Mixed Nature

Mixed Nature As an ontological moderate, I speculate that all sentient beings, and even rocks and molecules, are of mixed natures, part spirit and part material, part good spiritually and morally, and part evil spiritually and morally. God is 99.9% naturally good and through De’s good will, earned and willed, De is for all practical purposes, pure goodness, though a bit of material and evil still innately are part of God. Satan is 99.9% naturally evil, and through Sa’s bad will, earned and freely chosen, Sa is for all practical purposes, pure evil, though technically and literally, though a bit immaterial and good innately. If the axiom that what is and what is not is good spiritually and morally when mixed, and what is evil spiritually and morally, is pure and almost fully concentrated with a monistic, dominant pole trait, that the moderate is good, and the immoderate is evil, it seems that my ontological premised that both God and Satan are of mixed natures, must follow logically and metaphysically if this core assumption is real, governing the world and true, which it is. Therefore, we should not characterize God as all-good, all-knowing, all-loving and omnipresent—God is overwhelmingly these traits. With their mixed natures, God and Satan are able to understand and existentially experience or empathize with their enemies because they are so smart, so empathetic, so imaginary, in part because they share the same natures as their enemies, even that part of their nature is but a jot or iota, under tight control by the majority of their will’s proclivity for sure. God is thus better able to train and guide days angels, prophets and humans on how to fight demons and evildoers because God’s nature is in a small part identical with the innate nature of the wicked, though not at all sharing in their willed sinfulness and wretchedness, a state of being they have freely chosen to indulge in. To share the same nature as one’s enemy allows God to self-reflect and identify De’s own identity, in the sliver of shared natures of the wicked, so God clearly reads their nature, and can define precisely their identity with clear, insightful words and mathematical formulas. We humans are mostly beast, but are part angel from birth, so we can grow in virtue and holiness if we elect to live like God and the godly do.

Biblical Inerrancy

Not So Elon

 

Here it is, the end of November, 2025. I love tradition but only a fool can deny that we are dashing headlong into a future utterly different from the past, like nothing we could have imagined.

Elon Musk the other day was quoted as predicting that the Age Of AI will change everything, which it will. Elon predicted that money will disappear that people will no longer have to work. I cannot disagree with what he sees in his digital crystal ball.

When driving to work the other morning I heard Salem News radio host Chris Stigall interviewing someone who has invested heavily in a company which manufactures AI robots, as they are perfected, to work in factories, in the fields, to eventually do all the trades work, and this guest said that was a noble advancement for humans, never to have to do blue collar/drudgery type of work anymore.

This guest noted that AI robots will work for free building houses cheaper and better than carpenters have done.

Well, as a long time follower of Eric Hoffer, I too worry that people who get money without working, who no longer have to work, whose drudgery or manual labor or skilled hand labor are now done for them by a class of robot slaves—what will become of people?

People who do not work, who do not do some physical work each day, who do not have to hustle to be productive to pay the bills and support their families—this is a society of wealthy, parasitic drones who will go crazy and join mass movements because work, which used to provide them with a sense of purpose, meaning, a self-respecting identity, self-esteem, a sense of usefulness, something to do with all that time on their hands.

We will need a carve out for people do work, to work also with their hands, to do menial, physical labor, even if a robot can do it faster, cheaper and better.

As individuators who knows the upper limits of strength, efficiency and adaptability that humans could achieve to compete with robots?

Humans not working, not working for money: it must not be so, Elon, for the sake of each person, for the safety of the world.

The West Is In Trouble

Jewish intellectual and reporter, Alan Joseph Bauer, intrigues me. Today, 11/21/25, he posted this editorial on Townhall.com. It is entitled The West Can’t Be Saved. I copied and pasted the article and will comment on it. Here it is: Bauer: “

Bauer: “The West Can't Save Itself

Alan Joseph Bauer | Nov 21, 2025 

 

People live by their biases and ideologies. Truth and facts are simply a waste of time for most.”

My response: Humans are born basically evil, fanatical and without self-esteem, so they hate themselves and hurt themselves and others. Gaining self-esteem is the act of becoming an individuating adult who consciousness is filled with healthy self-love, thereby gaining self-esteem, thereby being able to love and esteem others, to treat them fairly, kindly, respectfully.

When one has little self-esteem, one is emotional more than rational, subjective more than logical, impartial and rational in one’s thinking, not thinking more than feeling. When one is an emotional adult, one lives by one’s biases and ideology. Truth and factors are easily overruled and dismissed by the irrational self-liar.

