From the Federalist

The Federalist carried this article online, written by Carrie Gress, written on June 28, 2021. The title of her article is: "Meet The Flyover Women Pop Culture Ignores: The fly-over woman understands her womanhood and motherhood deep in her bones and doesn't see maleness as a goal to achieve or person to conquer." Carrie Gress is a smart but conservative professor offering a traditional view of womanhood. Here is what the Federalist posted about her at the end of her article: "Carrie Grass is a Fellow at Ethics and Public Policy Center. A mother of five, she has a doctorate in philosophy from the Catholic University of America and is the author of several books, including the 'The Anti-Mary Exposed: Rescuing the Culture from Toxic Femininity,' and 'Theology of Home.' She is the editor of the online women's magazine Theology of home.com." My response: She is the prototypical successful woman: mother, feminine, yet liberated, career, professor, writer. She has it all and that is what a woman is about. Let me quote from her article: "Adherents of radical feminism are five decades into a powerful campaign that seeks to shape the way American women think. Politics, fashion, Hollywood, academia, and media propagate a singular vision of womanhood, relying on the savvy use of optics, messaging and even make-up. These radical feminists have done a remarkable job of silencing or sidelining their critics." My response: Her moderate feminism, championing a mixing of tradition values and feminism is balanced and healthy. Radical feminists are Marxist, hate men and will make women and America fail if they continue to get their way. It is hoped that conservatives like Gress can restored the balance needed. Let me quote from her article: "Ironically, whether they know it or not, feminists' unspoken premise insists men are superior to women and women must become like them in pursuit of equality. Therefore, to be equal, women must be able to eliminate the consequences of sex, like men, and rid themselves of unborn children through unrestricted abortion. Abortion is the crux of most women's policy issues and is at heart of the greatest political divisions in the United States." My response: Yes, radical feminists do assume men are superior to women, so women must become like them. First, of all, men are not superior to women. And men are biologically different from women--it is not just social construction. Second, men and women should be treated equally, which means fairly, but not the same because they are not identical. Wiping out men and excessive abortions are not going to make woke women happy or fulfilled. Let me quote her again: "What we will never see in the splashy pages of Vanity Fair, for instance, are the many happy women who buck the feminist narrative, loving, nurturing, consoling, clothing, cleaning, and adoring their numerous children without trying to live like men. From Maine to Hawaii, these are the women who have opened themselves up to the dramatic and self-sacrificial love required when one person truly loves another. They carry children in their wombs, their arms, their hearts, their minds." My response: a good and healthy woman is a mother, a wife, a worker and self-actualizer. She can be feminine as heck and still do all these things. It is not an either/or choice: either she is a radical feminist, or she is a wife, mother and homemaker. Let me quote from her article: "Fly-over women are the moms and daughters and wives and sisters and friends the media overlooks because they are religious or frumpy or don't have sexy day jobs. They are considered uneducated doormats. Their bodies are often tired, hair not always perfectly coiffed, and nails rarely manicured. Their homes may not be camera-ready, their meals are not often gourmet, and talking points are ready on their tongues. But mostly, the issue is that they don't believe in abortion and they do believe in the sanctity of marriage." My response: The Left has lost the middle when they sneer at and disrespect as uneducated, doormats women that are Christian, conservative, heterosexual women that work, live in the real world, raise kids, love their men and sons, believe abortion is murder and marriage is sacred and between men and women. Traditional women and their men are about rebel and rise up and take the country back: the cultural war will be won, and it will not be the Left that wins. Let me quote her further: "These unseen and unknown women are the fly-over women found in every American city and state. They've been called bigots, lectured to, condescended to, and ignored by those who consider themselves morally superior." My response: Intellectuals, progressive and elitists treat regular people, these wives, workers and mother, as dummies, bigots, as intellectually and morally inferior. These women juggle career, marriage and family, pay taxes, run the society. They keep society going. The Christian, heterosexual majority, women and men, are who the society primarily is made for and their needs and issues should be priority. That can be done and is done is free, generous, fair, tolerant America; we need moms and dads to have babies, to get married, and hold society together so that our country has a future. The needs of every minority out of the mainstream, however numerous or few in number, but not by overthrowing the mainline, traditional cultural and our Enlightenment-era constitutional republic. A good place to start rectifying would be to would be to treat wives, mothers and regular women with honor and respect, with no more put-downs or snide carping against these heroines keeping the country going and getting it done every day. Let me quote from her again: "More than anything, these women actively reject the ideology continually advanced by radical feminism. They are tired of the same Marxist effort to reimagine human nature as anything it wants to be. They reject all the latest Marxist fads, propagated with clever sound bites, high-end advertising, and popular hashtags." My response: I do not believe traditional American women reject feminism. They reject radical feminism which is anti-men, pro-abortion, anti-family, anti-homemakers. They reject radical feminism that is a woke, postmodernist offshoot of Marxism. These fanatics, these ideologues are not after justice for women. They do not have the best interest of women at heart, and their revolutionary excesses and drastic, nihilistic solutions will hurt women, children, men--all Americans, and these traditional women know this down to their toes. Let me quote her further: "Fly-over women know feminist ideology is the weary set of ideas that led us to a country in which millions of women are desperately unhappy--and many are hard-pressed to actually define the word 'woman. ‘There is no happiness in an ideology that foments narcissism, self-absorption, and isolation from the basic cell of civilization: the family. Only a deeply confused culture would seek to replace the word mother with 'birthing person' or breast-feeding with 'chest-feeding.'" My response: As a moderate, I always counsel that we can have our cake and eat it too. Women need to marry, have children, run a home and family within a matrix bound by community, church, school and extended family. They can individuate, be liberated and pursue a career, being happy, loved and fulfilled, with a man in their lives, without resorting to narcissism or experimenting with 67 gender choices.

