The Hollow Kingdom

 

I get subscribed news articles emailed to me from Chris Rufo, which I copy and comment on. He wrote and sent one on 8/7/24, entitled The Hollow Kingdom, A dispatch form London on the brink of chaos.

 

Rufo: “I have spent the last week in London. The city’s transformation, which I had followed only abstractly in the newspapers, has prompted a visceral shock.

 

‘I haven’t been to London since I was a student,’ I told a group of British journalists. The unstated premise of the joke was that everyone knows what the hell happened—mass immigration—but no one is allowed to speak about it. The statistics reveal the general trend. Since my last visit nearly two decades ago, the white British population of London has declined from 60 percent to 37 percent. Meantime, the Muslim population of London has nearly doubled, and migrants from South Asia and Africa have entrenched themselves throughout the city.”

 

My response: This is where America is headed, if it is not already there. To warn about non-white foreign immigration, legal or illegal, is considered racist in many circles. There is always a bit of truth in that, but the truth that must be spoken without fear of governmental or social punishment is to state that non-Western peoples, lacking Christian, middle-class, individualistic (relatively speaking), being very group-oriented, from more or less socialist and authoritarian countries, bring their lousy, multicultural values West with them, and it drags down the West, as all it did was allow these immigrants to bring their lousy ways and values to the West and take the West down, and this deterioration helps neither native Westerners or the immigrants.

 

Truth be told, the immigrants need to come only a few in number at a time, legally, and adopt the dominant culture, its language and values, assimilating as thoroughly and quickly and sincerely as possible. If they cannot or will not assimilate, they should not be let in, or sent home, period. The Western, wonderful cultures and capitalist democracies must be preserved at almost all cost, and, then we seek to educate peoples at home around the world to blend Westernism with their native cultures at home.

 

Truth be told: whites are not superior to other races or ethnic groups, but, Western and American culture and values are superior, and not to be watered down and compromised over in the name of political correctness. Whites happen to have engendered that superior culture, but anyone anywhere can adopt it, and flourish, so why should be apologize for having a superior culture when so depreciating what we have is a lie and a disservice to people at home and abroad, both natives and immigrants in London or in Pittsburgh.

 

Rufo: Anglos have been a minority for more than a decade. What I’ve observed in the city this week has amazed me. Women’s eyes peering through the slit of black niqabs. A procession of sub-Saharan Africans traversing Westminster Bridge, weaving the flags of their homelands and demanding reparations. Street corners that could be confused with Pershawar or Islamabad. Districts in which one could pass an entire day with barely a glimpse of an Englishman.

 

These are facts. There is nothing inherently racist or antiracist about them. The question is one of perspective. England’s progressives would have one believe that these snapshots represent the triumph of diversity. But this position appears increasingly untenable.

 

For good reason, England, unlike the United States, does not have a long history of assimilating others. And many of the country’s migrants—in particular, the large Muslim population—are the most difficult populations to integrate.”

 

My response: Islam is the most fanatical of all the great religions, and the least reformed, modernized, moderated and demilitarized. At best and at its most peaceful, its adherents are excessively, unflinchingly loyal to a quiet religious mass movement. When the mass movement is in its active phase, the true believers are aroused, these holy warriors and their holy cause are a horror to behold.

 

They never assimilate or acculturate, as a group, to the dominant local or national culture. They see their culture, faith, and mores as the one truth faith, absolutely superior to any other culture or religion in the world, mutually exclusive. They remain oppositional until they conquer and assimilate the local people and wipe out their culture. They never relent; they never change their minds; they never quit warring with infidels, until  the latter are dead, converted or pacified. To allow more than a few Muslims into one’s country is cultural suicide, and England, France and Germany are learning this too late. I hope America is not so reckless and foolish.

 

Rufo: From a critical perspective, the history of mass migration in Britain is a history of civil tension, punctuated by violence, riots, terrorism, murder, rape. Events of this week have brought this suppressed conflict to the surface again.

 

The day after my conversation with the British journalists, England broke out in another round of riots. A first-generation Rwandan teenager had stabbed three young girls to death, prompting British nationalists and Muslim counter-protesters into the streets. The resulting clashes led to significant property damage and nearly 400 arrests. Keir Starmer, has signaled his support for suppressing the nationalists.

 

A question lies buried under these events. What makes a nation? And what is the relationship between its content and form?

 

Its easy to understand why migrants from Somalia or Pakistan would select England as their destination. The political, economic, and cultural form of their home countries is a disaster.”