B: “

If a Jew makes a quick trip to the Holy Land, he or she might make a point of visiting three key sites. The first is the Western Wall, the most visited destination in Israel. The Kotel, as it is known, is a portion of the retaining wall around the Temple Mount, where—lo and behold—the two Jewish Temples stood long ago. No, Abu Mazen, they were not in Yemen, as you so ignorantly suggested. The first was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and the second by Titus—Titus Arch in Rome memorializes the victory. The Kotel is like a magnet, and oftentimes, a person simply starts crying for no apparent reason when touching the ancient stones. If a person only had half an hour in Israel before having to go home, he’d head to the Western Wall.

The second site is the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron. Jewish tradition has it that the founding fathers and mothers of Judaism are buried there. The massive building on the site was built by King Herod, 

and certain parts of the structure, including the underground burial areas, are off limits. This past Sabbath had 50,000 people visiting the Tomb in memory of Sarah, Abraham’s wife.

The final stop would be Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem. I am old enough to remember when it was a very simple stone structure on the Bethlehem Road. One would pass it and the olive tree in front of it, park, and run inside to pray before the massive stone placed over the grave of Rachel, Jacob’s wife. It is a very popular location, and on the day that marks the anniversary of her passing, thousands come to pay their respects and pray for their needs at this holy site.

From downtown Jerusalem to Bethlehem is 20 minutes by car. Approaching the site is somewhat depressing. After an army checkpoint and massive gate, one passes through ten-meter cement walls on either side with watch towers dotting the path. On top of the security barrier is a smaller fence and cameras are everywhere. The old, simple building has been expanded and modernized to look like a fortress. Inside, one can see the original entrance and sign. Everything else looks like a US army base in Sadr City during the Second Iraq War.

The reality of Bethlehem is the reality of the West. Before Israel turned the city over to the Palestinian Authority (PA), it was 85% Christian. The city looked forward to Christmas and massive tourist income. Today, the city is only 20% Christian. Those massive walls are unpleasant but necessary: they keep out the suicide bombers, stabbers, car attackers, and drive-by shooters that are present among Palestinian Arabs. Just this week, two terrorists ran over and stabbed Israelis near Hebron. One man was killed and three were wounded. Arafat was irate when Ariel Sharon built the separation wall, as his trump card—suicide bombers on demand—would be much harder to play. The area immediately around Rachel’s Tomb is ugly but necessary. Either Israel would cede the space to the PA and no Jew could visit and expect to see his kin again, or it could build a complex and ugly set of walls and emplacements in order to allow Jews to go to a Jewish holy site safely. The PA claims the place to be a Muslim grave, and of course, the UN agreed. Those walls are meant to keep out the same people that Europe and the US welcome directly into their communities.

If a person goes to his doctor and is told that he is pretty much healthy but has a very small cancer in his little toe, he would not go home to tell his wife that he is 99.99% healthy. He would be terrified that the little problem could become a life-ending problem. The fact that not all Muslims coming—mostly illegally—to Europe are active terrorists means nothing. Just this week, it was announced that the Muslim Brotherhood branch in the US was cutting checks for $1,000 for pro-Hamas agitators on campus. How many students had their studies and lives disrupted by people demanding the right of Hamas to rape and kill Jewish civilians? The people being kept out of Israel are being welcomed directly into Western cities. Does a day go by without a report of women being harassed in some European city by illegal immigrants? Have we not heard many times from Muslims that their goal is to establish Sharia states where liberal democracies currently exist? Recently, the tenth anniversary of the 

Bataclan massacre was observed. Reports from the time had French officials vowing an end to illegal immigration. Nothing was done there or anywhere else in the Western world. Why? “The more things change...”

The simple answer to the importation of people who hate the importers is ideology. The desires expressed by Muslims to create a caliphate fall on the deaf ears of those who want borderless societies. The left is enthralled with endless illegal immigration and throws enormous resources at people who refuse to assimilate and often state their outright hatred for their hosts. Locals in England are told not to bring their dogs into Muslim enclaves. In Houston, a restaurant owner was warned not to serve pork. Because much of the West has no religious conviction or belief in the goodness of their countries and values, they have no reason to fight back against their demise and conversion into Muslim Country 732. Because the West became enamored with lies, it cannot grasp the truth in order to fight back against its own demise.

 

• Jews have no relationship with the land of Israel; see three examples above, all centuries before Mohammed was born

• Israel committed a genocide in Gaza. The Gaza population has grown since October 7, 2023, and the vast majority of those killed were terrorists.

• There were no cases of rapes on October 7, 2023. Forensic data, first responders, and eyewitnesses demolish this lie

• Islam is just another religion; unlike other religions, strains of Islam come to conquer, if by war, if by peaceful means.