Actuality

I am all about actualizing one's potential, having a dream and then living vogrously to fulfill that dream, but so conducting one's life always unfolds in everyday reality, and that must be acknowledged and factored in if one is to be successful and happy.

Eternal

Is what is eternal unchanging and one, or many, changing and active? I have no idea, but goodness requires activity more than static sameness.

Jack Philips

David Harsanyi, a senior writer with National Review, wrote an article on June 25, 2021, entitled: "The Crusade to Destroy Jack Philips Continues." Let me quote from David's article: "I've been writing about Colorado cakemaker Jack Philp's fight against cultural authoritarians for a long time. This past March, I noted that Philips would probably be badgered into the grave. And this week, Denver district judge A. Bruce Jones again found that the state could compel speech, claiming that Philips had acted unlawfully when refusing to create a cake that celebrated the alleged gender transition of a Colorado activist. When Philips declined to participate in the wedding of David Mullins and Charlie Craig back in the summer of 2012--this was before Obergefell v. Hodges and before gay marriage was even legalized in Colorado--he made himself the target of harassment by activists and 'civil-rights' commissions that set out to destroy his business over a thought crime; by courts that set out to corrode religious liberty and free-speech protections; and by media that either don't understand or don't value free expression anymore. Journalists have been misleading their audiences about this case for nearly a decade. So, it needs to be repeated that Philips never turned a gay couple away from his shop. He never 'refused' to sell a gay couple his products. Mullins and Craig were free to buy anything they desired from Masterpiece Cakeshop. They weren't free to force Philips to create something that conflicted with his long-held religious beliefs. One of the most classic ideals of liberty is that we don't coerce individuals to say thing--or refrain from saying thing--in ways that violate their conscience." My response: It is very unjust that they keep persecuting this brave, religious man. He discriminated against none but will not allow the State or activists to compel him to say certain things or refrain from saying certain things. We are a constitutional republic. Radical free speech and free thought and expression of personal religious beliefs must not be thwarted or compelled by the State. If we are to remain a free people, this persecution of Philips and others by cultural authoritarians--to quote Harsanyi--must cease. Let me quote Harsanyi some more: "In June, 2017 the very day the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Philips case, Autumn Scardina, a transgender activist in Denver, called Masterpiece Cakeshop and requested a custom cake with a blue exterior and a pink interior to symbolize a gender transition. Philips turned down Scardina, as the lawyer knew he would. 'I was stunned,' Scardina would laughably inform the Colorado Civil Rights Commission later. Scardina hadn't tripped over the nation's most famous Christian baker by happenstance. Philips is now back where he started, guilty of a thought crime. Scardina, in fact, admitted this was about wanting to 'correct the errors' in Philip's thinking. And an unprincipled judge such as Adams has affirmed the right of certain people to impel speech on others. Let's hope it is temporary. What is certain is the crusade to destroy Philips--and many others like him--will continue until the Supreme Court upholds the clear language and intent of the First Amendment." My response: It is obvious that Leftist ideologues, activists and social justice warriors are fanatical, radical ideologues, who crave absolute power over all individual citizens and dissenters from their Marxist orthodoxy. They feel quite justified in forcing obedience, intellectual uniformity, silenced opposition and involuntary conformity by use of threats, fines, arrest and even jail time. This cannot stand. These evil people must be blocked and crushed or liberty in America will die. Let me quote Harsanyi one more time: "'Freedom of religion and religion have been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust, whether it be--I mean, we--we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination,' commissioner Diann Rice noted, giving the game away in 2014. 'And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use--to use their religion to hurt others.'" My response: No one should be discriminated against, but free speech and freedom of religion liberties trump woke concerns of alleged discrimination under the guise of religious liberty. These authoritarian fascists need to be trampled.