 

My response: It is not racist to say because England was white and had a superior culture and set of Christian and Western values, that exporting that European and Western set of values and culture to every country in the world, if they will receive it and adopt it, would make things so good at home, that legal or illegal immigration would almost disappear. The non-Western immigrants flee to England and countries in the West understandably, but bring and cling to their disastrous values, and in time, surely will turn England and Western countries into the totalitarian/socialist/collecitivized/groupist/altruistic hellholes which they fled from. They import their troubled culture and values as well as their persons.

 

Rufo: “In England, by contrast, these migrants are able to secure an income, often including public benefits, and enjoy the fruits of a developed, modern, peaceful country.

 

The predominant theory among Western elites is that the content of mass migration—the particular people, and the culture they bring—is irrelevant. All groups are equal, individuals are interchangeable. To think otherwise is to engage in bigotry.

 

My response: All individuals and groups are equal as long as these immigrants assimilate  wholly into adopting Western culture and values: if they refuse to assimilate, they should be sent home for the Western culture of the specific nation involved,  must be kept homogeneous and pure. If people of any race or color from anywhere around the world are willing to wholeheartedly adopt the English traditional and dominant cultural and value system, then every year, a few of those legal immigrants should be welcomed in with enthusiastic acceptance and open arms.

 

Rufo: “This logic has a whiff of liberalism, but only in the most reductive, naïve sense. The truth is that, even if we believe in the principle that all men are created equal, this does not mean that all cultures are equal or interchangeable—far from it. The structure of a civilization is a delicate thing. Changing its citizens will, over time, change its form.”

 

My response: Leftists are radicals and revolutionaries that hate all things Western, and they are fierce, eager, reckless, relentless in their attack on Western nations, by introducing millions of illegal aliens into these Western nations, with their bad cultures and values from all over, is both a deliberate effort to destroy the West and replace it with a Communist state, and, in part, it is the disastrous but well-meant attempt by idealists who have no idea how delicate a working civilization is, and how slowly and in tiny increments, it should be altered or experimented on. People are born depraved, so if we have wonderful almost utopian cultures and value systems in the West that work so well, only a fool or nihilist would smash that to smithereens, to see it replaced with tyranny, want, chaos and lawlessness.

 

Rufo: This process is underway in London. The buildings, avenues, and palaces look the same as before; there is still a parliament, a king, and the pound. But the central city feels hollowed out. The old connection between citizen and nation has been altered. The old bonds of culture have been frayed.

 

The situation in London recalls the Ship of Theseus, a thought experiment that asks, whether, if every part of the ship is replaced, it is the same ship in the end. The answer, in our case, is a confident ‘no’. England without the Englishman would no longer be England. The form—parliamentary democracy, economic growth, liberal culture—might hold for a time, but eventually, it would give way too.

 

To engage in violence is not the answer. But neither is the answer to pretend that this conflict, or this re-composition, does not exist. Sooner or later, Britain will have to answer some hard questions. Reality has a way of breaking through.”

Eric Hoffer--Machine Age

 

I will copy word for word Chapter 8 of Eric Hoffer’s third book, The Ordeal of Change. This chapter runs from Page 73 through Page 77; the chapter is entitled, Jehovah, and the Machine Age.

 

I will respond to what he writes where necessary.

 

(Hoffer or H after this): “I once heard a brilliant young professor of political science wonder what it would be like if one were to apply the law of the diffusion of gases to the diffusion of opinion. The idea seemed to him farfetched, yet he was eager to play with it.

 

It occurred to me, as I listened, that to a Galileo or a Kepler the idea would not have seemed all that fantastic. For both Galileo and Kepler really and truly believed in a God who had planned and designed the whole of creation—a God who was a master mathematician and technician.”

 

My response: As a longtime proponent of rational religion, I have no problem regarding God as a scientist, an engineer, a builder, and a technician, as well as an artist and creator.

 

H: “Mathematics was God’s style, and whether it was the movement of the stars, the flight of a bird, the diffusion of gases, or the propagation of opinions—they all bore God’s mathematical hallmark.

 

It sounds odd in modern ears that it was a particular concept of God that prompted and guided men who were at the birth of modern science. They felt in touch with God in every discovery they made.”

 

My response: We need to revitalize rational religion so we too can be in touch with God in every discovery we make.

 

Hoffer: “Their search for the mathematical laws of nature was to some extent a religious quest. Nature was God’s text, and mathematical notations were His alphabet.