• Uncontrolled immigration is a boon; in both the US and Western Europe, illegal immigration has destroyed the social fabric and led to the macabre situation in which the locals play second fiddle to those who broke the law in order to enter the country

And this is only a tiny speck of the lies that are accepted as dogma. For decades, Israel has based its PR campaign on endless data showing that the IDF is the cleanest army in the world, that Israel does not starve civilians, etc. But it all means nothing. Where truth is not the final word on a given subject, proofs and evidence are meaningless. The Oxford Union recently voted last week that Israel is a greater threat to regional peace than is Iran. Israel has never threatened to wipe any country off the face of the Earth; Iran has done it frequently with respect to Israel. Iran hangs gays; Israel gives them parades. Again, in a real world of real truth, the proposition would have lost in a landslide. In a mind-virus third-tier university, Israel was found to be the bad guy before the debate even began.”

My response: The world and the Left, very popular and prominent in the West, and embrace Islam and hate the Jews; that is the ugly truth, and no amount of logic, argumentation or evidence can change the minds of those with their pro-Marxist, pro-Islamic, anti-American, anti-Western narrative.

 

B: “ 

The West is committing suicide. I wish that I could say that I’ll just sit here in Jerusalem and watch, but Israel’s future is intimately tied to that of Europe and the US. The freedoms and rights that we take for granted are going to be snuffed out because the ugly barrier that Israel needed to build in Bethlehem did not make the West understand what it was importing into its midst.”

My response: Yes, the West is committing suicide by not outlawing shariah law in their countries, by allowing Muslims to come into their countries, where they plan to outbreed us, get 30% or 40% oof the population and then take over the country, spreading shariah law and the universal caliphate all over the world.

Now add Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, South African and perhaps Venezuela all cooperating and vying to defeat the West, and set up a one-world empire. Who says evil is not a metaphysical reality and alive and flourishing on earth?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have Children?

Yes, we should get married, stay married, and have children, as well as work hard and individuate. We need to perpetuate the species. Humans have a right to live and not commit suicide by too much birth control practicing.

Here is an article from Townhall.com which I copied and pasted and will comment on. The article was posted on 11/25/25 and written by Brian Freemen. Here is the article, Brian or B after this:

 

Study: Liberals Get Married Less, Have Fewer Kids, Than Conservatives

By Brian Freeman

Tuesday, 25 November 2025 11:57 AM EST

A widening divide has emerged over the past decade between young conservatives and liberals on the value of marriage, childbearing, and family life, according to a report released Tuesday by the Institute for Family Studies.

The data shows liberals placing markedly lower emphasis on forming families — both in attitude and in practice — compared with their conservative counterparts.

The report attributed this divide in large part to how mainstream institutions in education, media, and pop culture have advanced a mindset that prioritizes an individualistic ethos focused on personal development, hedonism, and, especially, career.”

My response: Here liberals are regarded as self-centered, favoring an individualistic ethos focused on personal development, hedonism and career over marriage, childbearing and family life.

Conservatives likely are more religious and practicing, believing Christians, altruistic and unselfish in their morality, downplaying personal development, hedonism and career in favor of prioritizing marriage, childbearing and family life.

Anyone familiar with my egoistic morality for individuating supercitizens would see that I do not like the way Freemen laid this out. I am conservative and do not favor being selfish or hedonistic, that one should grow up, get married, have children and take family life history but the moderate in me says have your cake and eat it too, that one develops the self and self-realizes too.

Progressive skepticism towards marriage and family life is often rooted in the idea that family places undue burdens on women and that being free of family responsibilities is often held up as an important pathway to living a meaningful and happy life. 

On the other hand, a family-first mindset is resurgent on right-leaning new media platforms, which views getting married and having children as the best ways to forge a meaningful and happy life, and to avoid the plagues of loneliness, anxiety, and depression sweeping young adulthood in America.”

My response: We want people to lead meaningful and happy lives, which requires men and women shoulder the burden of family responsibilities, getting married and having children, all while careers for both sexes and personal development as individuating is highly desirable and morally obligatory, and both family life and individuating will drive away or much reduce the potency of plagues like loneliness anxiety and depression.

B: “

Family-first messaging on the right has been especially pronounced in new media since COVID, as conservative intellectuals and influencers reacted to what they saw as the excesses of the "woke left."

Although marriage rates have gone down for both conservatives and liberals since the 1980s, the declines have been greater among liberals, for both men and women.

According to the report, pooling data from 2021, 2022, and 2024 showed the largest gap to date between conservatives and liberals in the share of women ages 25 to 35 ever married in the 2020s.

For this decade, there was a 16-percentage point difference between young conservative women and young liberal women in the share ever married, at 60% and 44%, respectively. This growing marriage gap is also visible among men.

Just as conservatives are marrying at higher rates, they are also more likely to have children during young adulthood. Indeed, there is not a large decline in the share of conservatives ages 25 to 35 who are parents from the 1990s to the present.

But there is a significant drop in parenthood among liberal young adults. In the 1980s, 65% of conservative women ages 25-35 reported having children.

Young liberal women in the 1980s weren't far behind, with 60% reporting the same.

