freedoms when it is also in their interest) and therefore doesn't trust any attempt to make racism better . is against free societies and wants to dismantle them and replace them with something that advocates control . only treats race issues as 'socially constructed groups'so there are not individuals in Critical Race Theory . blieves science, reason, and evidence are a 'white'way of knowing and that storytelling and lived experience are a 'black'alternative, which hurts everyone, especially black people . rejects all potential alternatives, like colorblindness, as forms of racism, making itself the only allowable game in town (which is totalitarian) . acts like anyone who disagrees with it must do so for racist and white supremacist reasons, even if those poeple are black (which is also totalitarian . cannot be satisfied, so it becomes a kind of activist black hole that threatens to destroy everything it is introduced to" My response to these bullet points. To assume that racism is present in every aspect of life is hyper-simplification--all problems are reduced to racism. To see racism everywhere is to see the world through fantasy world quality perception. There is not objective truth, no logic, no counterargument or evidence, just the feelings, whims and suspicions of the biased, twisted view of these race fanatics. They will be judge, jury and executioner regarding racism found everyhwere, though usually false accusation made up by them from whole cloth. To see any previous efforts to ameliorate racism is illegitimate and a clever ploy to serve current white interests is cynical and mistaken in a huge way. So that mistrusting and erroneous needs to be rejected out of hand. These next-generation reformers are completely ungrateful and dismissive of the fine work done before to improve race relations in America. There is little racism left, and far out of the maintstream, so their accusation of pervasive and current racism is a lie. And their anti-racist new campaign is not about ending racism towards blacks; instead it is about institutionalized and systemic reverse racism and attacks on whites, Jews, Christians, patriots, individualists, conservatives and capitalists. These CRT ideologues want Marxist revolution, and gulag and death camp treatment for their opponents, all under the guise of compassion and racial justice. To seek to get rid of free society and replace it with an oligarchy of anti-racist enforcers will lead to Pol Pot terror regime control--no thanks. To treat race issues as socially constructed groups is to deny that people are individuals first, and members of identity groups second. Each individual, according to CRT ideologues, is but an avatar of whatever identity groups that he belongs to, and has no meaning as a person apart from his group identifications. Racism is not a social construct, but is normal and in every person. Everyone is racist or biased towards a member of a rival group, and that is natural bigotry. Becoming civilized and moral is to treat each person as an individual to be respected, loved and treated with dignity and courtesy. This is the current American Way, to judge people by the content of their character not the color of their skin. Let me start from the beginning again: Dr James Lindsay, editor and writer of New Discourses, has a magazine motto--"Pursuing objective truth in subjective darkness": I like his mission. 2 He wrote in this magazine a fantastic article explaining CRT. He wrote this article on June 12, 2020. Its title: "Eight Big Reasons Critical Race Theory Is Terrible for Dealing With Racism. 4 Let me quote him: "As unlikely as it seems, a highly obscure academic theory known as Critical Race Theoryhas completely mainstreamed in society, and now everyone is discussing it." 6 ​ 7 James lays out bullet points to summary his article:" 8 . believes racism is present in every aspect of life, every relationship, and every interaction and therefore has its advocates look for it everywhere 9 . relies on 'interest convergence' (white people only give black people opportunities and freedoms when it is also in their interest) and therefore doesn't trust any attempt to make racism better 10 . is against free societies and wants to dismantle them and replace them with something that advocates control 11 . only treats race issues as 'socially constructed groups'so there are not individuals in Critical Race Theory 12 . believes science, reason, and evidence are a 'white'way of knowing and that storytelling and lived experience are a 'black'alternative, which hurts everyone, especially black people 13 . rejects all potential alternatives, like colorblindness, as forms of racism, making itself the only allowable game in town (which is totalitarian) 14 . acts like anyone who disagrees with it must do so for racist and white supremacist reasons, even if those poeple are black (which is also totalitarian 15 . cannot be satisfied, so it becomes a kind of activist black hole that threatens to destroy everything it is introduced to" 16 My response to these bullet points. To assume that racism is present in every aspect of life is hyper-simplification--all problems are reduced to racism. To see racism everwhere is to see the world through fantasy world quality perception. There is not objective truth, no logic, no counterargument or evidence, just the feelings, whims and suspicions of the biased, twisted view of these race fanatics. They will be judge, jury and executioner regarding racism found everyhwere, though usually false accusation made up by them from whole cloth. 18 To see any previous efforts to ameliorate racism is illegitimate and a clever ploy to serve current white interests is cynical and mistaken in a huge way. Some that mistrusting and erroneous needs to be rejected out of hand. These next-generation reformers are completely ungrateful and dismissive of the fine work done before to improve race relations in America. There is little racism left, and far out of the maintstream, so their accusations of current racism and their anti-racist new campaign are not about ending racism towards blacks; instead it is about institutionalized and systemic reverse racism and attacks on whites, Jews, Christians, patriots, individualists, conservatives and capitalists. These CRT ideologues want Marxist revolution, and gulag and death camp treatment for their opponents, all under the guise of compassion and racial justice. 20 To seek to get rid of free societies and replace it with an oligarchy of anti-racist enforcers will lead to Pol Pot terror regime control--no thanks. 22 To treat race issues as socially constructed groups is to deny that people are individuals first, and members of identity groups second. Each individual, according to CRT ideologues, is but an avatar of whatever identity groups that he belongs to, and has no meaning as a person apart from his group identifications. Racism is not a social construct, but is normal and in every person. Everyone is racist or biased towards a member of a rival group, and that is natural bigotry. Becoming civilized and moral is to treat each person as an individual to be respected, loved and treated with dignity and courtesy. This is the current American Way, to judge people by the content of their character not the color of their skin. 24 Let me quote the first of James's reasons: "1) Critical Race Theory believes racism is present in every aspect of life, every relationship, every interaction. Critical Race Theory begins from the assumption that racism is an ordinary part of every aspect of life in our societies. Foundational Critical Race Theory scholars, Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, write, 'First that racism is ordinary, not aberrational . . . Understand also that what they mean by 'racism' isn't even what most people think racism means. It is not prejudice based on race or believing some races to be superior or inferior to others that they mean by 'racism.' It is instead, the 'system' assumption of everything that happens in the social world and beyond and that results in any disparity that workds in favor of 'racially privileged' groups (on average) or any 'racially oppressed' person claiming they experience racial oppression. These assumptions lead people who take up Critical Race Theory to look for racism in everything until they find it. That is, after all, the job of a 'critical' theorist or activist, to look for the hidden problems that they assume must be present in whatever they scrutinize." 26 ​ 27 My response: James goes on to demonstrate how these advocates looking at the world with eyes of hatred towards all that are regarded as members of oppresor grous at work, at school and in personal life, and order all to turn in and on those resisting this anti-racist purge of subconscious racist attitudes and practices, because tolerating racism in one's midst is a form of racism to be discovered and stopped, James notes. Imagine how these zealots seeking racially pure attitudes in all corners of society will lead totalitarianism and bitter fighting and disruption betwen identity groups. I cannot think of a more effective way to create fighting and suffering than this vicious, hateful campaign against decent, non-racist citzens. It is pure wickedness, and those that proselytize this are nihilists out to destroy America, Americans, capitalism, our constitutional republic. They are posioned by hate, revenge and power lust, and they would extirpate God, the world, all humans and Being istelf because they resent being born and being so profoundly unhappy and miserable. These are bad, twisted people to turn loose on decent, sane society. 28 Let me quote James's 2nd reason: "'Interest convergence': White people only give black people opportunities and freedoms when it is also in their own interests. One of the founders of Critical Race Theory, a (now deceased) scholar at Harvard lsw named Derrick Bell, made his 'Interest Convergence' central to the Theory. Turning to Delgado and Stefancic again, The second feature, sometimes called 'interest convergence' or material determinism, adds a further dimension. Because racism advances the interests of both white elites (materially) and working class people (psychically), large segments of society have little incentive to eradicate it. Consider, for example, Derrick Bell's shocking proposal (discussed in a later chapter) that Brown v. Board of Education--considered a great triumph for civil rights litigation--may have resulted from the self-interest of elite whites more than a desire to help blacks . . . It isn't hard to see how paranoid and cynical this idea is, but it's also horrible when you pause to consider some of its implications. Take the demand that also comes from Critical Race Theory that everyone should be an anti-racist. This sounds good on the surface but is horrible underneath. If someone with 'racial privilege' (including white, Asian, Hispanic, Arab, Indian and lighter-skinned black people) decides to become an anti-racist in accordance with this request, the Interest-Convergence Thesis would say would say they only did so to make themselves look good, protect themselves from criticism, or to avoid confronting their own racism. This isn't a fringe idea or possible gap in the concept, either. The academic literature on 'whiteness studies'nis filled with this notion . . . The Interest Convergence Thesis makes it literally impossible for anyone with any racial privilege (again, as outlined by Critical Race Theory) to do anything right because anything they do must also have been self-interested. If Critical Race Theory makes a demand of people with any form of racial privilege and they comply, they just make themselves more complicit in 'racism' as Critical Race Theory sees it. By giving people no way out, Critical Race Theory becomes deeply manipulative and unable to be satisfied in its list of demands." 30 My response: First, when CRT ideologues are this obsessed with race and seeing racists and racism behind every bush, it is obvious that they are delusional. It is also obvious that they are racist agains whites and other identity groups. In the name of ending racism and seeking racial justice, they are always attacking whites and other Americans. They really are reverse racists filled with irrational, baseless, bottomless hatred and seeking to elevate their race above all others so they are to become the new masters, and revenge and persecution of whites and other labeled oppressor identity groups is the predictable end game. When you stay so offended, that nothing that the offender or the accused but innocent defender does by way of atonement, can ever please you, or allow you to give up your victim status and forgive your enemies, then your grievance plea is a way to gain dominance over other groups, it is a chance for your people to become the ruling group, the new oppressors, and it allows you to gather all power to yourselves in the name of reform and justice. You are nasty people and should be tossed out the front door without ceremony. You are cruel, unreasonable people without just cause. Let me quote from James's reason 3: "3) Critical Race Theory is against free socieities--Brelieve it or not, Critical Race Theory is not a li beral idea. It is, in fact, critical of liberal soceity and against the idea of freedom to its core. Critical Race Theory sees a free society as a way to structure and maintain inequities by convincing racial minorities not to want to do radical identical politics. Since Critical Race Theory exists specifically to agitate for and enable radical racial identity politics, it is therefore against free societies and how they are organized. . . The ideal of individual autonomy that underlies liberal humanism (the idea that people are free to make independent rational decisions that determine their own fate) was viewed as a mechanism for keeping the marginalized in their places by obscuring large structural systems of inequality. In other words, it (free society) fooled people into believing that had more freedom and choice than societal structures actually allow. In other words, Critical Race Theory sees free societies and the ideals that make them work--individualism, freedom, peace--as kind of a tacit conspiracy thory that we all participate in to keep racial minorities down. When its advocates accuses people of being 'complicit in systems of racism,' this is part of what they mean. Obviously, they would prefer that we do not have free societies and would rather arrange society as they see fit and make us all go along with their ideas." My response: That Critical Race Theory have give up on free societies and individualism, peace and freedom and gradualism. Liberal reforms are too slow, not radical enough, only getting half a loaf. What is needed is CRT and revolution as backers of CRT use identity politics to attack whites, consrvatives and other "oppressor groups." I am not willing to give up our constitutional republic to allow these haters and hateful Marxist revolutionaries unconstrained access to wiping out our free society and our civilization. Let me quote James's 4th reason: "4) Critical Race Theory only treats race issues as 'socially constructed groups' so there are not individuals in Critical Race Theory--Critical Race Theory isn't just against free societies and the individualism that enables them, but it also doesn't even believe individuals meaningfully exist at all! In Critical Race Theory, every person has to be understood in terms of the social groups they are said to inhabit, and these are determined by their identity, including race. 