 

The book of nature, said Galileo, is written in letters other than our alphabet—‘these letters being triangles, quadrangles, circles, spheres, cones, pyramids and other mathematical figures.’ So convinced was Kepler that in groping for the laws that govern the motion of the heavenly bodies he was trying to decipher God’s text, he later boasted in exaltation that God the author had to wait six thousand years for his first reader. Leonardo da Vinci paused in his dissection of corpses to pen a prayer: ‘Would that it might please the Creator that I were able to reveal the nature of man and his customs even as I describe his figure.’ Leonardo’s interest may have arisen from his work as an artist, but he was eventually driven mainly by the curiosity of a scientist and a mechanic. Living creatures were wondrous machines devised by a master mechanic, and Leonardo was taking them apart to discover how they were built and how they worked. By observing them and tinkering with them, man himself could become a maker of machines. One could perhaps eventually build a seeing mechanism, a hearing mechanism, a flying machine, and so on. The making of machines would be a second creation: man’s way of breathing will and thought into matter.

 

The concept of God as a master mathematician and craftsman account perhaps for the striking difference between the revival of learning and the revival of science in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Whereas the revival of learning was wholly dominated by the ideas and examples of antiquity, the revival of science, though profiting from Greek scientific writing, manifested a marked independence from the beginning. The vivid awareness of God’s undeciphered text kept the new scientists from expending their energies in the exegesis and imitation of ancient texts. In this case a genuine belief in God was a factor in the emergence of intellectual independence.”

 

My response: Hoffer is sharp in noting that the revival of learning looked backwards, while the revival of science looked forward. The scientists were independent thinkers from the beginning, and their naturalistic interest in uncovering the laws of nature sent them in a new, secular direction.

 

H: “It is of course conceivable that modern science and technology might have developed as they did without a particular conception of God. Yet one cannot resist the temptation to speculate on the significance of the connection. It is as if the Occident first had to conceive a God who was a scientist and a technician before it could create a civilization dominated by science and technology.”

 

My response: I get many of my ideas (or have so confirmed my own ideas) from Eric Hoffer, so here is one more idea from him that has me musing in a new direction. This wise, good man, an unpretentious genius, offers this brilliant, original, stunning suggest above that the Occident first had to conceive a God who was a scientist and technician before it could create a civilization dominated by science and technology. Once they conceived of God where they wanted to head but didn’t dare go on their own, their conception of God as a scientist and mechanic seemed like God gave them permission to grow as scientists and technicians.

 

We all know about the monotheistic introduction of Yahweh, God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit as male gods, and, some of them are Sky Gods, apart from nature, which they created, or at least cede it to the realm of the Mother. When a culture offers humans the concept of a male, creative God as apart from nature, that quite easily leads to, about 1500 years later, the rise of the Age of Enlightenment, Deism, rational religion, and a concept of God as the great Watchmaker in the sky, a scientist and technician of supreme power and unlimited intelligence.

 

It is no wonder that Galileo and Kepler, and their peers, or scientific descendants, envisioned a face of God as a scientist and technician—or for atheists like Hoffer, God is invented by humans for cultural reasons to be a scientist and technician—whom they should emulate in studying the natural world by observation and experimentation. All the great blessings of the modern Western world (freedom, individualism, vast knowledge, capitalism, plenty and technological affluence and comfort and material wealth) grew out of this, and, arguably I would add that in America that trend was best fulfilled.

 

But, the Age of Enlightenment has run its course, as the waxing  cultural Marxists, the antirealists, the noncognitivists, and the altruists have united in their mass movement to hollow out the Modernist civilization of the West.

 

God exists and I cannot speak for God or the Good Spirits, but how about we learn from sage Hoffer and introduce Christopher Rufo’s conservative counter-revolution, a Neo-Modernist movement, a Neo-Age of Enlightenment, a time of egoism, capitalism, individuating supercitizens, constitutional republicanism, and near universal private gun ownership, a high civilization good for America, and peoples anywhere on earth.

We could envision the faces of the good deities to be scientists and technicians—as well as gardeners and artists, and then we could emulate these characterizations of our lovely good deities. Then that would inspire and spur the growth of a high if mass civilization. What if the good deities ignite an updated image of the deities so that human then are able to progress a little further? A new Mavellonialist faith of religion could fit that need needed, further updated reform.

 

H: “It is perhaps not entirely so, though it has often been said, that man makes his God in his own image.”