Genesis 5:28-29

Let me quote from The New American Bible: When Lamech was one hundred and eighty-two years old, he begot a son and named him Noah, saying, 'Out of the very ground that the Lord has put under a curse, this one shall bring us relief from our work and the toil of our hands." My response: The editors of that Bible include this footnote on these passages: "5,29: There is a similarity between the Hebrew word noah, 'Noah', and the verbal phrase . . . 'he will bring us relief'; this latter refers both to the curse put on soil because of the fall of man (Gn 3,17ff) and to Noah's success in agriculture, especially in raising grapes for wine (Gn 9, 20f)." Noah, Lamech foretells, will bring relief to humanity in two ways, in helping them survive the imminent flood, and in making the earth productive beyond the limits of the divine curse laid on the earth so it resists easy cooperation with fallen humans. Yahweh apparently cursed the earth so that is was adversarial to human efforts to farm and make a living off of it. There seems to be a primordial antagonism fabricated or recognized or enhanced by Yahweh here, the tension between nature and humans. And was this deep conflict a curse for human sin, or was it too a blessing in disguise in that humans, as part angelic or part creator or part divine, as well as mostly beast and animal-like, part of nature and created, must self-realize into angelic creatures that needed to overcome their suffering and challenges in this world, to become living angels that transform the cursed nature into their personal heaven on earth? Yes, I think. Perhaps individuators as living angels and creators here on earth are godly enough to transcend the old curse, the conflict between nature and humans, to make Gardens of Eden all over the earth, like Noah did in his life time to make his fields blessed and not cursed. Let me quote these verses from the Holy Bible (KJV): "And Lamech lived a hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: And he named him Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil in our hands, because of the ground that the Lord has cursed." My response: Note that in this translation, Noah brings comfort to suffering humans or relief. Indeed, by building the ark, he is a savior, a more modest version of Jesus Christ, the Savior of humanity.