'A third theme of critical race theory, the 'social construction' thesis, holds that race and races are products of social thoughts and relations. Not objective, inherent, or fixed, they correspond to no biological or genetic reality; rather, races are categories that society invents, or retires when convenient, write Delgado and Stefancic. Under Critical Race Theory, races are categories that society invents and we impose entirely through social assumptions (mostly stereotypes), and people are members of these racial categories whether they want to be or not. Moreover, they argue that society is 'socially stratified,' which means that different social groups (like these racial groups) have differentiated access to the opportunties and resources of society. While this bears some truth on average, it ignores individual variations that are obvious when considering examples of powerful, rich and famous blacks . . . Critical Race Theory forces people into these averages, though, and considers them primarily in terms of their group identity rather than their individual identity. This is part of why they used the word 'folks' instead of 'people'--it desginates a social group. Thus, in Critical Race Theory, the goal of ideally treating every person as an individual who is equal before the law and meant to be judged upon the contents of their character and merits of their work is considered a myth that keeps racial minorities down. Instead, it sees people according to their racial groups only. This is why it is so common that progressive racial programs end up hurting the people they're written to help most. 'Racial justice,' in Critical Race Theory, means getting 'justice' for the group, which it says is a social construction, not for the real person, who is just a member of that group. As Lynn Lemisko, writes . . . of Educator to Educator, another education manual in Critical Social Justice programs: 'If democracy is about individual rights (justice for individuals), then social justice is about group rights (justice for the group). And for me there is a fundamental difference betwween the general notion of justice and the notion of social justice." My response: There is no doubt that race has its socially constructed aspects, but we are biologically of different races, or different ethnic groups. Our natural biases are biologically instilled, and must be dealt with consciously, directly and forthrightly. We must admit to bias but agree that it is a group versus group form of bias, and the best solution is to pull group-living majorities in every identity group out of the identity groups, so they can maverize, individual-live and insist that they and other inddividualists be treated as indviduals, and this is the best and only way to effedtively end racism. Group rights are not important, but individuali rights are. Let me quote James's 5th reason: "5) Critical Race Theory believes science, reason and evidence are a 'white' way of knowing and that storytelling and lived experienceare a 'black' alternative-- . . . normal science is a part of everyday, ordinary racism in society. That's because Critical Race Theory id not particularly friendly to science, residing somewhere between generally disinterested in science and openly hostile to it . . . This is because Critical Race Theory, using that 'social construction' thesis, believes that the power and politics of cultural groups make their way intrinsically into everything that culture produces. Thus, science is just politics by other means to Critical Race Theory. Since modern science was predominantly produced by white, Western men, Critical Race Theory therefore maintains that science encodes and perpetuates 'white dominance' and thus isn't really fitting for black people who inhabit a (political) culture of Blackness. . . . it goes against one of the very first pillars of science: universality. Universality in science says that it doesn't matter who does and experiment, the result will always be the same. This is because science believes in objectivity, which Critical Race Theory calls an oppressive myth . . . These scholars argue that a key element of social injustice involves the claim that particular knowledge is objective, neutral and universal. An approach based on critical theory calls into question the idea that objectivity is desirable or even possible. The term used to describe this way of thinking about knowledge is that knowledge is socially constructed. When we refer to knowledge as socially constructed we mean that knowledge is reflective of the values and interests of those who produce it. Sensoy and DiAngelo also claim that science 'presumes superiority and infallibility of the scientific method' . . . (by the way this is false) and therefore we should be asking 'whose rationality' and 'whose presumed objectivity' underlies the scientific method. Then, even more cyncically, they insist that we must ask whse interests are served by science, as though that's the relevant question to ask of a universalist method.Critical Race Theory falsely asserts that white people's interests are primarily served by science. This isn't just wrong (and genuinely racist), it's dangerous. Continuing the genuinely racist thinking that black people are'nt suited to or served by science, Delgado and Stefancic say that storytelling about their 'lived experience' is the primary mode by which black people and Critical Race Theory produce and advance knowledge. Importantly these lived experiences are only considered valid if they agree with Critical Race Theory . . . Critical Race Theory is itself racist (against racial minorities) and cripples the people it claims to help. This happens in multiple ways, including by undermining their capacity for citical thinking, teaching them to see the world in an us-versus-them way that oppresses them, and associating them with harmful, negative stereotypes that rigorous methods are white people, and not black people, use." My response: I recently followed Objectivist Philosopher Stephen Hicks's video in which he noted that irrationalists/sceptics/Leftists/social constructionists/postmodernists/nihilists cannot compete with reason and modernist pursuit of knowlege, or its arguments of defense, by counteraruguing with their ideas. So they denounce objectivity and reason as objective and the final world. All is mere person opinion and relative so anything goes and all is opinion, and endless brutal vying for power by identity group versus identity group. Those that want to brainwash the masses, reduce them to brain-dead, dependent, gullible, obedient wards of the state, do well to doubt that science, reason and the univseral are of any cultureal values. Sensoy and DiAngelo denounce science as white propaganda not superior or infallible and the scientific method is just a way of justifying white supremacy. Black personal anecdotes and perspectives are subjective truth, just as good as white scientific truth, not objective but subjective, for objective truth either does not exist or is unknowable to humans. At the end of what I quote, James lists worrisome criticism for the social constructionist atack on science and reason. Let me quote James's 6th reason: "6) Critical Race Theory rejects all potential alternatives, like colorblindness, as forms of racism--Critical Race Theory is completely against the common-sense ideas that race becomes less socially relevant and racism is therefore diminished by not focusing on race all the time. Where liberalism spent centuries removing social significance from racial categories once it had been introduced in the 16th century, Critical Race Theory inserts it again, front and center. In fact, as you might gues now, it sees the idea of colorblindness as one of the most racist things possible because it hides the real racism from view . . . Thus racism has to be made relevant in every situation where racism is present, which is every situation . . . This has the opposite of the putatively intended effect. Although it does cause people to see some legitimate racism that they otherwise would have missed, it makes all of our relationships and social systems extremely fragile and tense, ready to explode over a highly divisive issue. It also diverts resources from doing real work or building real relationships because looking for and thiking about racism all the time takes effort (Critical Race Theory says minority races already have to think about racism all the time and only white people have the privilege not to, but this is, again, more sloppy analysis that ignores the reports and experiences of every racial minority that disagrees.)" My response: race consciousness, let alone obsessing about race, from either the vantage point of the oppressor or the victim, increases racism not decreas it, because a racist is a tribalis, a collecitivist. As we become more civilized, color blindness must be the norm and the ideal, as almost adults from every identity groups self-realizes as an anarcist individualist. Racial makeup will then be interesting and informative, and something to be proud of, but, ultimately and immediately irrelevant as society goes from individual-living. CRT is sending us backwards in race relations as systemic reverse racism, the front for Marxist equality of outcome, is the end, and it is cruel, vicious and will lead to race wars. We need to tallk less and less about race, not more and more. We must not look for a racist behind every bush, or we will make all so group-oriented versus other groups, that racism can be produced where it did not live before. CRT and racial justice warriors stir up trouble and revolution, desiring the overthrow of America, and they may yet achieve their goal. With the liberal success in America culturally and legally in the last 60 years, America is hardly racist at all, and is extremely egalitarian. CRT backs are seeing what is not there, not reality. There is always a little racism at work in any society and America is not exception, but its influence is very small, and its advocates are few in number. CRT outrage that there is some residual racism at work here is proof solid that America is utterly corrupt and hopelessly bigoted, and must be eradicated as the only solutions. CRT backers woefully mischaracterize and exaggerate a problem, one that barely exil exissts, making it pervasive and behind every thought, action, institution or initiative undertaken. Either America ia perfect Utopia or it must be cast down. A pure standard reveals the one that practices such morality, though self-identified as righteous and noble, is cruel, vicious, fanatical, hateful and out for revenge on society. They are not to be allowed to gain popularity or win over the young and the foolish. They must be vigorously checked and stopped. Whites as the victims of this reverse racism are baselessly accused of crimes against blacks, as stereotypocal as the Nazis hurled against the Jews, that they were taking over the world and were behind whatever went wrong in Germany. Whites are the victim, and the victimizers are going to put us in gas furnaces if we do not thwart their attack. If a color-blind society approach prevail, people will start getting along better and better. Let me quote James's 7th reason: "7) Critical Race Theory acts like any who disagrees with it must do so for racist and white supremacist reasons, even if those people are black.--Following the 'social construction' thesis discussed above in point #4, Critical Race Theory has outlined what the essential experience of each racial group is. It then judges individual people (especially of minority races) on how well they give testimonial to that experience--which is to say, they judge individual people based on how well they support Critical Race Theory. This makes it impossible to disagree with Critical Race Theory, even if your are black. This is obviously much worse a probelm for white people or others who are siad to have 'racial privilege.' There are more concepts in Critical Race Theory to deal specifically with how and why white people are racist for disagreeing with Crtical Race Theory than perhaps any other idea. Charles Mills claims that all whites take part in a 'racial contract' to support white supremacy that is never discussed but is just part of the social fabric. Barbara Applebaum says all white people have 'white complicity' with white supremacy because they automatically benefit from white privielge and 'white ignorance' which is a way for them to willfully refuse to engage (an proper engagement can only be proven by agreeing). Robin DiAngelo says white people enjoy 'white comfort' and therefore suffer 'white fragility' tht prevents them from confronting their racism through Critical Race Theory. (Therefore, she says, anything that maintains white comfort should be considered suspect and in need of disrupting.) Alison Bailey claims that when racially privileged people disagree with Critical Race Theory, they are engaging in a 'defensive move' called 'privilege-preserving epistemic pushback, which means they are just arguing to keep their privilege and could not possibly have legitimate disagreements. All of these ideas implicate racially privileged people in racism anytime they disagree with Critical Race Theory." My Response: Dennis Prager notes that the Left does not debate with the Right, but they call us names and use ad hominem arguments against us. If we mention reverse racism is now systemic Democratic Policy, if we dismiss CRT as a packet of lies and propaganda to promote identity group rivalry that will weaken America so it collapses and the Marxist can then march in and take over the country with little push back, if we assert that each American is an individualist and individual first, and a member of a racial or identity group, secondarily, if we insist that racism was largely extinguished in America, we are yelled at at racists and white supremacists. As individual Americans, we insist upon the right to think and speak as we will, not in line with or in opposition to some hackneyed, stunted characterization of what a CRT backer of said identity group in equeistion would act, consistentent with ther racial stereotype assigned to that person. These CRT intellectuals accuse whites of subconcious racism and enjoying the comfort of their white supremacism--it is all crap. They need to be summarily dismissed and denounced by all Americans but especially white Americans. Let me quote from James's 8th reason: "8) Critical Race Theory cannot be satisfied--We have already seen how Critical RAce Theory cannot be disagreed with, even by black people,. We have also seen how it rejects all alternatives and how it believes any success that has comes down to 'interest convergence.' Because it rejects science, it cannot be falsified or proven wrong by evidence, and because it assumes racism is present and relevant to all situations and interactions, even the acceptance of Critical Race Theory must somehow contain racism. Therefore, Critcal Race Theory cannot be satisfied. It is, in this way, like a black hole. No matter ow much you give to it, it cannot be filled and only gets stronger--and will tear apart anything that gets too close to it. My response: When dealing with fanatics, it should be obvious to the modern citizen that yielding to their impossibly unfair, unreasaonble demands will only make them carry their grievance, howl louder, and expect more and more endless concessions. This Marxist front is to be opposed to the last stand.