Since then, childbearing has plummeted among liberal women. In the 2020s, just 40% of liberal women between ages 25 and 35 report being parents, down from 51% in the 2010s.

By comparison, conservative women in this age range had no statistically significant change: in the 2020s, 71% report being parents. That means there is a 31-percentage-point gap between young conservative women and their liberal peers today.”

Only You

 

I read recently that the only person standing in the way of you is you. Now, that is not the total truth, but close enough. If you elect to maverize, then even those in your way cannot keep you from moving forward, though they will punish your wholesome willfulness. Start now, marching towards your dream, your future.

Levin The Hater?

I have long been a supporter and admirer of Mark Levin: I am not blind to the fact that he is arrogant, and can have a mean mouth, but, for the most part, I believe he is principled, brilliant, a truth-teller and on the right track. I land firmly on his side with his feud with Tucker Carlson.

My fear is Tucker Carlson is anti-semitic and that he is or is favoring Christian, white nationalism. I worked for Jews so I know them up close, and they are people not saints. Having said that, they are a remarkable people and are God’s chosen people, but that is not a blank check for them to do whatever they want, or that Israel always does the right thing,

Having said that, I insist that anyone, especially a Christian, practicing antisemitism is doing the Devil’s work, for Satan, above all else, wants the Jews wiped out. I love Christians, I love whites, and I love American pride, but I do not want Christian, white nationalism to become the American Nazi movement.

We need to calm down and do all the things that Christian, white conservatives need to do, without forming a Nazi mass movement in America.

For these reasons I support Mark Levin over Tucker Carlson.

Here is the editorial posted (11/17/25)on Townhall.com by Rabbi Michael Barclay on this subject. I coped and pasted the article and will comment on it: “

A Tale of Two Pundits: Tucker Carlson and Mark Levin

Rabbi Michael Barclay | 5:52 PM on November 17, 2025

For years, Mark Levin and Tucker Carlson have been two of the most prominent conservative voices in the public arena. Currently, they are in a feud with each other. Levin has accused Carlson of being an antisemite and “fake Maga,” and Carlson has called Levin “evil.” Both men have been trusted for so many years, and it is important for the conservative movement in America that we take an honest look at each man, their feud, and the truth.

Levin is specific in stating that Tucker Carlson should not be “canceled” but that people should recognize who he really is.  Carlson is actively trying to stop Levin from pointing out objective truths. Carlson recommends that everyone should reject and never become like Mark Levin. Mark Levin points out the hypocrisy and hate that is inherent in the words and actions of Carlson.

In this feud, it is clear to me which side is righteous and which is dangerous. My prayer is that we all recognize the truths about both men, and choose to support the righteousness and biblical foundation of Mark Levin, and not support Tucker Carlson until, with God's help in opening his heart, he recognizes what he has become and changes his words, values, and actions.

Experts

 

Occasionally I read an editorial online in Townhall.com which piques my interest. I have longed complained that educated elites, intellectuals, professors or as Eric Hoffer wrote, men of words, because they are experts in some specialty and may be highly credentialed, they assume that they are smarter than the masses (Their arrogance about their actual, legitimate expertise often closes them to reeving new insights from amateurs, and they assume that they have the right to rule the masses tyrannically, that they are naturally superior, smarter and morally above the inferior, dumber, less moral masses not rational enough as individuals to run their own affairs.

These experts run in cliques, so their expertise is blunted by their groupthinking, their group conformity, and their slavish insistence upon forcing the square shape of their expertise into the round pegs of ideological doctrine which their holy cause is justified by.

They are addicted to and sickened by power lust the power of powerlessness, the insatiable need to run and ruin the lives of all citizens, allowed no room to express themselves, think for themselves, to run their own affairs without elite interference and checkmating.

Experts should be heard, but each of the masses, if we can encourage the majority to grow into and live as anarchist individuating supercitizens, must think for herself and the majority of the supercitizens shall decide whether, to what degree or how they will heed or not heed what experts provide them with.

Here is Amy Curtis with her editorial, posted on 11/18/25: “

This Is Why No One Trusts 'Experts' Anymore

Amy Curtis | November 18, 2025 9:45 AM

This is correct, of course. And no, the "experts" didn't even think of this. Because they're not considering all the outcomes and implications. They have an agenda and are only concerned with what supports that agenda.”

My response: I am of two minds here. Eric Hoffer and Dennis Prager, at various times, have suggested that idealists or experts are well-intentioned, and remain unconcerned and unaware of the disastrous consequences to their reckless, fearlessly implemented changes, making everything worse. They are excused because they ‘mean well.’ Often they do.

Or they do not mean well at all, that they are liars seeking power, destruction and chaos as the most effective tools for creating social panic and stampeding the masses into a totalitarian regime, the real aim of these intellectuals all the time.