Genesis 5:25-27

Let me quote from the New American Bible: "When Methuselah was one hundred and eighty-seven years old, he became the father of Lamech. Methuselah lived seven-hundred and eighty-two years after the birth of Lamech, and he had other sons and daughters. The whole lifetime of Methuselah was nine hundred and sixty-nine years; then he died." My response: If Yahweh or his angels--Or were they actually immortal or very long-lived aliens assisting humans to get a civilization going here on earth?--gave perfect health diet to early humans or shared their superhuman or demi-god genes added to the human genome, this might explain why these early humans were so very long-lived. One wonders if Tolkien's Numenoreans were based on these early descendants of Adam and Eve, as lesser men lived shorter lives, the more distant they were from God or the Eldars. Could it be that, as we develop a high civilization, a constitutional republic of anarchist supercitizens, steeped in the ways of Mavellonialism, that long life again will become the norm for humans? Could our bringing the kingdom of God to earth when the majority of citizens anywhere are living angels, might not the Divine Couple and their followers, or watching aliens come back to visit us as our reward to doing well and living well? It is possible. I do not envision that the Divine Couple will bestow upon us the gift of immorality because dying is what makes living so special. Death is the gift that gives life real meaning. Unending life or unending death seem like static, states of existence to me--there likely are exceptions. Still, a life 400 years long would allow one to accomplish so much as an individuator. Let me now quote these same passages from the Holy Bible (KJV): "And Methuselah lived a hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech: And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died."

The Beneficiary Criterion

Let me quote from Ayn Rand, Pages viii and ix, from her book, The Virtue of Selfishness: "Observe what this beneficiary-criterion of morality does to a man's life. The first thing he learns is that morality is his enemy; he has nothing to gain from it, he can only lose; self-inflicted loss, self-inflicted pain and the gray, debilitating pall of an incomprehensible duty is all that he can expect." r My response: Ayn Rand dismisses the beneficiary-criterion (The worth of any moral act, no matter how defined, is worthy only if it is for the sake of another, or others.) as the gauge of moral worth, arguing instead that this criterion leads the agent away from morality, into complex behaviors that make him and his recipients unhappy and unfulfilled. Instead, she would define what ethical value is, and then urge that the agent go after that end, and only that effort is moral. Living to meet the beneficiary-criterion leads people into amoral, or immoral acts. I agree with her here.

Two Moral Questions

Let me quote Ayn Rand from her book, the Virtue of Selfishness, Page viii: "There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together in one 'package-deal': (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of values? Altruism substitutes the second for the first; it evades the task of defining a moral code of values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral guidance. My response: I will play along with her for now until she defines values under her egoist ethics. If altruism does substitute the second question for the first, ignoring a definition of values first, then leaping right to who should be the beneficiary of values, however they are defined, seems like a special case of begging the question. Without defined moral values, perhaps humans are left without moral guidance, or at least without clarifying moral guidance. Let me quote Rand some more: "Altruism declares any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one's own benefit is evil. Thus, the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value--and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes." My response: How Rand characterizes altruism and egoism is accurate for the most part, but perhaps to sweeping a characterization. All but the most radical altruists would accept that some egoist motivations are acceptable even moral. All but the most extreme egoists would allow that my rights end where the rights of my neighbor begin. Most egoists have some sense of the merit of serving the public good, even if it is best met and managed by all pursuing their enlightened self-interest. Still, altruists do self-refer to themselves as good and generous, and to egoists as bad and selfish, and this altruist worldview is pervasive throughout our society, and perhaps throughout the world, and Rand is calling our attention to this sorry, misleading misunderstanding as to what is good and what is bad for people. Rand worries that bad moral actions are countenanced, even promoted and perpetuated, as long as the beneficiary is anyone but oneself (Her criticism seems largely correct here.): "Hence, the appalling immorality, the insoluble conflicts and contradictions that have characterized human relationships and human societies throughout history, under all the variants of altruist ethics." Here she is capturing how altruist ethics have bred and sustained most of the wickedness at large in this world. The Mother and Father are egoists, and Satan and Lera are altruists, so, because they rule humanity and this world, wickedness abounds and is spreading. Rand is a materialist and an atheist, and I am an immaterialist and a theist, but we agree that egoism is good, and altruism is bad. The moderate and metaphysical qualifier at work in my ethics, would allow me to concede that egoism can be a bit bad and selfish, and that altruism at time can be noble and selfless. The exception always proves the rule.