The Arrival Of Communism

Supreme Leader Joe is keeping the troops in Washingto and they are proposing a permanent fence to keep the people out of the Capitol. The leaders get fences and guns to protect them against us, but we get open borders and gun confiscation as citizens on the street.

Atman

Is the Atman, or one's individual soul, to know salavation by being absorbed into the oneness of the Brahmin or world soul, or is one's soul, saved, when one soul is as one with the Brahmin while separate when the Brahmin, when saved. It is the latter I believe.

Good Spirits

The ranks of the Good Spirits are populated by former mortal humans and some may have been angels forever, or from the moment of their creation by the Divine Couple.

Populist Revolt

It sounds like there is a populist revolt happening and Wall Street and Tresury Secretary Janet Yellen may be involved regarding this GameStop and Robinhood debacle. I know nothing about any of this so my commentary may not be as educated and applicable as I would like, but here goes. John Carney had an article (The GameStop Rebellion: 4 Things to Know) (1/29/2021) for Breitbart on this issue; let me quote Carney: Shares of GameStop and AMC saw tremendous gains this week as an army of small retailer investors beat back sophisticated hedge funds that bet against the stock. 1. A Bet That GameStop Won't Stop--Although Gamestop's meteoric price climb--from $35.50 last Friday to $280 today--grabbed lots of attention this week, a group of online investors have been saying the company was undervalued for over a year. The basic concept was simple. A lot of big investors decided that GameStop was the next Blockbuster, a brick-and-mortar retailer doomed to financial ruin by technological change. . . The GameStop bulls were in the minority. In fact GameStop shares were some of the most heavily shorted shares in the U.S. markets, meaning lots of big investors had wagered that their shares would decline. But they increasingly gathered around WallStreetBets and the comments section of Gill's YouTube page, comparing ideas and setting the stage for this week's action. How does an investor profit from a stock's decline? Here is a pretty simple explanation of how stock borrowing and shorting works--using cows as an example. Basically, you sell shares that you have borrowed from your broker. Later you buy them on the market and return the borrowed shares to the broker. If the price of what you sold them for is less than what you later bought them for, you've made money." My Comment: It sounds like the big investors had no confidence in GameStop but the small investors continue to back it and did very well. That sound great to me. As a staunch capitalist and ignorant investor, if small investors, indiviual, local, amateur or small professional, can play the Wall Street game and make money at it, great. We all win as the little people in our country and across our globe grow their personal wealth. I favor individualism and individuating, and appreciating wealth per capita is a win-win for everyone. Wealth and power should not be concentrated in the hands of the few, instead it should bedistributed all across society so most people are upper middle class, per capita wealth-wise, within the over all context of their society's total wealth number estimation. The citizens should ammass this wealth by earning it, not socialist confiscation of the wealth of the 1% by the government and then redistributing it. It sounds like the small investors, the WallStreetsBets crowd, have become shrewd investors, and honestly manipulated the market making huge profits at the expense of the major Wall Street investors. Again, I want to see small and amateur investors very adaptable, with-it, keen and adept at investing in and out of the stock markety. This way that keep the Big Guys honest, and bring a share of this speculative wealth to the little people, spreading expanding wealth portfolios across this greatest nation. What could be more desirable? Let me quote the article more: "2. The Short Squeeze and the Gamma Squeeze--An investor whos is short a stock makes money when the share prive falls. But when the price climbs much higher, the investor has to cover the short by buying the share at a higher price. This buying activity can force the price up further, forcing even more buying, creating a spiraling price effect known as a short squeeze. That's what happened to several hedge funds this week as companies they had bet against--including AMC, headphone maker Koss and GameStop--began to rise. They were "squeezed" out of their short position. In fact, many of the WallStreetBest posters predicted the short squeeze but to others it seemed far-fetched that retail investors would be able to forced the hands of major Wall Street investors. The WallStreetBets crowd also figured--correctly, it seems--that they could accentuate this bu arranging for something called a "Gamma Squeeze." This involves piling into call options that allow for investors to buy shares at a set price, often an inexpensive way to bet the price would rise aboe the strike price. The dealer who sold the option would ordinarily buy a few of the underlying shares to hedge their position, putting more upward pressure on the price. And as the price kept climbing, dealers had to buy even more. The squeeze was on. The WallStreetBets crowd did not invent the short squeeze or the gamma squeeze. They were not even the first to successfully pull off such a pincer play. But it was the first time a gang of retail investors losely organized around an online message board had carried out such a move and sent big Wall Street players reeling." As little stock market players become sophisticated, expert and versatile, their quick inventive minds will make them competitive or even able to surpass the profitability of the big investment brokers. That is good for riches flowing per capita to the little people across the country, and it allows fresh, novel and innovative research and support for new ventures and unique ways of backing winners and withrawing from losers, a way that grows our economy even more. Let me quote the Carney article even more: "3. Let the Investigations Begin!--On Thursday, many of the major online brokers restricted some trades in the stocks that had run up so much earlier in the week. This was largely a reaction to higher margin requirementsimposed by behind the scenes palyers, such as market-makers and the The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, the company that ultimately clears stock trades. But operations of these companies are cloaked in mystery and the brokers did not do much to explain why trading was restricted. To a lot of investors it looked as if Wall Street was striking back by limiting their ability to trade. Compounding this impression, GameStop shares fell 40 percent on Thursday. You can't blame people for thinking the fix was in. The limits came off on Friday, and shares rocketed higher. Robinhood, the popular app-based broker, said it had restricted trading in response to regulatory requirements and not at the request of big Wall Street players such as Citadel. All this has price action has attracted the attention of lawmakers in Washington, DC. . . Sen. Elizabeth Warren demanded that the Securities and Exchange Commission investigate." Reason 4 I have not included. It looks as if the Big Players may have cheated and rigged the market to curb their huge losses at the hands of savvy small investors. Let the investigation be done to determine the facts. We need more transparency on how Wall Street works, and we want the small online investors to grow their riches in an incorrupt, level playing field. It sounds as if Biden's Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, was on the phone all day in questionwith some of these big investors, and did she intervene on their behalf against the small investors? That is yet to be investigated and set straight. In closing, an investigation by Congress and the SEC should be conducted. I am not a socialist, not in favor of class warfare and nationalizing the rich and their holdings. On the other hand, the rich and powerful, whether these elites are on the Right or Left, should not conspire to close and arrange the market to limits legitimate profits of small investors against the major brokers. That smells tainted and corrupt. Let the facts be made known.