Both motives are often at work at the same time, I worry.

Curtis: “

Consent has to be a two-way street, and the "experts" didn't think of this, either.

What It Is

 

Any cultural, political or ethical arrangement that predominates in a given society, in a specific generation, follows one of two forks. If the right-hand branch is followed, then individualism is the primary social affiliation practiced among people, so good things follow: constitutional republicanism, rationalism, egoism, free markets, people with self-esteem that love good deities as rational religionists.

If the left-hand fork is followed, then collectivism is the dominant social patten of interconnection practiced among people, so less favorable conditions develop: authoritiarianism, emotionalism, socialist economics, and the masses and elites of low self-esteeming, worshiping good deities through the lens of altruist ethics.

Life Is A Do-It-Yourself Enterprise

 

Failure is a collective enterprise. If we as adults, parents and authority figures conspire to crush young people and smash their ambition to better themselves, and if we gaslight them incessantly enough over a period of years, there is a high probability that we will have ruined their lives. We have produced evil robots.

 

Succeeding in life is a do-it-yourself enterprise. We cannot save anyone else, but we can teach the young to esteem themselves, to learn about and practice self-realizing. These positive encouragements and reinforcements, strengthened by adults practicing what they preach, can inspire children to choose to live their best lives.

 

Being ruined is often an externally driven pressure upon suggestible youth who are eager to groupthink, to conform, to crow-please, and go with the flow in order that they may gain and keep high social standing with their peers, so external pressure is maximized and their stunted free will, rational consideration of consequences, and their consciences are operating on a subpar level.

 

Thus, group pressure can ruin people, but it cannot lift them up and make them self-improve, work, and grow. That can only occur for each separate child as an individual who chooses to bootstrap her way up to personal, moral, talent-enhancing victory.

 

Group or collective pressure can wreck people, but rarely motivates them to excel or upgrade themselves. Therefore, group influence is evil more than not.

 

Only the individual can save herself; only she can elect to take care of herself first and primarily, and then do other-care. She must decide to save herself, discipline herself, and become someone special and exceptional.

Reduced To Mediocrity

 

No one reduces you to personal mediocrity. It was your decision. We are not born mediocre, but we do choose to remain undeveloped or mediocre, and this act is throwing one’s life away.

Do Your Own Thinking.

 

It is vital that you think and speak for yourself, your original thoughts in public for all to hear. This is a human right and a human responsibility.

 

Anyone opposing this view is no humanist, no lover of humanity.

The Right Must Not Radicalize Itself

 

My introduction: College Student Michael Hout wrote an editorial for Townhall.com on 10/17/25 and I copied and pasted it and will comment on it. Here it is:

 

Hout: “

 

 

 

A Warning Against the Unmooring of the American Right

 

Michael J. Hout | Oct 17, 2025

Flag of the Know Nothing movement

William F. Buckley Jr. once said that a conservative is “someone who stands athwart history, yelling, 'Stop,' at a time when no one is inclined to do so.” To me, that captures the essence of conservatism—not a blind resistance to change, but the defense of what endures when everything around us rushes toward the new. Conservatism begins with the recognition that there’s an enduring moral order, that society isn’t a contract to be rewritten at will but a covenant among the living, the dead, and the unborn. Russell Kirk wrote that politics must rest upon “the permanent things,” while Roger Scruton reminded us that the task of the conservative is to love what’s ours and to preserve what’s good.”

 

My response: It is wise and necessary to preserve and renew the good in our traditions.

Hout: “Conservatism isn’t a purity test, but it does require some shared understanding of what’s fundamentally true. We should be able to agree that the sky is blue, that the grass is green, that the sun is hot, and that Hitler was evil. We ought to be America First without being America Only. We ought to be able to discuss immigration without descending into 19th-century nativism. We ought to be able to debate Israel’s policies without wading into the sewers of antisemitism. And we ought to be able to defend liberty without abandoning any semblance of decency.

Even these self-evident truths, though, feel increasingly tenuous. Since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, something troubling has started to surface on the Right. These divisions were always there, but his absence seems to have removed a stabilizing force. The conversation online has grown darker, angrier, and more conspiratorial. It has begun to fester like an epidemic inside a movement that has otherwise proven quite robust.

The question is how these kinds of maladies take hold. Some of the most-followed figures in the world—the hosts of top podcasts and streams—are the very ones amplifying this conspiratorial and identitarian mindset. Some believe these ideas sincerely, perhaps victims of their own echo chambers. Others peddle them cynically, chasing attention, influence, or money (propheteering, if you will). Still others seem stuck somewhere in between, half-aware that they’ve mistaken paranoia for wisdom. Whatever their motives, the effect is the same: a distortion of conservative thought into something tribal, conspiratorial, and unrecognizable.”