Egoism

It is my contention that the smart and effective moral reformer is an egoist, not an altruist. Since self-interest, over all, is good, and other-interest, over all, is bad, then it seems obvious to me that rearing children as individuators, not activists or social justice warriors, is the only ethical choice. If the majority of children get their act together, and run their lives well, individually there will be far fewer serious problems to iron out, and collectively and cumulatively, society should run and operate rather smoothly to the benefit and satisfaction of all.

Hope At Last?

Perhaps we can save this country yet from the progressive/Marxist tyranny brought against freedom-loving America and Americans by the Democrats and the Left. Conservative resistance is growing and catching on. Courage is contagious, and then it becomes a movement for conservative reform. Great news.

The Fall From Grace

When Adam and Eve are cast out of the Garden of Eden, they were punished by Yahweh for several transgressions. First, they disobeyed knowingly and directly a divine command not to eat the forbidden fruit. Second, by obeying the Serpent and disobeying Yahweh, they allowed evil to enter the world, and they introduced Satanism to the Garden of Eden, heaven on earth. Such treachery must be discountenanced and punished thoroughly. Third, by eating the forbidden fruit, they demonstrated disloyalty to Yahweh who could ill allow treacherous dissenters in De's domain, so out they went. Fourth, they conveyed to Yahweh that they were bored with perfect ease, comfort and utter goodness and innocence: their act of sinful rebellion informed Yahweh that they craved diversity, adventure, change and upset. By being cursed and ousted, they were suffering, die, sin and know want and scarcity. They and their descendants would never be bored again--or at least bored by the blissful, blessed, protected goodness and sameness of living in the protected Garden of Eden. Yet, was the fall from grace, that original sin. assigned to the First Parents, and a stain upon the souls of all their offspring, a fall from grace? Certainly, being immortal, all or mostly good, and living in the daily presence of the Divinity were enormous blessings. But, once free from the Garden of Eden, they were free, possessing free will, and despite mortality, an experienced knowledge of sin and evil and their endless pain and discomfort, they were fully alive, with the potential to make something wonderful, lovely and appealing to Yahweh, a chance to demonstrate what they could make and achieve on their own, a gift and offering back to their Maker, extending the kingdom of heaven in this world. Their journey of a fall from grace, their grappling with death, disease and original sin, were a loss of innocence and the withdrawal of God's presence. If they could overcome their sloth, mediocrity, sinfulness and worship of Lucifer, they could make something noble, loving and precious, with God not so easily at hand, and that is powerful faith when exercised by a pious community with no sure awareness of, connection to or direct, daily communication with God. For them to transform their personal souls, their home, their family, their community and their nation (as done in America) into pieces of heaven on earth, that is to grow into great souls, living anarchists individuators that live God's word in their daily lives. That is wonderful. That is a real sacrifice to the Divine Couple. That is new innocence lived and existential. They have converted God curse (their fall from grace) into their greatest blessing given back to God. In this light, that curse was a divine blessing, an entrance into this mortal world, whereat, if they maverized, they would transfigure this exile into a rising up into grace. May we adopt Mavellonialism and make this transfiguration real.

Ambitious

Some are born as great souls, but all have the potential to lives as a great soul. The science of Mavellonialism is meant to discover how and to teach average people how to actualize their personal potential in ways that are remarkable and are commensurate with great soul status, an achieved state of merit, love, spiritual growth and actual achievement. To learn the skills of maverizing is to awaken ambition in one's soul to amount to something special, to do great things, to want to be someone admirable and to do something extraordinary with one's life.

Reluctant Martyr

No one in her right mind would want to give up her precious life for the sake of protecting or advancing a noble cause worth dying for. But, if that is the only choice, or choose the cowardly surrender, forsaking one's values to have one's life spared by enemies all around one, then it is one's duty to play the martyr.