Tucker Carlson

1/30/2021: Let me quote from a Jeff Poor Breitbart article posted today: "Friday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” host Tucker Carlson warned about the tactics employed by Democrats and their allies to suppress dissent and so-called divisive rhetoric of their political opponents. Carlson said such treatment with the intention of accumulating power could ultimately result in more radicalism. Transcript as follows: CARLSON: Happy Friday. What a week. A lot going on in this country right now, but maybe the single biggest mystery when you take three steps back is why Democrats became so vicious after they won. So, Joe Biden got the White House, his party took the Congress, you’d think they’d be thrilled. That’s what they wanted. You think they’d be celebrating? But no. Instead they started a purge. Within hours, Democrats began crushing even the mildest dissent. They shut down an entire social media company called Parler, not because Parler had done anything wrong, but simply because they couldn’t control it. They couldn’t take the chance that somebody on Parler might criticize them, so they eliminated it. Then two days ago, they arrested a man and threw him in handcuffs brought him up on federal charges because he made fun of Hillary Clinton on Twitter, that man is now facing 10 years in prison. Democrats then declared war on their rival political party, not by the way, a metaphorical war, but an actual one: soldiers and paramilitary law enforcement and the world’s most powerful intelligence agencies. They denounced Republicans even the fairly moderate establishment figures who pose really no conceivable threat to anyone. They denounce them as dangerous terrorists, they linked them to ISIS and al Qaeda, and anyone who complained about this or fought back in any way, was threatened with expulsion from Congress. In other words, it doesn’t matter what voters decided in November, in the name of democracy, you can no longer serve in the Congress. That’s what they said. Nor are dissidents permitted in the Federal bureaucracy. No one who disagrees with our beliefs, Democrats have announced can work in the U.S. government. We’re not overstating it; that all actually happened, and you saw it. Nothing like that has ever taken place in this country before. This is the most sweeping and audacious assault on civil liberties in American history. So, the question is, what accounts for this? Why are they doing it? It’s worth figuring that out. On the most basic level, of course, it’s a power grab. We said that from the first day and it remains true. The Democratic Party doesn’t exist to serve some abstract principle, liberty and justice or the Bill of Rights. No. Nor is its primary goal improving the lives of its voters. If you’ve been to Detroit, you know that’s true. No, the Democratic Party exists to accumulate power, all of it. Some is never enough. The impulse is to control everything. So that’s what they’re trying to do now amidst the chaos and tumult. But that’s not all that’s going on right now. There’s more. Look around: watch as Democrats erect a permanent steel prison fence around the United States Capitol. Why is that fence there? Well, to protect the people inside, to keep the public out of what we used to call the People’s House. That’s happening tonight as we speak. Then notice the thousands of armed soldiers and law enforcement agents stationed outside that fence. What’s their purpose? Again, protecting the people inside. Then ask yourself why are House Democrats planning to use federal committee funds to pay for more personal security for themselves? Why the renewed push to seize firearms from law-abiding Americans who have committed no crime? Why does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seem on the verge of tears as she describes as she was almost murdered on January 6 at the Capitol. She is not entirely putting it on, she seems to mean it." What is going on here? The Leftists and Democrats won via election all the government, and they intend to consodidate their power-grabbing tendencies now that they run things. Their real goal: to install permanently a one-party, Envirostatis Marxist dictatorship is underdway, and these initial thrust reveal how they hope to achieve their Leninist/fascist aims. They are vengeful, not conciliatory after winning the entire government. They are acting as they are: a mass movement of totalitarian thugs consolidating their power on the way to grabbbing all power permanently to implement their collectivist agenda. They are comrades, and this is what comrade-run government looks like, unleashed. Let me quote Tucker further: " If you’re sensing a theme here, there is in fact a theme and the theme is panic, fear and it’s real. You are looking at leaders who are genuinely afraid of the people they are supposed to be leading. Here’s the really interesting thing: they seem much more afraid now that Donald Trump has left office. With Donald Trump gone, they sense that a period of actual populism has begun, real populism, and they may be right. Look at what happened this week on Wall Street. A group of guys on Reddit trading stocks in their boxer shorts exposed the entire American finance establishment as the corrupt and fraudulent scam that it often is. That’s a pivotal moment in this country. Once you see something like that, you can’t un-see it. Once someone pulls the mask from your face, he still remembers your face. People’s attitudes about our economy will change forever because of what happened this week. It’s a big deal." The truth is our leaders don’t have answers. They don’t even have explanations for what’s going on. Worse than that, they themselves are deeply implicated in the systemic problems. In some cases, the crimes that are dragging the country down. They know all this. They know their guilt. Here’s the thing: they know that you know it, too, and that’s why they’re afraid. They know why populism is rising, and it is. So, this really is the time to make a decision about how to respond to it. What our leaders do next will define what America looks like going forward. It wouldn’t even be hard to begin the process of fixing things or bringing actual unity to a country that badly needs unity. In a democracy, the first step to unifying the country is always the same. Leaders enter into a power-sharing agreement with the people they lead. They do the obvious thing, they stop lying to their own citizens, they stop attacking them, and they respect their culture. They don’t try to control people’s beliefs. That’s not their role. They treat their own citizens like adults, meaning they treat them fairly. And above all, they cut the public in on some of the fruits of the country’s success. If all the benefits of our economy seem to be accruing to a small number of people, that’s a problem and they try hard to fix it. Wise leaders know that unequal countries are volatile countries. They know that caste systems are not compatible with democracies. But our leaders don’t seem to know any of that. Instead, they tell us that solar cars and mandatory diversity training are the real solutions to our problems. But no one buys that, those are not real solutions, they are a smokescreen. They’re a diversion tactic. Populism starts when people start to figure that out, and they have. And that’s why everything suddenly feels so unstable right now, because once again, real populism is brewing. In the face of all of that, the people in charge are doing the single stupidest, most counterproductive thing that any leader could do in the face of a populist movement. They’re refusing to admit their role in the decline. They’re refusing to admit their failures, and instead, they are blaming the people they have failed. They’re literally declaring war on their own population. How’s that going to end?" Tucker captures how the leaders fear and loathe the peope that they deceive, oppress and exploit. The people are waking up, and populism is on the rise. Tucker very nicely compares and contrasts how wise, democratic leaders interact with the voters and citizens, while Marxists elitists, swamp-dwellers and the ruling elite act as the Biden Administration are now conducting themselves. My hope is that Tucker is correct, that people are waking up, that they will fight back and prevent the Leftist drive to end free market economics, liberty, smaller government and disrupt our constitutional republic is short-circuited by the voter/citizens. Imagine in 40 years when the voter/citizens on average are totally awake, self-empowering, united anarchist/individuator supercitizens--now that is populism on steroids! Let me quote Tucker further: "And if you think we’re overstating it, we’re not. Here’s the former CIA Director describing what the enemy looks like. . . . JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: And this threat from domestic violence extremists is much more challenging, I believe, than it was in terms of going after foreign terrorists. The domestic violent extremists are much more pervasive, their numbers are much larger. When we’re going after al Qaeda or other types of terrorist group cells in the United States, their numbers were in the single digits of dozens and was finding needles in a haystack. Here, there are a lot of haystacks with a lot of needles in them. They have the wherewithal, they already have the weapons that if they so choose to use them, they can in fact, carry out these deadly attacks. . . . CARLSON: So many problems in this country, evident to anyone who is paying attention, but John Brennan, the former CIA Director has isolated the real problem. The real problem is you. According to Brennan, anyone who disagrees with say, Susan Rice is worse than Osama bin Laden and more dangerous. These people meaning you, quote, “Have the weapons,” these terrorists. By terrorists, Brennan means tens of millions of American citizens who might have a firearm at home and didn’t vote for Joe Biden. They’re the threat and we need to hunt them as we hunted al Qaeda. You just saw the clip. That’s what he said. It is hard to imagine a leader saying something more destructive and more reckless than that on television in a moment as fraught as the one we’re in. It’s terrifying in its stupidity, and in its certain effect. This isn’t crying fire in a crowded theater, this is using a flame thrower in a crowded theater. What are the implications of a former CIA Director talking like this? It’s not going to make anyone more moderate. That’s for certain, just the opposite. John Brennan is creating more extremists than a Pakistani madrasa. And it’s not just him, all the news other than this one right now are repeating this now-official line that the American government is now at war with its own population. Here is CNN’s version. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: My colleague, Jim Sciutto, he has covered international terrorism for 20 years and says that the parallels to the domestic terror threat are frightening. And he points to and I quote here, “radicalization online, demonization of the enemy to justify violence, draw to a cause greater than themselves devotion to a cultish leader.” That said, are we doing enough to combat this threat? JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: This is the way law enforcement looks at the domestic terror threat now is equal or greater than international terrorism. If we compared that to a U.S. politician propagating Islamist terrorist thought, materials, lies, et cetera, imagine the reaction. And yet sadly, there’s still a partisan reaction to this, some denying that the threat is real and that the lie behind the threat is dangerous. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: American citizens are more dangerous than foreign terrorists. You often hear people say, “Oh FOX is so extreme. The FOX News is so extreme.” No show on this would ever put that on the air — ever. And if anyone did, people would resign in protest because that is completely untrue and completely reckless. For once we’re not even going to mock Don Lemon for being a mouth-breather, though he demonstrably is. The problem is much bigger than that, it’s not funny. He and that former Obama official you just saw told their viewers that millions of American citizens are terrorists. Now, that’s a lie. For one thing, it is just not true. Press a little and you’ll find the Department of Homeland Security which has been upping up the domestic threat for the past week, at great cost to people’s sanity. DHS has no actual evidence that Trump voters are planning to hurt anyone, there is no evidence of a plot of any kind, they can see that. Trust us, they would tell you if they found a plot. But the question you have to ask yourself is what kind of effect do lies like that, the ones you just heard are calculated to terrify you? What kind of effect do they have on the country? Especially over time? This is not new. When you tell people they’re evil because of how they vote or how they look, and our leaders are definitely telling them that every single day, when you train a population to tally every group of Americans by race and ethnicity, first and foremost, keep track of people’s genetic background every time you see a picture. Really? What effect does that have when you promote group identity, even as you intentionally destroy national identity? If you do all of those things, what kind of country do you get at the end? Well, you get a scary divided country, the kind of country where you need steel fencing outside the national legislature. It’s very obvious where all of this is going. And it’s very, very bad. Part of the solution is to stop talking like this immediately. No more aging spies on cable news declaring war on American citizens, ” … domestic political enemies more dangerous than al Qaeda.” What? No more power-mad members of Congress dividing people by race so they can conquer. White fragility, white supremacy, white sounds, those are racial attacks, let’s stop lying about it. We shouldn’t talk that way in public. Those attacks are making people crazy. And by the way, over time, possibly making people dangerous. For real, too threatened, too nuts. Watch this clip and ask yourself what kind of effect this woman is having on the United States right now. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): There are legitimate white supremacist sympathizers that sit at the heart and at the core of the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives. There’s no consequences for racism, no consequences for massaging, no consequences for insurrection, and no consequences means that they condone it. We are now away from acting out of fealty to their President that they had in the Oval Office, and now we are talking about fealty to white supremacist organizations as a political tool. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: Wait. Let’s just be honest, for a second, that woman is a tool of corporate power posing as a truth-teller. Look at her campaign contributions. Who is supporting her campaigns? People who want to change the subject away from economics to identity politics. That whole pose is fraudulent in her case. But listen specifically to what she says and think about the effect on the people listening, people standing in airports will hear her say that, quote, “Fealty to white supremacist organizations as a political tool.” What does that even mean? We’re not even sure who she is talking about, apparently, the Republican Party and its Grand Kleagle, Kevin McCarthy of California. That’s not true. But it’s worse than that. This is a fantasy. It’s a very dark fantasy, designed to terrify people and make them easier to command. Over time, probably not long now. It will have other more insidious effects. Talk like that, from our leaders, from our elected officials is going to turn some of our citizens very, very radical. You don’t want to live in a country with very, very radical people. So to be clear, whatever you hear about Fox News being radical, we want to live in a country that looks like — I don’t know, 2005, where your race is not the most important thing about you, where you have a chance to get ahead by playing by the rules. That’s called moderate. That’s called democracy. That’s the republic that we want, and talk like this, which is everywhere, all of a sudden, is the enemy of the country we once lived in. Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor" This inflammatory, lying rhetoric from government police agencies, from Democratic Congressman, from the White House and the mainstream media are meant to cow opposition, to threaten conservatives, Republicans, whites, Christians and individualists to be silenced, go along with the arrival of dictatorial socialism and systemic reverse racism against whites as a permanent, established, unassailable new reality that all Americans must get behind and support, or be canceled, censored and even arrested and jailed by federal police. What we dissidents out of office must do is resist legally with all our might, not be silenced, not conform, not submit, and fight back with our whole hearts and souls. Biden is a dictator ruling by executive order, and he must be thwarted. That is the duty that God requires of a free people under assault by wicked Maoist thugs that have siezed the government. Tucker declares that these fascist efforts from the Biden Administration is the most sweeping and audacious assault on civil liberties in American history, and cannot be tolerated. If the Democrats succeed, our country is Marxist, fascist Venezuela going forward. If Tucker is right about the resistance from an angry, feisty, populist opposition aroused in reaction to the brutal and suppressive tendencies of the Biden Administration, then there is hope for us still. I know not who will triumph, for it is a near thing, but fight on we Patriots must. It is our God-given assignment, and we owe it to future generations and the world to refute and check such undemocratic power-grabbing.