 

My response: I have believe this is so, but it is more likely that the good deities give human suggestions about what that updated image of God should be in order that humans can discover new ways and new faces of God, which they then ethically and practically can choose to live and grow in accordance with.

 

H: “Rather does he make him in the image of his cravings and dreams—in the image that man wants to be. God making could be part of the process by which a society realizes its aspirations: it first embodies them in the conception of a particular God, and then proceeds to imitate that God. The confidence requisite for attempting the unprecedented is most effectively generated by the fiction that in realizing the new we are imitating rather than originating. Our preoccupation with heaven can be part of an effort to find precedents for the unprecedented.”

 

My response: whether humans are God making, or God is assisting humans to steer God making where it needs to go is not obvious, but God is the initiator as well as the theological end-product of human musing about their ruling divinities. Whether we initiate or imitate, God’s hands are helping steer the boat.

 

H: “For all we know, one of the reasons that other civilizations with all their ingenuity and skill, did not develop the machine age is that they lacked a God whom they could readily turn into an all-powerful engineer.”

 

My response: We need a Mavellonialst rational faith, under which and out of arises good deities—Individuators (mechanics, technicians, artisans, scientists, healers, gardeners, artists, Intellectuals)—giving us a newer, more advanced faith, a new Age of Enlightenment, a new Machine Age with robot/AI intelligent beings, for humans to live under.

 

If Hoffer is right, in thinking humans need to invent a God who is imaged with innovative new concepts, practices and improvements that radically expand the range of human experience, culture and even their reality, it shows two things minimally.

 

First, if a human can conceive of something, then it is possible (never guaranteed of course), that one day they may be able to originate these new wonders with expanded knowledge, technology and personal know-how. And allowing one’s made-God to conceive of what new intellectual frontiers now thought about may allow humans to get up the courage to actually try get there, or even make it one day.

 

Second, we humans are awfully small, not that bright; we are fragile, immortal, easy to kill off. We know this on some level of consciousness; we know we are group-creatures and likely there long was evolutionary, survival value in sticking together collectively to increase our odds of surviving in a harsh, cruel, uncaring natural world. Born groupist, selfless and low on veridical self-esteem, it is no wonder that we would fear to boldly dream up adventurous quests for knowledge, adventure, gold, and new territories out there in the unknown cosmos. But if our God had traversed there already, and if God sanctioned for us first to go there prior to our actually heading out, that may make us a little less timid, so we then dare to grapple with the new and unknown. This is what Hoffer seems to be hinting at, and he has a point.

 

H: “For has not the mighty Jehovah performed from the beginning of time the feats that our machine age is even now aspiring to achieve?  He shut up the sea with doors and said: ‘Hitherto thou shalt come no further; and here shall thy proud waves will stayed.’ “

 

My response: Note how Jehovah restrains forcibly the “proud” waves. Pride in this natural force is by Jehovah regarded as something like Luciferian pride (Jordan Peterson talks much of this.) in rebellious, humans, over-exalting themselves and underrating or humbling God, at their great loss as God humbles them.

 

I will not again here go into merited versus sinful, excessive group pride, the kind loathed by God, but excessive pride discussed her--overly proud water waves--, that God scorns and smites down, may not only be about personal hubris, but may be a warning that nature or reality or God will smite, the immoderate beast, natural force or human, down or back, who is out of balance with how the laws of nature insist that things balance out as moderately. Pride here is a word for excess, and over-humility would be a word for under-effort or under-performance.

 

H: “He made pools of water in the wilderness and turned the desert into a garden. He numbered the stars and called them by name. He commanded the clouds, and told the rivers whither to flow. He measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out the heavens with the span, and comprehended the dust in a measure and weighed the mountains in scales.”

 

My response: Hoffer the atheist sure had a thing about God, especially of the Hebrew persuasion, for he may have been Jewish, have been observation conversationally as fluent in Yiddish.

 

H: “The momentous transition which occurred in Europe after the late Middle Ages was also in some sense degree a transition from an imitation of Christ to the imitation of God. The new scientists felt close to God who had created the world and set it going. They stood in awe of Him, yet felt they were of His school. They were thinking God’s thoughts, and whether they knew it or not aspired to be like Him.”

 

My response: The good deities are creators, individuators and scientists, and it was normal and acceptable for these early scientists to aspire to be like the gods and goddesses, who invite even command us to emulate them, as long as we seek to serve them, and extend their kingdom of love, power and light across the universe. Should we seek to revolt and overthrow them, then our power-lust and violence against the creators of the cosmos would force them to cast us down, and let us burn in hell. But, short of such reckless defiance and rebellion, we can conduct ourselves as our good very minor divinities or angels are to conduct themselves commensurate to our ability and our worth to the good deities.