My response: We always want to move slowly and think before doing and look before we leap.

We need to talk about this honestly—not to excuse the Left’s radicalism, which remains deeply diseased in its own way, but to admit that there’s rot within our own house, too. I say this not as an outsider. I did, however, spend years as a Democrat and watched that party surrender to its most radical elements. The far Left didn’t just get louder; it took over. Pro-life Democrats were told they no longer belonged. Support for the Second Amendment—or sometimes even the First—became heresy. Figures like Joe Manchin were treated as enemies. “Real” Democrats were defined not by principle but by purity. That suffocating orthodoxy ultimately pushed me away.

The populist energy of Donald Trump brought new life—and many new people—to the conservative movement. But even populism has to rest on principles. The challenge is channeling that energy without losing the moral high ground. Modern politics tempts every movement toward excess, but what the algorithms reward and what’s actually healthy for society are two different things. The more outrageous the statement, the greater the reach. So political commentary becomes a performance, not a pursuit of truth. When a movement feeds on outrage long enough, it forgets what it was fighting for in the first place.

James Madison warned of factions in Federalist No. 10, describing the danger of passion unrestrained by reason. Those factions now live not only between parties but inside them. The Left’s radicals already dominate their agenda. If we don’t build guardrails for ourselves, we’ll repeat the same mistake—and hollow ourselves out from within.

Horseshoe theory helps explain what’s happening. The far Left and far Right, though seemingly opposite, bend until they almost meet. Spend enough time online and you can see it: polar opposite extremists retweeting one another, echoing the same conspiracies, united more by hatred than by reason. When anger becomes the organizing principle, ideology no longer matters. And anger, once severed from moral truth, isn’t conservative anymore—it’s revolutionary.

We can be a broad coalition—libertarians, traditionalists, populists, and former Democrats like me—but not a coalition without boundaries. A conservatism that embraces everything ultimately stands for nothing. The Republican Party rightly calls itself a big tent, and it should stay that way. But being a big tent doesn’t mean we ought to become a circus. A movement that wants to represent a great and diverse nation must be broad, yes, but it also has to be serious. We can’t make Faustian bargains with Mephistophelian figures whose ideas betray everything we claim to defend. Inclusion without discernment isn’t magnanimity; it’s self-destruction.

I spent four years as a high-school history teacher, teaching about 20th-century totalitarian states like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Communist China. These were subjects I talked about every day, and the experience shaped how I understand what happens when moral clarity disappears. That’s why I’ve always been critical of the Left’s habit of calling every Republican a fascist or every populist another Hitler—it’s lazy, and it betrays ignorance of what those systems truly were. But it’s also why I’m critical now of the far Right’s disturbing flirtation with those same ideas. When people on “our side” post admiringly about Hitler or indulge antisemitic conspiracies, it isn’t “edgy.” It’s abhorrent. And it shows just how far some have drifted from reality.

Since 2020, I’ve lived in Warsaw, a city that bore the consequences when reason collapsed and extremism devoured truth. Living here, surrounded by reminders of what totalitarianism does to nations, has made me even more grateful for the American experiment. It’s also made me more determined not to see it corroded by hatred and ignorance. Too many Americans, Left and Right alike, have lost touch with history. They throw around words like “fascist” or “communist” without grasping their weight. They don’t know what those ideologies actually did to human beings—or to civilization itself. That ignorance isn’t entirely their fault. We’ve built an education system rich in technology but poor in moral literacy. We’ve spent years replacing history with cynicism.

Despite what some progressives think, to be conservative isn’t to be hateful. It’s not to be racist, or sexist, or closed to compassion. True conservatism, as Burke, Buckley, and Kirk understood it, is a moral disposition before it’s a political one. It’s the effort to conserve what’s good and to improve what’s not. For those of us who are Christian, it’s to try—imperfectly—to model Christ in public life. For others, it’s to live honorably, keep one’s word, and seek order, gratitude, and virtue. What drove me from the Democratic Party was the unrelenting hatred I saw there. I don’t want to see that same hatred consume the Right. And I’m not talking about the “hate” the Left accuses us of—I mean real hatred, the cold, poisonous kind that corrodes the soul.

This is more than a question of party health; it’s a question of national health. Once the moral dam cracks, it’s hard to repair. Charlie Kirk, for all his differences with people across the movement, served as a kind of linchpin—a reminder that energy and principle can coexist. Since his death, the fractures have become more visible, but they were always there. What we do with them now will decide whether we restore coherence or slide further into chaos.

Electorally, the stakes are obvious. The Democrats’ indulgence of their extremes has cost them the trust of ordinary voters. If Republicans follow the same pattern—alienating moderates, independents, and former Democrats like me—we’ll squander what we’ve gained. Imagine a world where the Left finally starts to temper its excesses while the Right drifts deeper into its most conspiratorial corners. That would be a disaster, politically and morally.