Name-Calling

So you are called a racist, bigoted, violent, far-right extremist by politcally correct Marxists. It is not true of course, but it does apply to them directly--that they are vicious, far-left extremists out to hurt everyone, with no one's best interests at heart. They reveal themselves every time for they are what they accuse their cultural and political opponents of being.

Breitbart

I saw an Breitbart headline online that announced, roughly that those that embrace censorship and cancel culture are on the wrong side of history. I did not read the accompanying article, but do agree with this sentiment if embracing censorship and cancel culture refers to the totalitarian Lefts and Demcorats running our governmentment now, as they suppress independent thought, free speech, criticism and dissent from citzens that disagree with and oppose them. I am not convinced, in the short run, that the totalitarian Left will not succeed at their vicious goal: to crush opposition and finish destroying America, and making their Environstatist Ameritopia, our new government, economy and culture. They are on the right side of short term history if they succeed/ God is truth, love and goodness, and evil people will get there, and justice, often delayed, might even be meted out by the Mother and Father against evildoers in this life time. In that sense I agree with Breitbart that those that crush liberty, prosperity, truth and goodness, are on the wrong side of history, in the long run.

the Blaze

I thought I had heard it all, but what took the cake was an article I read tonight on line. It was carried by the blaze, on 1/27/2021 and the writer might have been Sarah Taylor. Let me quote from the article: "University professor says heterosexuality is 'tragic' and causes all sorts of societal problems for men and women Oh? Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images Sarah Taylor A professor at the University of California-Riverside says that heterosexuality is a "tragic" concept that perpetuates misogyny, funnels men into supporting toxic masculinity, and breaks up relationships." Professor Jane Ward comes off as urging that institutionalized prejudice against heterosexuals is now part of the Leftist mass movement that in 2021 has allowed reverse racism against whites to become systemic and official public party for thercist Democrats in power in Washington. Masculinity is not only not toxic, but is essential for the welfare of all humans, including women, children, everyone. Toxic racism against men, heterosexual men, boys and indvidiualists, Christians, Jews and conservatives is now legally and socially sanctioned socialist democratic agenda items for the Marxist Democrats running out country. Rather than causing misogyny towards women, women need men in their lives, to have children, to have an equal partner to love and cherish in monogomous marriage, and require rich, diverse relationships with men as fathers, sons, brother, friends, lovers, hubands, coworkers and neighbors. It is true that relationships often fail, and that is the fault of both men and women as love not competing and selfishness must compel them to stay partnered for live (in most instances). Let me quote Taylor further: "As highlighted by Campus Reform, Jane Ward, a professor of gender and sexuality studies and self-described lesbian, says that "heterosexual relationships" are inherently bad for people and their interpersonal relationships because they highlight inequality. In an December article for Insider, Ward argued that by all appearances, men and women don't actually like one another. Insider's Julia Naftulin reported, "She feels sorry for straight people, especially straight women, who typically report some of the lowest sexual satisfaction in society, Ward told Insider. But she also feels sorry for straight men, who are pigeon-holed into toxic-masculine culture that teaches them they both need, and yet should also demean, women." 'It really looks like straight men and women don't like each other very much, that women spend so much time complaining about men, and we still have so much evidence of misogyny," Ward told the outlet. "From an LGBT perspective, [heterosexuality] looks actually very tragic.'" Ward sounds like a typical Marxist, very cynical, insisting that all are to be assigned their identity group, collectivized oppressors (heterosexual toxic men that dominate and hold down and back heterosexual women), and the oppressed women, owned, paid less, attacked, exploited and oppressed. The battle of the sexes is over raw power and money and men play to win and hodl the winning cards. Realistically, women work mostly, make about as mucha s most men do, are well-treated in the West. There is much love, respect and cooperation between men and women as, when they are mature and love one another, married and monogomous as Bible and the Divine Couple intended, then Ward's excessive accusations can be dismissed out of hand. Ward is correct in pointing out that the balance of work and family obligations are hard on modern heterosexual women, but blaming men is not justified or accurate, and nor does it help heterosexual women to cope with their frustration. If young women maverize, that will give them the extra energy, will and mental toughness to juggle successfully, self-realization, being a wife and mother, and holding onto a career. Hard but doable, but fun and meaningful and rewarding also. Heterosexual women are most happy, loved, loving, complete and fulfilled in a loving mature relationship as a married individuator wedded to a heterosexual individuator, just as the heterosexual, divine, individuating married Mother and Father enjoy their relationship. What is tragic is for a straignt woman to stay single--unless she does so for noble reasons--or becomes gay. Men are not the enemy. If LGBT adults individuate and seek a civil union with another of their kind and that partner is a loving individuator committted to the long-term monogomous relationship then that union need not be tragic either. Ward is way off base.