Destroying Our Health Care System

We have received bad news this 6/20/21 Father's Day that last week the Supreme Court found ACA constitutional. The Democrats are gloating now and seek national health insurance for all. As Dennis Prager warns, the Left destroys all that it touches. Let me quote from Mark Levin, Page 54 from his book, Plunder and Deceit, with his brilliant description of and devastating criticism of federal takeover of the American health care system: "The key problem in America is the increasingly centralized role of government in the provision of health-care services, which does, in fact, become administratively unmanageable and financially unsustainable. over time. Top-down command-and-control decision-making, combined with political and social engineering and redistributive subsidies, destroy the application of genuine insurance practices; distort and eventually contract the marketplace; hugely inflate costs; generate widespread economic inefficiencies, unpredictability, and scarcity; and, severely diminish the quality of health-care services and their availability to countless patients." If this grim litany of failed government monopoly on health providing does not numb you, you are not alert at all.

Your Power

Your Mother and Father gave your life, a soul, a brain and an imagination. They also gave you personal power, which you are commanded by the Divine Couple to wield, actualizing your potential as a living angel. You sin if you fail to answer their summons, and work as their faithful servant, to operate, administer, maintain, and if possible expand their reach in this world and all other worlds. You are not allowed to rob others of their power to individuate. You are not allowed to enslave them and steal their power, freedom and independence. You are not to group-live and hide in packs of mediocrities, whose residents live a personal life, a communal life, and a social life of illusion and falsehood domination. You are never to seek guru status, with totalitarians control of your subordinates. You are to have nothing but equals, neither subordinates or superiors. There will always be hierarchies, and those of greater and lesser ability, and those of greater and lesser goodness than oneself, but, when one is maverizing, any differences are not that great or influential. An advanced society of living angels, of supercitizen anarchists, will be the only classless society that is desirable, and that will have ever existed, could exist and be a permanent improvement for people.

My Moral Litmus Test

My moral litmus test, which is grounded in my version of egoist ethics, a self-check especially--but it could be used to measure goodness in others, if one is impartial and truth-loving--will inform oneself whether or not one is a good person. If you cannot tolerate or stand being around those that are brilliant or obvious, advanced, demonstrated ability, if you cannot stomach being seen associated with loners, if you are made uneasy and are repelled by the mere presence of good, kind people, these people that you find offensive are an alarming indication that your moral compass is deficient, that you could be a bad, immoral or even cruel person. Birds of a feather do flock together. Good people hang out with good people, and bad people hang out with bad people. Should you prefer, or even find enjoyment hanging out with total joiners, with blah people that conform, and are mediocre in ability (Mediocre in not developing their talents, not innately mediocre or without gifts.), or even hunger to hang out with blatant sinners--we are all born depraved, but a blatant sinner is one that has, for a life time, freely and consciously chosen overall to live a life of sin and darkness, you are corrupt and lost. Conduct this moral self-check and adjust your lifestyle and choices accordingly. If you are bad, straighten up. If you are good, work harder to sin less and be more loving and more accomplished.

Spot On

Ayn Rand, on Page vii of her book, The Virtue Of Selfishness, wrote this: "It is not a mere semantic issue nor a matter of arbitrary choice. The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word 'selfishness' is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual 'package-deal,' which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind." Now, to most people, this Randian claim seems grossly mistaken, if not a sweeping exaggeration. I believe it is neither. First, the moral development of mankind is arrested. We are taught a moral lie based on a colossal misrepresentation. Goodness is selflessness and evil is self-centeredness or selfishness. Rand and I would presuppose, rather, that goodness or love is self-interest, and evil or hate is other-centeredness. I the moderate see this as the moral landscape, more than less. She would so assert dogmatically. Once people are taught the right ethos of egoism while rejecting altruism, then moral development, primarily and directly for each individual, and secondarily and indirectly for all collective entities, will finally become a reality.