We can avoid that fate by building a movement that’s broad, but principled. A healthy Right welcomes debate but rejects what is reprehensible. It argues from facts, not fantasies. It knows that liberty without virtue becomes license—and that the point of freedom isn’t to indulge our passions, but to govern them.

That’s my warning, and my hope: that we not repeat the unraveling I already saw on the Left. Let’s ground ourselves in the wisdom of Burke, the clarity of Buckley, the reverence of Kirk, and the moral seriousness of Scruton. Let’s maintain populism’s fire but guide it with an unmistakably conservative conscience. Conservatism, at its best, isn’t mere opposition; it’s stewardship—the quiet work of keeping a nation steady through the storm.

If we can do that, the Right won’t drift into the abyss that’s already consumed the Left. It’ll remain what it was meant to be—the ballast that keeps the republic steady.

 

My response: Well said.

 

Leviticus 26:3-5, Obeying God

 

It will go well for those who obey and are faithful to God’s commandments. Here is what is written in The New American Bible: “If you live in accordance with my precepts and are careful to observe my commandments, I will give you rain in due season so that the land will bear its crops, and the trees their fruit; your threshing will last till vintage time, and your vintage till the time of sowing, and you will have food to eat in abundance, so that you may dwell securely in your land.”

 

Here are these same passage from the Holy Bible: “If you walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them; Then I will give you rain in due season and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit.

 

And your threshing shall reach unto the vintage, and the vintage shall reach unto the sowing time; and ye shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely.”

 

 

Leviticus 1:3, The Offering.

I will not be commenting much on at least the early part of The Book of Leviticus, but there is one passage which interested me. Here it is from The New American Bible: “’If his holocaust* is from the herd, it must be a male without blemish.”

 

My response: The sacrificed male animal must be a creature without blemish for God would take umbrage if an inferior animal was sacrificed as being good enough for Jehovah, offering Him a second-best or inferior present or offering.

 

Here is the footnote: “*1,3: Holocaust: from the Greek word meaning ‘wholly burned,’ this is the technical term for the special type of sacrifice in which an entire animal except its hide was consumed in the fire on the altar. The primary purpose of this complete gift was to render glory and praise to God.”

 

My response: Let us offer sacrifices which also render glory and praise to God.

 

Here is this quote from the Holy Bible (KJV): “If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.”

 

Exodus 39:42-43

 

n the passages below from Exodus, it seems clear to the reader or should that Yahweh is pleased when humans obeyed His instructions, for these Hebrews erected the Dwelling of the Meeting tent as God instructed, and, once God was pleased with their completion of the project and their willing compliance with His expressed wishes, He indirectly expressed His approval and pleasure by ordering Moses to bless the dwelling.

 

Here are the two passages from The New American Bible: “The Israelites had carried out all the work just as the Lord had commanded Moses. So, when Moses saw all the work was done just as the Lord commanded, he blessed them.”

 

My response: It occurs to me that there is something going on here wonderful and a bit mysterious: we cannot ever fully understand God and De’s motives, for presumably God could have snapped De’s fingers and the Dwelling could have been instantaneously constructed down to the last brad, just as God wanted it fabricated, better than the obedient Hebrews could have provided. The Divine Plan, whatever it is, cannot be met just by God’s efforts: Providence requires that puny, frail humans create the Dwelling as their limited but vitally important contribution to moving forward the Divine Plan, which is obstructed without human input and effort. Yahweh did not need such a human contribution, but somehow eliciting this contribution from cooperative, willing humanity in some way expands and grows God’s kingdom and implements the Divine Plan, not known to us.

 

But that was beside the point to Yahweh: he wanted humans to obey Him of their own free will, and for them as commanded to fabricate the Dwelling or temporary desert church/tent to suit Yahweh’s taste: if they would do that, and once they did that, pleased Yahweh wanted both the Dwelling and the people to be blessed as His reward for the and as a communal sign of divine approval for their fine efforts.

 

Here are the same passages from the Holy Bible (KJV): “According to all that the Lord commanded Moses, so the children of Israel made all the work.

 

And Moses did look upon all the work, and, behold, they had done it as the Lord had commanded, even so they had done it: and Moses blessed them.”

 

My response: Yes, Moses did bless the Hebrews, but God through Moses also blessed them.

Exodus 34:31-35

 

When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments for the Hebrews, he did not realize that his face had become radiant from conversing with and dealing with Yahweh. The people were afraid to come near him, which reveals two facts or truths.

 

First, if one was in communion with a good deity, the inner radiance of the brilliant and loving communion, mutuality and communicating would be so pervasive and powerful, that the radiance of God’s love and presence would show in the human communicant’s countenance.

 

Therefore, those without such radiance displaying openly God’s presence and love in the human’s countenance, it automatically reveals that those without such radiance are without much actual presence of God in their lives, or that that they are more intertwined with evil or even demons than they would dare admit.

 

Second, the people fled from Moses, afraid of his radiant countenance, which also indicates people are afraid of Yahweh’s presence, and likely do not much like Yahweh, and have not rewarded his presence in their lives.

 

Below, I will run my quote from The New American Bible, but the editors have this footnote on Page 94 of this Bible: “*34,33: He put a veil over his face. St. Paul sees in this symbol the failure of the Jews to recognize Jesus as the promised Messiah: the true spiritual meaning of the writings of Moses and the prophets is still veiled from the unbelieving Jews.”

 

My interpretation of this is that the editors are correct in identifying the veil that Moses must wear so that the people will entreat with him as a recognition of their failure to believe in God and to invite God into their lives, and this is the story of most humans anywhere in every generation.

 

I wish to add an unrelated aside: It seems to me that the Ten Commandments being the Holy of Holies in the Arik of the Covenant is an almost Jungian archetype, symbol, and message from God to humans, a most critical message misunderstood and not heeded by everyone even unto this latter day. That divine message is: loving others and oneself is an ethical duty of the first rank, that a code of ethics, a Gift and Covenant from on high to the masses is the Holy of Holies. Piety and faith are noble and necessary to be saved, but being a virtuous soldier of God is a calling of the highest order to be saved, and to help save the sin from evil and Satan.

 

There is something absolutely unique and profound about the Old Testament message to the world that Yahweh insists that Moses install the Ten Commandments (God’s touchstone code of morality shared with humanity) inside the Ark of the Covenant as the Holy of Holies. Ethical behavior is a divine mandate demanded of each human by God, the price of being saved, and each human’s freely willed acceptance of and execution of these ethical commandments is in part how each human will be saved and received divine grace from Jesus and all good divinities, brothers, and sisters in faith to Christ Himself.

 

That almost all of us walk around with countenances without radiance, and we of the same universal human nature as fielded by the ancient Jews too would run for cover in shame, fear and aversion to godliness visibly expressed on the face of a modern Moses or Caitlin should one of them walk on the earth today.

 

Our dull, pallid countenances reflect the absence of God in our lives, and that God does not rule the earth today or in ancient Israel 3,000 years ago.

 

Here is my quote: “Only after Moses called to them did Aaron and all the rulers of the community come back to him. Moses then spoke to them. Later on, all the Israelites came up to him, and he enjoined them all that the Lord had told him on Mount Sinai. When he finished speaking with them, he put a veil over his face.* Whenever Moses entered the presence of the Lord to converse with him, he removed the veil until he came out again. On coming out, he would tell the Israelites all that had been commanded. Then the Israelites would see that the skin of Moses’ face was radiant; so he would again put the veil over his face until he went in to converse with the Lord.”

 

My response: The veil is a symbol that deep, divine truth must remain hidden from humans behind a worldly curtain of mere appearance and illusion because that is all the truth that humans can handle, or are willing to endure, and God honors their reject of De, by staying gone, silent and mostly absent, to God’s sorrow, and to huge human loss.

 

Here are the same verses from the Holy Bible (KJV): “And Moses called unto them: and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them.

 

And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave them in commandment all that the Lord has spoken with him in mount Sinai.

 

And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a veil on his face.

 

But when Moses went in before the Lord to speak with him, he took the veil off, until he came out. And he came out and spake unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded.”

 

My response: Note that Moses was invited to go in before the Lord, a rare honor and privilege indeed, almost unheard of.

 

Note also that God refers to his chosen people, the Hebrews, as the children of Israel, and that Yahweh their Lord and Creator, was their spiritual father, and they were His spiritual children.

 

Holy Bible: “And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone: and Moses put the veil upon his face again, until he went in to speak to him.”

Peterson On Power

 

Jordan Peterson has often defined power as competence, not tyrannical abuse of subordinates or citizens by ruling elites.

 

I agree with that: competence is a manifestation of the power of powerfulness, where one does work in the world to improve the self, to create something, to build something, to make money. It is not about controlling others.

 

One individuating and wielding the power of powerfulness would have something of the anarchist in him, and he would work to introduce constitutional republicanism to all nations in the world.

Intrinsic Nature

 

Ayn Rand argued that human nature is not intrinsic or essential, but that its essential nature is epistemologically arrived at by the human thinker. It is epistemological in part, but human nature is also how it is due to its nature, its essence, aa metaphysical state or set of attributed and characteristics. I believe we all have souls, and that we are born basically but not entirely evil, and these are intrinsic human properties.

 

I would argue that reality itself is essential both epistemologically and metaphysically encountered, detected, and comprehended.