Even The Veterinarians Have Lost Their Minds

My wife took Cooper, our little rescue dog into today for his annual exam and some shots that were due. Cooper was a runaway, or abandoned dog from Canton, Ohio. We think that he gravitates to women, and that some abusive or drunken husband or boyfriend us to beat him or kick him. He is terrified of men, and it took me many months to get him to trust me. He is a great dog, very sweeet, affectionate and smart. He is very anxious and will shiver and rembleif the smoke alarm goes off or if his sister, Sasha, leaves the house. We are able to calm him down, and he is leading a pretty normal and happy life. Today, my wife took him to his appointment. We have gone to these vets for years, and really like them. Now, they have a crazy policy that the dog owner has to stay in their car, per Covid-19 protocols, and the staff comes to the car and gets the dog and returns the dog after the appointment. They sent a guy out, and Cooper freaked and broke away off the leash and fled. My wife was able to get him and he went in for his appointment--she insisted that she accompany him, and finally they relented and let her go in with Cooper for his appointment. I have taken many pets into these vets, and all have bee traumatized by and dreaded going back there at all; Having the owner go in with them made it bearable. To ban the owners to the parking lot, now adds a huge extra level of stress to the pets, and dislike going to the vet at any time, and with Cooper the anxiety over this multiplies several times. This woman vet kept pushing putting Cooper on some powerful tranquilizers and my wife said no very firmly. The vet created the mess, and then wants to apply drugs to solve the problem. How did such smart, conscientious dotors become so bone-headed? This new policy is cruel and hurts the animal patients that these doctors are supposed to protect. The whole world has gone mad right now and the malevolence and cruelty from the dominant Left has on gone maintstream, extending the range and depth of needless suffering even with so simple a chore as taking the dog to the vert.

Elites Versus Ordinary People

We little people can change the system from the inside out, from the bottom up, just by cooperating, organizing and spreaking with one voice as supercitizen individuating anarchists--that are to do it.