The Virtue Of Selfishness

I agree with Ayn Rand more than I do not, but I dislike intensely her conflating selfishness with virtue. I prefer to associate goodness or virtue with the adjective positively self-centered or enlightened self-interest. Selfishness is really a vice most employed by joiners, herd followers and altruists. Egoists are largely unselfish towards themselves and others. Let me quote Rand from her book, Page 1, "The Virtue of Selfishness": "The title of this book may invoke the kind of question that I hear once in a while: 'Why do you use the word 'selfishness' to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does mean the things you mean?' I do not believe that Rand is conflating selfishness with virtue, or at least not a cynical, shabby or short-sighted caliber of selfishness. She really, I think and hope, advocates enlightened self-interest.

Opposition To Critical Race Theory

Newsmax tonight (6/7/2021) carried an online article by write Jeremy Frankel writing for Newsmax. Let me quote the first two paragraphs of the article and then respond to them: "Republican Senators Rick Scott of Florida, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, and Mike Braun of Indiana, introduced a resolution on Monday condemning Critical Race Theory (CRT), which states that CRT is a “prejudicial ideological tool, rather than an educational tool.” The resolution, titled S.Res.246, also says that CRT should not be taught in K-12 classrooms, since it teaches students to “judge individuals based on sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.” My response: Teachers too often now are activists indoctrinating children's minds with Leftist ideology, rather than neutral pedagogues opening minds and educating the young. As Jordan Peterson often points out, the individual is the core sovereign concept underlying Western civilization, so to teach students to underplay and discount their own individuality, regarding each individual only as an avatar, another-determined avatar of one group identity, based on class, race, sex, ethnicity or national origin, is to seek to gut Western civilization of its ethos, of its most uplifting values. Let me quote three paragraphs from the short article, covering the objections personally voiced by all three federal Senators against CRT: "Scott, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), said in a statement that the far-left wants Americans to believe that the U.S. is “inherently racist and bad” and that they want to “discredit the values America was founded on.” Scott added that “[W]e can’t stand by and allow ‘woke’ liberals to divide our nation. Students in Florida and every state across this nation deserve better and I’m proud to lead my colleagues today in a resolution to stand up against this dangerous policy.” Blackburn agreed, stating that the principles of CRT are based in the “destructive ideal of inherent racism,” and that it teaches children to “judge and self-segregate” based on skin-color alone, adding that “[I]n Tennessee, we believe in equality and opportunity for all. Students should not be discriminated against on the basis of race under any circumstances.” Braun’s statement said that “America’s kids need to know that the fundamental values of our country are liberty, equality, and opportunity for all – not racism and oppression.”" My response: though it is true that all people, regardless of color, sexual orientation or national origin, are inherently racist, by living as an individual that respects all others as separate individuals, whose race is interesting but not much relevant beyond that point, certainly no basis for acting or making decisions, Americans have become little racist and mostly accepting of others in this multi-ethnic society. We need to further emphasize individual attributes and accomplishments, mostly and deliberately downplaying the importance of someone's racial background, because to obsess about racism is to spread prejudice and racial conflict everywhere, as all view all in terms of their racial, tribal and group memberships. The only way to end racism is to no longer much care about it, more indifferent than forgetting it. Braun mentions that liberty, equality and opportunity are what America is about, not racism and oppression. Amen.

The Functionary

Today, 6/7/21, I drove up to city hall at New Brighton, Mn., to get my driver's license renewed as the upgraded real license. I intended to get there at 7am but got there at 730 instead, needing to be at work in Minneapolis. at 9am I noticed a sign outside announcing that those seeking to renew their driver licenses needed an online appointment in advance to get service. I went in: there were three clerks at their stations, and one man checking people in. I asked if I could get my license by walking in. He said no but I could have an appointment for 345 that afternoon, so I took the appointment and left; He would not budge. The clerks were standing around with nothing to do, and he could have ruled in my favor. As I left, he smartly said to my back, "Have a nice day." When does justice, mercy and common sense enter the thinking of a civil servant? I went to work and skipped lunch and filled out an absence slip and burned two hours of vacation to get back there by 315pm. I did not get waited on until about 345pm, and the process took another half an hour. We taxpayers pay their salaries, but they see themselves as our bosses. This is why government needs to remain small and limited, lest all liberty disappear.