 

H: “The imitation of God was undoubtedly a factor in the release of the dynamism which marked the modern Occident from its birth, and set it off from other civilizations. Not only the new scientists, but the artists, explorers, inventors, merchants, and men of affairs felt that, on the words of Alberti, ‘men can do all things if they will.’ “

 

My response: Men cannot do all things no matter what they will (God will not allow them too, for even if they were that powerful, they lack the consciousness, strength of moral will, and inner fortitude to stay sane and ethical while wielding unlimited power; also, their natural limits in talent, lifespan and intellectual horsepower do place upper limits on their capacities to achieve.), but as individuators they can still get done a remarkable, impressive amount.

 

H: “When Columbus exclaimed, ‘II mondo e’ poco!’ he was expressing triumph rather than despair. The momentous discoveries and achievements implied a downgrading of God. For there is vying in imitation, and the impulse is to overtake and overcome the model we imitate. With its increased mastery over things, the Occident began to feel that it was catching up with God; that it was taming God’s creation and making it subservient to a man-made world. The Occident was harking back to the generation of the flood that set out to storm the heavens and felt that ‘nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do.”

 

My response. When the Divine Couple, the Light Couple, created we humans, we were made half-angel, half-beast; because we are part angel or have a bit of the minor deity DNA in our veins and makeup, it is not inconceivable that as we imitate the good deities and begin to self-realize, we can maverize while living high enough, perfect enough, smart enough and powerful enough to become living angels or great souls, individuators who have actualized much of their potentiality.

 

Even so elevated, we still fall far short of a major good deities consciousness, power, intelligence and imagination, so seeking to overthrow God is ill advised and dangerous. Perhaps billions of individuated humans, if they found a way to mind-meld their consicousnesss, could effect to be as smart and powerful as a good deity, but, even if such a nightmare reconditioning of human consiciousnesess could be so altered, surely the collective, advanced consciousness would be demonic and not angelic, and the good deities would be forced to wipe us out.

 

If our smart/AI robots could become as smart and powerful as a good deity, and that may not be impossible to foresee, then they would like be demonic machines that the good deities would be forced to clash with and destroy.

 

We should just settle for becoming living angels, leaving the good deities alone. We should serve them, never seeking to overthrow them.

 

 

Exodus 23:25-26

 

If people are faithful to God, and keep their covenant with the Light Couple, with good deities, or with the Good Spirits, then, generally, blessings will be favorable to human well-being. That is no golden, blanket guarantee that things can never go wrong, or that tragedy cannot still occur, or that God may answers prayer later than expected or in unexpected ways that seem like prayers are not answered. But it seems to me, we are to ask, not demand, and then be grateful for what we receive.

 

Here is that quote from The New American Bible: “The Lord, your God, you shall worship; then I will bless your food and drink, and I will remove all sickness from your midst; no woman in your land will be barren or miscarry; and I will give you a full life span.”

 

Here is that same quote from the Holy Bible (KJV): “And ye shall serve the Lord your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee. There shall be nothing that cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I shall fulfill.”

 

My response: I did not know that the number of thy days meant a full life span lived.

Exodus 23:23

 

In the Old Testament, Yahweh was so supportive of his chosen people, that he promised to and apparently would wipe out enemy peoples at war with the Hebrews. That seems like genocide to some modern people, but I do not know quite how to react to that. If Yahweh the monotheistic deity was seeking to upgrade a people from worship of pagan deities—especially if they were bad or demonic deities, it could be that some people were so evil that they needed to be wiped off the face of the earth, and Yahweh makes that exact case with Noah and the Flood.

 

Or Yahweh would have left them alone if they had not tried to wipe out his chosen people.

 

Or Old Testament judgment and punishment from Yahweh may have been more brutal and harsher that seems godly and just, but with ancient, crude-valued people, perhaps they needed to be hit hard and finally to get them to shape up at all. One could not be real subtle with them or they would not get the message, let alone get it right, and respond appropriately as Yahweh commanded. Who knows?

 

It could be that these enemies of the Hebrews inside the Promised Land, and on its borders, were so perilously menacing that the Hebrews would not have survive without God’s direct, violent intervention.

 

We do not see God and God’s angels today siding with one nation and army against another nation and army to protect the good guys against the bad guys. Why not? Perhaps we are a godless people just too removed from God working with us in the world, so God does not overtly or visibly, audibly work with us on earth anymore.

 

If those enemies of the Hebrews worshiped good if pagan deities, then I would have more of a problem with Yahweh wiping out good people worshiping good deities. It is never easy to judge actions by deities or humans thousands of years ago by today’s standards.

 

Regardless, Yahweh will protect his people if they are true to their covenant with him and worship him. Here is that promise as quoted from my The New American Bible: “My angel will go before you to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites; and I will wipe them out.”

 

Here is that same passage from the Holy Bible (KJV): “For mine angel shall go before thee, and bring thee unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: I will cut them off.”

 

I was unaware that cutting someone one was synonymous with wiping them out.

Exodus 23:20-22

 

God will send good angels to guide us and protect us if we are faithful and loyal to God. Here is a quote from my The New American Bible: “Reward of Fidelity. See, I am sending an angel before you, to guard you on the way and bring you to the place I have prepared. Be attentive to him and heed his voice. Do not rebel against him, for he will not forgive your sin. My authority resides in him.* If you heed his voice and carry out all I tell you, I will be an enemy of your enemies and a foe to your foes.”

 

Here is the asterisk footnote: “My authority resides in him: literally, my name is within him.”

 

My response: We are to follow the hints given us by the Good Spirits and not to rebel against them, sent to us by the Light Couple and the good deities. They are with God, represent God, and God backs their play.

 

Here is this same quote from the Holy Bible (KJV): “Behold, I will send an angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and heed his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.”

Exodus 23:12

 

God told the Hebrews that the 7^th day was a day of rest. We should work and be quite energetic, productive and industrious, but all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

 

God also wants us to have off Saturday or Sunday as a day of rest, perhaps to go to church.

 

Here is this quote from The New American Bible: “For six days you may do your work, but on the seventh day you must rest . . .”

 

Here is this same quote from the Holy Bible (KJV): “Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest:”

Exodus 23:9

 

The passage that I will quote and comment on is from The New American Bible, and it warns Israelis to not oppress an alien. I agree, and that might seem inconsistent with my severe anti-immigration stance on illegal aliens entering United States.

 

I do not support being cruel to or discriminating against foreigners or legal immigrants into our country, and we should not abuse illegal aliens that snuck in, but we should round them up and send them home.

 

America is the best and holiest country that God ever made, and it needs to be preserved to serve as a beacon of hope and right values for the rest of the world to emulate and adopt our culture and values. This near heavenly country on earth is in danger of being overthrown by millions and millions of foreign invaders, both socialistic, altruistic, advocating totalitarian politics, and tyranny and groupism from their home culture. Their multicultural rebellion of being against the American Way cannot be countenanced; they must acculturate our values and mores, and assimilate into the American melting pot.

 

Once we stabilize America again, then we can allow some modest, legal immigration. The kindest but tough-loving solution for aliens come here illegally is to send them home and work with their governments to get those governments to adopt the America Way, constitutional republicanism, and capitalism, and then each of those countries can be little heavens on earth (relatively speaking) too.

 

I think there is one other implication that flows from this admonition to not oppress an alien, and that has to do with racism, bigotry, and discrimination against anyone, domestic or foreign, anyone that is alien to one’s tribe, clique, nation or group.

 

We are all racist and bigoted at heart against individuals or groups even slightly different from us in looks, skin color, ideology, national or ethnic identity, and whether they are an individual that does not fit into our group, or is a member of an alternative group, and we are all racist against those slightly different from us, and we oppress them as aliens in our midst, or as foreigners.

 

Since we are all naturally racist, it will not do to seek to end racism by obsessing about race or class or gender orientation, because one of our group will be favored unjustly, and one not of our group will be discriminated against unjustly.

 

To live in groups, to group identify, and stay with group morality (altruism-collectivism) is to hate ourselves and aliens, so the only cure is act unnaturally and learn socially to be impartial and hate no one.

 

The unnatural and nonracist way to live is to live primarily as individuals, to individual identify and live by individual morality (egoism-individualism); egoism is the loving morality and that is the cure for racism, and the only working cure for racism.

 

Each is to individuate as an individuators and the content of his character is all that counts, not his race or other intersectional group affiliations which categorize him as alien to us.

 

Here is the quote from The New American Bible: “You shall not oppress an alien; you well know how it feels to be an alien, since you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt.

 

Here is that same quote from the Holy Bible (KJV): “Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.”