VPRO With Jordan Peterson

This interview was between Dutch interviewer Emy Koopman and Jordan Peterson, a VPRO doucmentary in 2019. This interview was not conducted to a a stand alone interview; it was conducted for a Dutch documentary about the male/female dynamics in Canada. Within this documentary, we explored how an event like the Torontovan attack coould happen in Canada and how Canadians are tyring to heal from it. More broadly we looked at misogyny and violence against women within Canada and what is it about contemporary feminism that makes some men angry or lots. This interview is 2 hours ll minutes and 54 seconds long. I took notes on the interview, the basis of this blog entry. Emy Koopmam got a PhD in empathy in fiction. Jordan commented that empathy in fiction is mimicry--we mimic others to understand them and thus sympathize with them. The mimicry is physiologically an embodiment not cognitive. Children role-play to mimic adults, and thus learn about gender identification. Childrne must play or cannot make it. Jordan mentioned that he opposed federal bill C-16 in 2016 over compelled speech, mandating certain speech and certain ceonceotualizations about sex and gender not scientific, incoherent,, not logical and an intrusion upon free speech. He was called racist, bigoted, against trans, homophobic, etc. by the noisy, virtual signaling minority. Jordan has a point: the noisy, minority mob bullies the silent majority into surrender, and submission, whereas we schould escape from the grip of this howling mob, by standing up and out for what we believe--fight them back--that is now to defeat them. Jordan helps young people, especially men, to find meaning in responsibility, not in rights, and they are starving to hear that. Young men are not encouraged, and when they try to be competent, powerful and strong, they are accused of being tyrannical, part of the corrupt Western patriarchy. Being competent is not the same as being power-stricken and tyrannical--the latter is mere corruption. If people do not take control of their lives, they end up jaded, cruel, resentful and vicious and that can be appalling. Things here are not perfect, but Westerners are doing pretty good--people share with him their success stories. Emy notes that most of his followers are male, and you seem to tell them that it is okay to be a man. Jordan got impatient and retorted--it is not okay for them to be men, it is necessary for them to be men. He is upset, shouting, what are we going to do without men to keep structure and culture and infrastructure going and in repair. There is no gratitude from the Left, especially pampered professors, for what men sacrifice, especially working class men to keep things going. They keep what breaks working. A good man is proper, honest, forthright to help his family, his community--that is not toxic masculinity--that appalling phrases. Jordan defends the West defiantly, refuting the label that the West is a oppressive, white male patriarchy, angrily rejecting the accusation and lie that it is fundamentally predicated on power. Male bosses and functional organizations and hierarchies run on competence, not power. Most Western male bosses are hard working, conscientious, good mentors to promising young people. I would clarify that Peterson is not an anti-feminist, but he is anti-radical feminist because this claim of that identity group victimization status as oppressed by the capitalist, patriarchal system is but another front, disguise and cover for Marxist revolution once the mask is torn off of it. Our system is slightly patriarchal and a little oppressive, not perfect but our Capitalist, Western system is repsonsible for a dramatic rise in the standard of living around the world--absolute poverty can be erased by 2030, 1/2 decreased from 2000 to 2012, a bloody miracle. Not starving except for politcal reasons, free electronic access everywhere, fresh water and child mortality rates much reduced. By Contrast Communism is a disaster. With individual sovereignty and free market economics people everywhere could be made rich; things are much better everywhere, and there is no gratitude for that either. (I add that 43% of Americans today think some form of socialism is a grand idea.) Emy asks him about male/female relations in Canada and in the West, and due to feminism are man having a hard time of it, and resenting women for it. Jordan responded by saying that it was not clear who was having a rough time, men or women--that is answerable only on an individual level, but he did point out that young men are discouraged from being strong and competent, virile males. Jordan allows that we are doing better but a permicious social viciousness in the last 10 years is feeding polarization. He noted that birth control, the pill, has made a revolutionary impact on the lives of men and women in the last 60 years. Women do not know whom they are, and this role uncertainty destabilized relations between men and women. We lie to young women, telling them career is the most important thing in life, when actually family and friends are more cherished and more important. Career for women is not the fundamental orientation. I would offer that indviduating women can have their cake and eat it too--marriage, children and a strong, virle, coequal partner. It would be difficult but doable. Jordan offers that women want family, husband, not just a career. We need children and grandchildren so not lonely and isolated in our old age. This is not just propaganda from the oppressive hierarchy as radical feminist have lied to young women about, a cruel deception. Emy wants feminism and more or 50% of women in C-suite positions on the top of business and governmental organizations. Jordan angrily shouts that why would women want a C-suite position, and why would a man want it--80 hours a week and no life, no family, no friends or time for friends. A few men (and some women) are healthy, smart, workaholic and healthy enough to work that way. Women by 30 want to have children and a life, and women as bosses would be more humane then men? Really? Most people are happier working for a male boss than a female boss. He denounces the social construction lie that there are no differences between men and women. We are very similar but there are important differences--hormonally, developmentally, morphologically, physiologically, psychologically and tempermentally. Judith Butler, the social constructionist, has zero understanding of biology, and denies that she needs to understand biology. This sweeping dismissal of Butler by Peterson is a big deal for she is a big gun, queer and gender theorist and postructuralist, a darling of the Left. Jordan explains that women care for people and men care about things, and this explains why they go into fields that pay more for men and less for women, and that helps explain the wage gap. Few women are interested in the STEM fields. Freest countries in Scandinavia have the most extreme separation of men and women by fields of choice, and this is a natural bent, not socially constructed. It belies radical feminist claims that men and women are the same. Jordan argues that it is cruel and arrogant to scheme to make boys and girls the same, to degender them. Jordan wants traditional familial structure, but not traditional gender role divisions which Emy accuses him of wanting. He refutes that families of any kind will do and are just as good as traditional binary families. Kids need fathers, married to their mothers, and active in a proper way in the lives of the children. Girls without a father, enter menopause earlier, pregnancy sky rockets, alcoholism and much more mental illness occurs. Boys with no dad incarcerated and chemically dependent at much higher rates. He said we need our young people to have kids, and more than one to perpetuate the rate. The Western low birthrate of 1.2 is sign of a sick society. We in the West lost faith in the divinity of the Virgin Mother and child. Modern women have been more unhappy in the last 60 years. Single children more narcissistic, need a sibling or two to grow up normally, learn how to compete, socialize and play, be social. Jordan wants women to stay home and be mothers, since day care is so expensive. He may be a bit too conservative here, but he raises some good issues. Emy asks if Jordan agreed that where men and women are equal in a relationship, are they not happy? Jordan did not seem to disagree with her but he likely would qualify that remark that men and women should be equal but that is not the same as being the same, that love, cooperation and mutual respect would make them happy. Emy likes equality of outcome, but Jordan would only go for equality of opportunity between men and women, but equality of outcome he condemns wholly, enforced quotas of representation by each identity group as populated in each hierarchy. The problem is this enforced equality of outcome crushes competence drives and expression of the individual's talents and creativity, which is horrible for the individual and for society as the best do not develop and share their gifts with society. Peterson the mistaken snob is for equality of opportunity so that liberty and unfettered ability to do one's own creatively will allow the blossoming of what talent is available, and that talent is in short supply, so society cannot afford to suppress it with ruinous, guaranteed equality of outcomes. Peterson is right about the need for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, but he does not realize like Eric Hoffer that all are loaded with undeveloped talent, and that talent is bountiful and will burst out all over as soon as people individuate and individual-live. He roundly denounces the holy triumvirate of the Left: Inclusivity, Diversity and Equity. Equity is mere equality of outcome. Inclusivity is gibberish and so ill-defined to even mention, but inclusivity is the Leftist concept that male patriarchs, white and heterosexual, need to include all the ther identity groups. He criticizes the concept of Diversity: if people are diverse, how can we enforce equality or sameness of outcomes? I respond that they are diverse, and increasingly so, as individuating anarchists--so equality of outcome would be stunting, cruel and socially and economically disastrous and wasteful. It would increase malevolence and suffering to the utmost. Jordan also points out that if people are not diverse, why worry about enforced equality of outcomes.. Great point. He likes the sovereignty of the individual, and urges each indivdiual to build one's unique competency and this includes women and members of all identity groups--this is why he is not sexist or racist in any serious way. His philosophy of personal responsibility is promoting the liberation of all that will undertake it, regardless of what groups one identifies with, and the Left smear him as an alt-right extremist, which is vicious slander and libel. Emy counters that ther is also the Red Pill Society that is an anti-feminist backlash, evidence that men are angry at the liberation of women.Emy obviously believes the men in the Red Pill Society are misogynistic, asserting male rights and potentially fascist and scary, but Jordan scoffs at that as a media piece of paranoia. Adolescents in the Red Pill Society online may just be reacting to radical social justice warriors polarizing society. These Leftist totalists have no one's best interest in mind. The Red Pill society does not even exist (It is but a very few members like the handful of white racists and white supremacists that the Left are eager to claim that all conservatives are, a rising mass movement of fascists that does not exist either.) Red Pill does not exist, claims Jordan, it is but adolescents making the gullible, hysterical Leftist press swallow their memes whole, and did the manipulation with incredible ease and effectiveness. Emy challenges Jordan to show who are these allegedly dangerous social justice warriors that he goes on about. He responds: professors, lawyers, HR specialists, mainstream media. These hardcore radicals are only 7% of the population but theare concentrated in certain fields. Jordan worries that the provincial and federal government in Canada have swallowed whole the entire social justice movement based on inclusivity, diversity and equity or equality of outcome. The Trudeau government staff is 50% women even though 27% of Canadian women voted, so that quota requirement hires on the basis of genitalia not competence and merit, and Jordan ecoriates this injustice promoting based on power not competence and responsibility. These women promoted into government not based on merit should feel ashamed of themselves for taking a position deserved by others more competent than them. I am no expert on Jordan Peterson, but, if women, liberals and Leftists are being fair to him, really listening to what he repeatedly postulates, it becomes clear that he is not sexist, racist or homophobic. Rather he opposes not the members of these identity groups per se, he opposite the use of these identity groups as the victims or oppressed sections of society rumored to be held back and held down by a corrupt, rotten white, male, capitalist patriarchy. These members of these identity groups are victimized, but it is not by white, male capitalists that are mostly egalitarian and just; rather these identity groups are useful idiots used by socialist ideologues to advance their totalitarian agenda. If the revolution against whites, democracy, capitalism and the West is victorious, and it could happen, these minorities groups will be as oppressed and attacked and suffer in poverty as much as any other group of citizens. The Left uses them but will discard them as soon as the take over of society is complete. This is what Jordan implies and that is why he is angry at Emy. She and other Leftists are being used by their puppet masters, or they are part of the ruling elite of puppet masters manipulating these members of mentioned identity groups for the sake of revolutionizing society. Marxists are totally cynical: they regard all hierarchies as inherently corrupt and dominated by power-grabbing and power-keeping by those in charge at the top. Hierarchies are not base don competence and sacrifice to help society, as bosses do in the West in free market economies. Emy then brought up the social justice warrior claim that the Canadian establishment is guilty of colonialism, genocide, racism and exploitation of indigenous peoples across Canada. Jordan is furious at this false compassion and reckless, baseless accusation. Indians on reserves live in isolated areas with no jobs jobs, frozen, nothing to do, and no future so drugs, alcoholism and disease and broken lives is a train wreck but it is complicated, not a design by the patriarchy to wipe out Indians. Jordan lambastes the Marxists for fomenting division, rivalry, disunity, even stoking fires of hatred and violence with their dangeorus tribalist dualisms being brought back to life. To take favored indentity groups and to stoke resentment in their hearts is to lead to civil war. Marxists are responsible for 150 million deaths, so no one should listen to these fanatical butchers and murderers any more. Amen to that I say. Jordan goes on: compelled speech in federal legislation is the loss of a free society. Every structure is based on power. He asks the Leftists: if you are obsessed with power and economic causes, what is your motivation. Are you seeking to unite absolute power and absolute ownership of economic resources under your command. Is that not your plan? (I know it is the Marxist plan, though they would flatly disavow such ambitions.) Ideologues do not like to think, but they like to think they are right. They are not right and things are more complicated than they make them out to be. Well said, Jordan. They sit in their coteries and pat themselves on their backs with their universalistic solutions to very complex problems, and have done nothing to improve the world. They have improved nothing. Leftists regard history as a battle between the haves and the have-nots, and now it is repackaged as identity group politics but still a power struggle. If a members of society is a member of ten identity groups, and 8 are defined as oppressed, and two are defined as oppresor, once the Marxist government takes over, the citizens with any oppressor group membership will be purged, gulaged or murdered to further purigy who is worthy of surviving as a comrade. One can never be pure enough to survive if one has any oppressor affiliation. This is madness, cruelty and viciousness of the highest order. This is what the Soviets did. These collectivists preach that the group is the fundamental hallmark of human existence, and one's identity is the group or groups thatone belongs to. Marxism yields nothing but totalitiarianism, tribal warfare of one tribe against another, suffering, want, starvation, the collapse of civilization into anarchy and lawlessness, quarrels based in resentment, rage, hate. It is a retrogressive movemement, malevolent and hurtful. By contrast the West champions the sovereign individual. If the intersectionalists would logically follow through on the fact that each individual is a member of 10 to 25 identity groups, then they would accept that true diversity can only be expressed and rewarded in the individual. Marxism is toxic, this group against and winning over that group, always a struggle for power. Emy switches subjects criticizing Jordan for mentioning in his book that feminism is chaos (inferior) and that young men should help themselves out of chaos by bringing order and method into their lives. Order is good and masculine and chaos is bad and feminine. Jordan disagreed vehemently; he wrote that chaos is symbolically feminine and that order is symbolically masculine, not respecitively literally women and men, and that is not the same thing. He noted that his idea for this comes out of Eastern philosophy and that idea is thousands of years old, for under the Tao chaos seems feminine and order is masculine. Jordan;s concept of spiritual, ethicial and ontological moderation shows here as he had actually advised that the good, responsible human is like tehe Taoist with masculine or order as part of his living and chaos or feminine as part of his balanced life. He is a bit more ordered than chaoitc, but he is both, not either or, for it is the extremes that turn evil. Extremes are evil and groupist, and the middle is individual and good. Jordan denies it but the Eastern and his conception that chaos is bad and feminine and order is male and good is how it is in reality. Women are a bit more evil than men because they are naturally more groupist, extreme, selfless and emotional than men. Men are a bit more rational, individual, moderate, and self-interested than are women. This I have asserted for 30 years but no one reads me anyway, but that is ontological reality. I speak this truth, and will not back away from it, and Jordan does not want to admit the truth openly, probably because he has not quite processed it as I have, and he does not want all of cosmos rained down upon his head in a hail storm of anger and outrage from the mob of howling woke thugs. Jordan the moderate tries to reassure woke Emy that the West is not a male, corrupt patriarchy, pointing to the Bible where 3500 years ago it was written in the Old Testament that both men and wome were instilled from birth with a divine spark from Jehovah, making each of them worthy and eligible to enter heaven, and that is pure equality. Both genders were made in God's image, and out of this grew individual rights. The state cannot impose its purview past a certain limit--we thus have free society not dictatorship under a patriarchal oppressor. In conclusion, I reagrd Jordan Peterson as brilliant, wise, conservative, a truth-teller and a good prophet good for humans and for humanity. We could do worse than follow his recommendations. This 2 hour or so interview did not give me new insights into him so much as it is long enough for him to lay out his worldview and his ethos in its entirety, and that is helpful.

Dennis Prager On Leftism

The happiness gap is well-studied and well documented. Leftism is just a terribly toxic mindset.The better things are, the happier you are, the worse it is for the Left. Happy people not vote for the Left. If a woman sees America as misogynist, a corrupt patriarchy--she is angry at men. The angrier a woman is, the more likely she is to vote Democrat. The more a black is angry, the more likely he is to vote Democrat. Hispanic Americans that hate foreigners vote Democrat. Democrats thrive on misery, and want people to live in misery. Pampered, rich college students feels oppressed but has no idea what oppression is. Ungrateful Americans are Democrats. Ingratitude is an ugly trait. Dennis grimly announced that he used to think that Democrats had a broken moral compass. He has now concluded that they have no moral compass. They have a race compass, a power compass and a gender compass. They are sick, wicked people conveting Americans to their sick culture that is making ill and killing America, I add. Well said, Dennis.

What Holds Down Latin American Countries

Dennis Prager has an excellent video on this and he gives reasons, starting with corruption: corruption is a breakdown in personal ethics. Too much power in concentrated in individual hands. In the last 4 years much corruption in America at all levels of government. It is depressing. Power corrutps and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Corruption alone will stop societal progress. Second, Preger references Lawerence Harriosn's book, "Whot Prospers?" He calls it "Familism", discrimination based on family. Americans hired based on individual merit and competent, but if are family in South America, are the first hired. Third, socialism: a belief down there that government should be big and should take care of me--no concept of limited government in Latin America. The bigger the government, the less prosperous the country.

Critical Race Theory

I deny the woke accusations that our laws, our culture, our legal system, and our business institutions are innately racist. I refuse to accept that race is not a biological fact, that it is but a social construct invented arbitrarily by white people so that they could gain wealth, power and white supremacy over all oppressed minorities. There is no evidence to support this. I believe that we are what we are as our gender matches our biological, sexual state at birth. I believe that we are the color that we are, but that gender orientation, allotted se, or skin color or ethnic heritage are interesting but not determinative for each individual citizen. Let he or she maverize, do his or her own thing, and then we can judge them by the content of their character, not the assigned genitalia or skin color. Peple of every conceivable identity group enjoy justice here under the law, in business or socially, as unequal treatment, persecution under the law, enforced poverty, being exploited or oppressed are rare and declinging occurrences. I favor equality of opportunity, and that is the law of the land, but reject socialist demands for equality of outcomes.

Jessica Guynn

She wrote an online article on 1/20/20201 about Biden's executive order reversing Trump's ban on race and gender diversity training for federal employees. They are down on exclusion and discrimination, as a more diverse work force and promoted work force is required going forward to be more diverse, more inclusive and more non-discriminatory. The proponents of CRT indoctrination classes asser that structural racism by whites and males with implicit bias and unconscious bias seeping out towards women and minorities in the workplace, nees to be addressed and rectified. Conservatives object that label entire groups of Americans (like whites and men) as inherently racist or evil, enjoying white privilege to the detriment of all other people, is in effect reverse racism to ascribe some collective guilt to all individuals of certain identity groups as racist oppressors, just due to their genitalian or skin color. I refer to this as systemic reverse racism, now institutionalized as legally attacking men, Christians, whites, straights and conservatives as offical, legal policy. It can only lead a a reverse Jim Crow law state of affairs against men, whites and these other targeted identity groups. That is evil, pure hate, and will lead to pogroms, incarceration camps and even genocide against these groups if this wicked, Marxist culture of outrage attack on large swaths of Americans is not stop cold in hits tracks. Trump objeced that CRT is teaching that our country is a terrible place, which it is not. It teaches that racism pervades the governmemt, giving white people an advantage. Conservative activist Christopher Rufo is suing Biden's revival of these horrible classes to the Supreme Court if necessary. His objections are that CRT perpetuates racial steretypes, compels disciminatory speech and creates a hostile work environment. CRT violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the US Constitution. This monstrous ideology must be thwarted hard now.

Fireside Chat--Dennis Prager and Douglas Murray

This chat, about an hour long, took place on 10/15/2020, entitled "When Childish Views Take Over': Dennis Prager with Douglas Murrary." The Description: "An outstanding conversation with Douglas Murray. How the Left became so radical--the lack of debate, "anti-racism" training, corporate wokeness, critical race theory and infantile thinking. Plus sane, excellent advice for those afraid to speak their minds." Douglas Murray is author of "The Madness of Crowds". Dennis asked him how an independent thinker like him developed. Dennis adds that courage is the rarest virtue and Douglas has it. Dennis asks him why he is courageous. Douglas replied that courage in not being willing to put up with lies. Find and write about the big lies, deeper than whoppers told by politicians, lies that reveal medacity and hypocrisy in cultural values, a deeper level than politics. Murray labels courage as knowing what is worth defending. If one hates lies, then one is not willing to concede to the Progressive lie that Western values are hopelessly corrupt and discardable. Westerners do not appreciate what is so rare and precious, Western values. Murray defines two opponents of Western values. One is the hardcore Maoist or champion of a rival ideology. The second one, much more common, is anti-Western culture simply because that is the heritage, the backdrop to which they are rebelling in an unreflective, ignorant way. They do not realize how rare and precious America is. They do not know what evil is, no trag sense of life, so they do not know how good they have it here, and what they should fight to retain and preserve. The Europeans are more gloomy than Americans but our educator failure to teach children civic values, moral values and history has led children not to know abything bout the Communists and fascists. Leftists revise history to narrate that it is a vast savannah of grievances. The Left demands lots of fascists but they are tiny in number. The Leftist elite in the West love lies and how did that come about? They started with deconstructionism and critical race theory, and begin to tear down disciplines in university, then the whole country got infected with this grievance culture. Unbelievers are bullied, gaslighted, and intimidated to submit, and the Leftist rationale is so obscure (taking clear, simple ideas and making them abstruse and indecipherable). People go along and surrender so not regarded as stupid, backward or reactionary. Not enough people have stood up and opposed this cultural bullying. The Right reads the Left but not vice versa. Murray believes that postmodernism is waning, and Prager thought that was optimistic, and I worry that it may be premature optimism. They went over at length over the weird corporate wokeness going on with race-consciousness and anti-bias training being conducted at work across our two countries. Murray offered that these corporate boards trying to seem with-it as a cheap way to keep the grievance-mongers from coming after them. I agree, but insist that corporate cowardice is also a factor. Murray, a conservative gay, is labeled as a fake gay because he is not a woke gay. Identity politics are a way of attacking adults at work or through governmental agencies. Murray suggests that the silent majority must speak up and fight back to back off the noisy, bullying Leftist minority calling cultural shots right now. Dennis urges that conservatives not compromise on what they believe. They describe the CRT trainers that come to corporations, and whites, males, and conservatives are not even allowed to speak. They are to listen in silence, and be letured and corrected for their implicit bias and unconscious racism. This is outrageous nonsense and totalitarian bullying. Dennis offered that he has noticed that happy people do not vote Left, but resenters vote Left. He is spot on. Murray suggests the Right needs to do a much better job to provide the young and the public with an alternative to Leftism. Religion, values, liberty, Western culture, capitalism, prosperity and hope are some positive things for people to enjoy and work towards to find purpose in their lives. Excellent proposal, I thought--I offer Mavellonialism. They both agreed that grateful Westerners and Americans feel lucky to have been born in the West. Dennis suggests that grateful people are good people and are happy. He describes a happy black as a Republican. Dennis wisely counsels that people will only be happy if they also am aware of the presence of evil and suffering in life, that the tragic view of life makes happiness gained more meaningful, lasting, richer and deeper. Murray worries that Leftism, Prager's definition of it is the new religion, is used by millions of people to fill the nothingness, emptiness and meaninglessness that they are drowning it, now that Western faith in God and traditional values has receded so far. There were not any new revelations in this conversation but these two conservative celebrities tied nicely all together what the people of the West are up against as the cultural advancement of Progressivism is pushing all against the wall.

PUREFLIX

I saw their meme on Facebook and liked it--apparently they offer faith-based movies or family entertainment. Here is that admirable meme of theirs: ""I would rather stand with God and be judged by the world, than stand with the world and be judged by God." This meme captures the right approach towards God. We are to stand with God, even if the unbelievers, the satanists, the secular and the in-crowd mock and punish us for siding with God. God sees all and remembers all come the Day of Judgment. If you or I betrayed God and stood with the world, we wil be punished, and maybe sent to hell.

He Understands

Perhaps no one understands the Left better than Dennis Prager: a few of his remarks: Leftists suck the joy out of life; blah, blah about white supremacy. He never met a happy Leftist.

Authoritarianism

The supercitizen loves herself and others. She works to defend and extend her sphere of liberty and theirs also. In other words, she has zero tolerance for bullies of any kind, seeking to place one under their thumb. She will neither submit to or endure authoritarianism in her life or suffer power-lust internally to nudge her to bring others under her control.

Aautarkeia

This ideal goal of complete self-sufficiency is undesirable and unworkable, but something close to it is desirable and achievable for the advanced, skilled, confident individuator. Work on it right away and all your life. You can still be social and gracious when help from others is offered or needed but you should do as much as you can on your own.

Mull It Over

If you are not thinking and pondering about things all the time, it will be hard for you to maverize, for your efforts, in spite of your intentions and enthusiasm, will be stunted, curtailed and perhaps short-lived unless you have learned how to think, and think a lot and constantly, ever wondering ever reasoning things through to their conclusions.