In America

In America especially, and anywhere, actually, each moment, each day, each setting is fraught with opportunity for self-improvement, opportunty and discovery. Get after it all, and you will be transformed and elevated many times over.

Rejected

If you are unpopular, shunned by most people as repugnant or abhorrent, it may be your fault. You could be a psychopahth, a narcissist, a tactless, sarcastic, argumentative, unpopular jerk. You could never bathe and that repels all women. If these suggestions apply to you, clean up your act in a serious way. If you are rejected for being a radical individualist, a good person, a super-achiever, a self-actualizer or a person that lives a life of authenticity based on pure love of liberty, truth and godliness, then the rejecters have a lot to explain for. They are mostly to blame, not you.

Absurdity

Much of what goes on in our lives does not make sense and never will. We cannot understand everything, nor restructure all that is chaotic into order and cosmos, but we can make things better, quite often, by thinking and discovering patterns, weave potential solutions to problems, and make things better by implementing the problems.

To Act

By nature and by philosopical bent, I am an activist. Life is for the living and we are to get after it, chasing our dreams and goals. This is not to assert that we can surmount all obstacles, solve all problems or act every problem into submission, but there can be no progress without the willingness and will to act.

No Go-Zones

Breitbart News, today, June 6th, through writer Kurt Zindulka, reports 'No-Go Zones for White people in Britain a Muslim Author Documents. Apparently radicalized Pakistani immigrants are isolating themselves and no white are allowed or tolerated in their communities. This is reverse discrimination, reverse segregation and is stark apartheid at work. It is unjust, intolerant and unacceptable. Britain must disallow this. Non-white and Leftist hatred of whites is not institutional, reverse racism, and it will lead to race war, and genocide against our people.

Genesis 5:23-24

From the New American Bible, I quote these verses: "The whole life of Enoch was three hundred and sixty five years. Then Enoch walked with God, and he was no longer here, for God took him." The other descendants of Adam and Eve, were run-of-the mill sinners, so God allowed them to live out their lives, and die naturally. Enoch, however, was a living angel, and much beloved by Jehovah for his piety, saintliness, goodness and knack for understand Jehovah and his mindset. Enoch's reward for this was to be taken to heaven by God, not to have to die biologically to enter the next world. I speculate that an accomplished self-actualizier, a living angel could be similarly in tune with God that he too could be taken to heaven by Go, as a reward for leading such a good, exemplary life. Let me quote these same verses from the Holy Bible (KJV): "And all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty and five years: And Enoch walked with God: and he was not, for God took him." Maverize, become a leading angel, so you too may walk with God.

Genesis 4:23-24

These verses are from my Catholic, The New American Bible: "Lamech said to his wives: 'Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; wives of Lamech, listen to my utterance: I have killed a man for wounding me, a boy for bruising me. If Cain is avenged sevenfold, Lamech seventy-sevenfold.'" Lamech, the direct descendent of Cain, has learned to use violence and murder to avenge himself and fulfill his goals. Evil is a crop that is not being harvested and the yield was bounteous. Jordan Peterson has talked about the descendants of Cain as wicked men, killers and butchers. These descendants of Cain need not be blood relatives. Most likely Yahweh and Peterson are highlighting that by Cain's murderous example, violence, cruelty and moral and spiritual darkness have crept into the world, and are now dark, dubious human tradition, passed down from generation to generation. Humans are born wicked, and wicked practices and condoned customs of murder, debauchery, lying and dishonesty became quickly and easily the human ethos passed down from generation to generation. Lucifer and Lera, reinforce and fortify this tradition until they ruled this world, and they are most determined not to relinquish it back to the Mother and the Father. Let me quote these verses from the Holy Bible (KJV): "And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold."