White Privilege Debunked

2/28/2021: I watched a very brief snippet on Facebook by Dennis Prager on White Privilege. Here are my notes: "White Privilege was invented by the Left to explain why whites are doing better than blacks. But Asians are doing better than whites, and the Left does not complain about Asian Privilege. Why not talk of Asian Privilege? And since the 19802 voluntary immigrants from Africa far outnumber the blacks that came to America involuntarily as slaves. If America is so racist, why are these black immigrants flocking here, and they are one of the most successful immigrant groups. The real privilege is to be born with a two-parent family. Dad's teach values and curb the natural tendency for boys to be violent. Race is not the answer to everything. Values are the answer to everything." My response: It is impossible for me to disagree with anything that Dennis says. Leftists promote the myth of white racism as a tool for attacking whites, promoting reverse racism against them, to gain power and to overthrow the country by dividing its people and then conquering them. Tonight also, Jordan Peterson was on Facebook with a video snippet from Prager U on white privilege. Here are my notes: "The idea of white privilege is reprehensible. White people do have privileges, so we should be grateful for them and work to earn them. But to target an ethnic group with a collective crime regardless of the specific guilt or innocence (of each member of that group--my wording) of that group--that is abhorrent, a racist stereotype. It is unconscionable to attribute to whites collectively held guilt at the level of the individual as a legal or philosophical stance." My response: Jordan is correct in dismissing this attack on whites and will seek to see all Americans judged as individuals, not only in their group affiliations.

Tucker Carlson

There still Americans out there who disagreed with them and thinking about that made it hard for them to sleep, it agitated them, and the numbers show it. According to one new survey, the single most pressing issue for Democratic voters right now is the existence of Trump voters . . . It is people who don't share their views. Democrats believe they're the real threat. It is amazing how disconnected from reality this is. There aren't many Americans left to dare to disobey the emerging techno state. The few who remain have never had less power than they have right now . . . Breitbart carried a 2/6/2021 article by reporter Jeff Poor on Tucker Carlson on his Fox show. I am going to lift excerpt out of the article, the ones that interest me. Let me quote Poor on Carlson: " . . .Fascism is a style of government., but it is also a form of religion. So, the goal isn't simply to make you obey, the goal is to convert you. Before he executed his rivals, Stalin forced victims to profess their love for him and the Soviet State. He staged a kind of religious ritual. Stalin claimed to be an atheist, but he was in fact closer to the kind of secular Ayatollah. Why are we telling you this? Because you’re seeing the same impulse at work now here in this country. It wasn't enough for Democrats to win control of the entire federal government in November, they got the power they wanted, but it did not satisfy them. They barely paused to celebrate. In fact, they seem angrier. Why? Here's why. Because there were still Americans out there who disagreed with them and thinking about that made it hard for them to sleep, it agitated them, and the numbers show it. According to one new survey, the single most pressing issue for Democratic voters right now is the existence of Trump voters . . . It is people who don't share their views. Democrats believe they're the real threat. It is amazing how disconnected from reality this is. There aren't many Americans left to dare to disobey the emerging techno state. The few who remain have never had less power than they have right now . . . You don't see people like that on television very often. But they do exist, and Democrats know they exist. So, they won't rest until every last one of them, every last apostate has embraced the one true faith, by force if necessary." My response: I have complained repeatedly that Leftism and the Democratic Party in America are now a mass movement, still disguised, but they will emerge as full on Marxists. Once this mass movement has soul-raped all Americans, all dissidents and supports of their Communist Party, then their control of the government will be solid and permanent, perhaps for the next 100 years. This is the reason that Xi Jinping today and Stalin decades ago had their reeducation camps and gulags. All dissidents are jailed, enslaved, murdered and tortured until they die or are converted into true believers. Conformity and uniformity of thought and action must be pure and total. This is the depth of power lust revealed by Democrats in Washington today. They are pure evil. Tucker Carlson has described them accurately. He understands them thoroughly and he knows what they want and where we all are headed if they are not thwarted and soon. Let me quote Poor's article on Carlson: "Democrats definitely want new laws. But more than that, they want their catechism repeated back to them by the entire population and that's why they spend so much energy, a stunning amount of energy, if you think about it, trying to police speech. They care what you think even more than they care about what you do. They need you to agree with them. So, they force you to mouth their slogans. 'Diversity is our strength. Climate change is an existential threat. The riot at the Capitol was a white supremacist insurrection. The more absurd the claim, the more hysterically they demand that you repeat it. At the moment, Democrats are completely fixated on forcing you to agree that yes, January 6 was a racist event. And it's been fascinating to see who in America complies with this demand to say that out loud. In a speech this week, Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming decided to obey. Here she is talking about the riot at the Capitol. Watch. . .. (Cheney speaking, I add) 'It's very important for us to ignore the temptation, to look away. And it's very important especially for us as Republicans to make clear that we aren't the party of white supremacy.' Democrats do not reflexively parrot the slurs of their enemies. They don't hate themselves. They're not morons." Carlson believes Cheney agreed with Democrats for her own cynical reasons, but this false narrative, a whole tissue of lies, is now a way of life as Big Tech, traditional media and the Biden Administration all speak the same lies in unison. It is brainwashing, and it works. All of this is right out of the Stalinist playbook. see people like that on television very often. But they do exist, and Democrats know they exist. So, they won't rest until every last one of them, every last apostate has embraced the one true faith, by force if necessary." My response: I have complained repeatedly that Leftism and the Democratic Party in America are now a mass movement, still disguised, but they will emerge as full on Marxists. Once this mass movement has soul-raped all Americans, all dissidents and supports of their Communist Party, then their control of the government will be solid and permanent, perhaps for the next 100 years. This is the reason that Xi Jinping today and Stalin decades ago had their reeducation camps and gulags. All dissidents are jailed, enslaved, murdered and tortured until they die or are converted into true believers. Conformity and uniformity of thought and action must be pure and total. This is the depth of power lust revealed by Democrats in Washington today. They are pure evil. Tucker Carlson has described them accurately. He understands them thoroughly and he knows what they want and where we all are headed if they are not thwarted and soon. Let me quote Poor's article on Carlson: "Democrats definitely want new laws. But more than that, they want their catechism repeated back to them by the entire population and that's why they spend so much energy, a stunning amount of energy, if you think about it, trying to police speech. They care what you think even more than they care about what you do. They need you to agree with them. So, they force you to mouth their slogans. 'Diversity is our strength. Climate change is an existential threat. The riot at the Capitol was a white supremacist insurrection. The more absurd the claim, the more hysterically they demand that you repeat it. At the moment, Democrats are completely fixated on forcing you to agree that yes, January 6 was a racist event. And it's been fascinating to see who in America complies with this demand to say that out loud. In a speech this week, Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming decided to obey. Here she is talking about the riot at the Capitol. Watch. . .. (Cheney speaking, I add) 'It's very important for us to ignore the temptation, to look away. And it's very important especially for us as Republicans to make clear that we aren't the party of white supremacy.' Democrats do not reflexively parrot the slurs of their enemies. They don't hate themselves. They're not morons." Carlson believes Cheney agreed with Democrats for her own cynical reasons, but this false narrative, a whole tissue of lies, is now a way of life as Big Tech, traditional media and the Biden Administration all speak the same lies in unison. It is brainwashing, and it works. All of this is right out of the Stalinist playbook.

The Wise One Speaks

The New Zealand Interview

On 11/22/2019, well-known New Zealand writer and editor Simon Wilson interviewed Jordan Peterson. It seemed like a hard-hitting interview with a lot of gotcha, hostile, loaded questions. For those that thought Jordan went after Leftist women interviewers harshly, he did not cut this aggressive, smarter, offensive interviewer much slack either. At one-point Wilson asks Jordan if he is angry, and Peterson seems to deny it by deflection, but he is angry, and this constant attacks by Leftie interviewers would wear thin for anyone after a while. Wilson asks Jordan what he thinks about The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. Wilson asks Jordan if he thinks there is a movement by men now to stop feminism, repress it, a backlash against women to reoppress women. Jordan said no firmly. Jordan believes men have little in history ever repressed women, and that nowadays women are largely liberated. J (Jordan) notes that birth control has liberated women for the last 60 years. All or most in the West are in favor of women developing their talents, prospering and doing well. J is for moderate feminism, but the radical edges of the movement are not good. The radical feminists have assumed the mantle of collectivized identity, regarding the West as an oppressive patriarchy, and that is a lie and an outrage, J notes. There is no brutal domination of women in the West. My response: I agree with J here wholeheartedly. J is against inequality of outcome enforcement on businesses and government agencies by government regulations to address systemic oppression of women, an injustice that does not even exist. Boys are deemphasized, discouraged and now need to be encouraged to be competent, powerful males making their way in the world, adopting responsibility and meaning. My response: not only does J encourage young men, but it is safe to assume that he and all other Westerners, simultaneously encourage young women, blacks, people of color and the LGBTQ to go for it in life too. 97% of Americans and Westerners regard each young person as an individual to be encouraged to go for it, and none care what their identity group memberships are; it is interesting but just not that important or relevant anymore. We need to move beyond collectivist labels and become unique individuals. The Leftist myth about the injustice and oppression of all these intersectionally identified victim groups by a corrupt, white, male, heterosexual, Christian, capitalist patriarchy is a cruel, demonizing slander upon these smeared Westerners who are not guilty of what they are so shrilly accused of. Indeed, the accusers are guilty of and are projecting upon the actual victims (white, male, heterosexual, Christian capitalists) what these woke Leftists are guilty of or will be guilty of should they overthrow our governments. J notes that radical feminists do not comment on actual repression of women in a country like Saudi Arabia, and he asks why they ignore that. My response: my guess is that radical feminists are Lefties, and Lefties do not criticize Muslim cultures or peoples, whom they regard as fellow victims of Western prejudice, racism and imperialism. J adds that we have an emotional affinity for hierarchical rank. If we lose status, we are upset. J seems to argue that Western hierarchies now are mostly based on competence and cooperation, not oppressor identity group machinations to gain power, money, status and authority for the oppressor group while holding down and back all the identified alleged, oppressed identity groups, like the radical feminists. My response: I agree with J. I would add that people in general suffer from low self-esteem naturally, and it is reinforced by social conditioning as most group-live and live by altruist ethics. When the majority suffer from low self-esteem, this indicates that they detest themselves. One way to compensate is to look down upon neighbors, coworkers, family members or acquaintances. Even a slightly higher ranking in social hierarchies really pleases these insecure people. It seems they can only build themselves up by putting down those close at hand. This complex, natural, sick and sickening form of gaslighting those around them is so pervasive that it is powerful evidence that we rank ourselves socially--and in other kinds of hierarchies--so easily and naturally, that to live in and identify and impose hierarchical ranking on oneself and all of those around one is to confirms J's thesis that we like lobsters prefer hierarchical living. My additional thought is that we need hierarchical rankings, but they must be flattened and made kinder and more humane as a new generation of self-actualizing anarchist supercitizens start emerging. Group living, and hierarchical ranking will cramp their style, and crimp their self-liberation attempts. Wilson asks J about the Metoo movement and J emphatically denies that we should automatically believe the alleged or actual rape victim. The accused have rights under our adversarial justice system, and that is how it must remain. Wilson does not like this response. I agree with J. Wilson implies that J's emphasis over individualism versus collectivism is to reward selfish individualism instead of pushing for selfless service to humanity. J rejects that his training for the young, introducing them to individualism is not atomized individualism (something I advocate) --self-help is not Randian, selfish or self-gratification. The individual is to take responsibility, take care of himself so that he is not a burden on others, and when strong, competent and effective, he is able to care for his partner, his family, his community and his country. Wilson seems to get none of this. My summation: Jordan Peterson is no saint, but he is a good man, an ethical leader helping millions of young people. He is a genius, a bit snobbish and elitist, but ultimately wants each individual, regardless of identity group affiliations, to prosper and make it in America and in the West. He loves authenticity and truth, and does not suffer fools gladly, nor refrain from telling them the truth, and they hate him for it, and accuse him of being alt-right, a Nazi. He is not, and they are fascists and fanatics and serial liars. What came to me this morning is that these identity groups radicals and social justice warriors are not sincere, idealistic, loving or compassionate. They are bitter, angry, ungrateful, cruel, hateful, hating ideologues whose great joy will only be met as they destroy and overthrow all that is good, decent, free, hopeful and fair in the West. These nihilists will not rest until they bring the second Holocaust to the entire West.

British Reporter Gets Angry

2/27/2021: I watched a 3-minute video on Facebook, a report from an unknown British, red-haired tv reporter, about 35 years of age. He uses profane language and is pretty salty, but his short, clear, concise, eloquent rant shatters the pompous self-righteous hypocrisy and swagger of the woke crowd better than anything else that I have read or viewed. He was reporting that some panel had piously concluded that Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name needed to be removed from some writing award. Apparently, some board members concluded that her Little House on the Prairie books displayed stereotypical attitudes and certain racial language. This reporter was angry and sarcastic: Of course, they did—based on the cultural norms from 1870 to 1894. You cannot judge them by modern values because cultural norms were different then. Cultural norms in a historical epoch from the past are fixed and they do not change with the passage of time. He shouts, asking: “Who is this helping? No one. No one needs protecting from Little House on the Prairie. What does this achieve? Who does this help. Stop sanitizing and denying the past to make yourself look good. I am sick of it. It is everywhere you look. We live in the most inclusive, diverse, progressive and prosperous society ever in human history, yet we have never had it so bad? We are told that there is prejudice wherever you look.” The reporter goes on: “They are outraged and offended because they are not enough female biographies on Wikipedia . . . We used to react to prejudice. Now we actively seek it out often where it doesn’t exist. Pampered, spoiled woke young people believe that they are worthy . . .” I took out the profane, salty swear words but this brilliant, short, cutting, succinct, accurate tirade was a joy to hear from a politically incorrect, truthful reporter. His tirade was at the expense of fanatical, woke interests invading now every aspect of modern life in Western countries, our culture, our entertainment, our religions, sporting events, work places, schools and in government. All kinds of prejudicial mistreatment and systemic bias have largely been eliminated in the West. These hyper-sensitive, so easily offended and outraged social justice warriors are conducting a witch hunt—their tactic is to see prejudice, intolerance, oppression and injustice everywhere, especially where it does not exist. This Inquisition of fake outrage over nonexistent injustice is being conducted against millions of innocent people. This is a precursor what the nightmare, Soviet-style purges that these postmodernists and Neo-Marxist will conduct once they have their single Communist Party running the government. These attacking true believers are terrorizing and enslaving the entire West. These racial and social justice warriors are not compassionate, noble, idealistic and reform-minded as they constantly self-identify as. Nor do they seek to make the world better. Rather, they are revealed as haters, hateful, virtue-signaling radicals attacking everyone. Their aim is grabbing totally power for their collectivist, socialist mass movement. They claim to promote diversity, while in fact what they are after is the imposition of totalitarian mono-culturalism, masquerading as multiculturalism. If they prevail, they will stomach no dissent, no free speech, no political, organized opposition, no free thinking, no free action. These are cruel people that are extremely dangerous. They are getting bolder.by the day. They

God Is Good

God is good. If you do not agree with that, I do not know how to talk to you, or anticipate that we can agree on anything or find much in common.

Who Is To Blame?

If you are unhappy and feel victimized, whose fault is it? Dennis Prager and conservatives would argue that it is your fault, and your internal locus of control will make you blame yourself not soceity for your suffering. Dennis admits that all have been victimized at one time or another, but insists that each individual as an individaual must decide not to be invigorated by accusing society out there to be blameworthy for wrecking his life. This collectivist exporting of guilt to outside, societal forces is untrue and irrelevant. If one seeks salvation for the self under this external locus of control, one will never be happy, grateful again or free from hating and resenting other happy people.

Explain This

Jordan Peterson is correct: the Marxists are wrong to presuppose, but are not totally wrong to presuppose, at the bottom of all structures, all is not a war of all groups against all other identity groups. History is not just a brutal, endless of struggle of oppressor identity groups oppressing victimized oppressed groups—on and on until a social utopia ends all of this horrendous debacle. Only a utopia will not be the final result, but a vicious totalitarian state in which one group terrorizes other groups utterly. This endless, pitiless struggle is not the entire historical record. There are also love, peace, stability and cooperation all over the West in the last 3,000 years. Especially after the Age of Enlightenment, law and order, freedom, prosperity, well run, well-maintained, well-functioning Western democracies emerged and prevailed. Marxism does not adequately account for this positive, progressive uptick in advancing Western societies.

Fighters Need Apply

We are created by God to be fighters, not meek surrenderers that bashfully turn the other cheek. Winning is appreciated, but not the main objective. Being good and a good fighter fighting the good fight is enough to propel one into heave. Evincing heartfelt spiritual and moral goodness as our motives is sufficient. We are not expected by God to do the impossible—to vanquish evil forever. It may not be desirable, not even possible. It is enough to fight the good fight, or even defeat evil in our midst for a few decades. We are not to vanquish evil forever. That is not our mission. We are not strong enough to pull it off anyway. It cannot be done anyway.

Both Are Right

Both Parmenides and Heraclitus are right. But, perhaps Heraclitus was righter than Parmenides. If so, the world is ever in flux, changing, of movement and becoming—eternal recurrence, or forever expanding upward and outward—who knows? —more than the world is one, without motion, forever unchanging. The combination of these two together is the One called Fate or Yang/Yin. God is the ultimate self-realizer becoming forever in an ever-expanding universe. The Devil is the ultimate nonindividuator, stagnating and destroying all forever.

No Self-Esteem

If we have no self-esteem, we hate ourselves, firstly, and then by extension, we hate others. Then we enter sick, sickening uneven power relationships with other people—based in S & M, I-It relationships, not coequal, loving I-Thou relationships. These S & M, I-It relationships are ones in which the power sharing between the two participants in the relationship a master-slave relationship, one that is immoderate, and the power-wielding is out of harmony and balance. These unhealthy relationships are far more common among altruists, collectivists and group-livers than among egoists, individualists and individual-livers. If we esteem ourselves, we love ourselves, and through this love of self, we come to love others. Therein power relationships are much more equal, cooperative and healthy. Bother partners are coequal. Each will have his legitimate share of power to wield, not grabbing his neighbor’s share of power, or ever being willing to surrender his share of personal power to that acquisitive neighbor demanding that he cede his share of power to that neighbor. He has grown, becoming an individuator, anarchist supercitizen that will not allow others to deprive him of his wealth, liberty, power, life or ownness. Nor will he conspire rob another of her wealth, liberty, power, life or owness. This approximately equal power-sharing arrangement is a moderate power distribution scheme. If we have no self-esteem, we hate ourselves, firstly, and then by extension, we hate others. Then we enter sick, sickening uneven power relationships with other people—based in S & M, I-It relationships, not coequal, loving I-Thou relationships. These S & M, I-It relationships are ones in which the power sharing between the two participants in the relationship a master-slave relationship, one that is immoderate, and the power-wielding is out of harmony and balance. These unhealthy relationships are far more common among altruists, collectivists and group-livers than among egoists, individualists and individual-livers. If we esteem ourselves, we love ourselves, and through this love of self, we come to love others. Therein power relationships are much more equal, cooperative and healthy. Bother partners are coequal. Each will have his legitimate share of power to wield, not grabbing his neighbor’s share of power, or ever being willing to surrender his share of personal power to that acquisitive neighbor demanding that he cede his share of power to that neighbor. He has grown, becoming an individuator, anarchist supercitizen that will not allow others to deprive him of his wealth, liberty, power, life or ownness. Nor will he conspire rob another of her wealth, liberty, power, life or owness. This approximately equal power-sharing arrangement is a moderate power distribution scheme.

Intersectionality

Mark Levin points out that intersectionality is the unifying theme and rallying point for all the radicalized identity groups seeking up refer to America as a white, male, Christian, heterosexual, capitalist patriarchy oppressing all these oppressed, victimized identity groups. All of these self-identifying groups of victims are fronts for the Left, bring Marxist revolution to America. Once the revolution is over, then the Marxist puppet masters will come out in the open.

The American Communist Party

The Democratic Party, Mark Levin points out, seeks one party rule. Everything is for the Party. If one is inside the Party, one is never wrong, or evil. One is always right. Those outside the Party are always wrong, always evil and always incorrect. I have long accused the Leftist and Democratic Party of being a Marxist mass movement seeking to overthrow America and the West. Should they succeed, they become a junior Communist Party,and a mass movement in power solidifies as a totalitarian party.

Really?

Breitbart reports tonight that nearly 16% of Generation Z identify as LGBT up from a bout 5% of the overall population, and 90% of Americans regard themselves as heterosexual. But the LGBT radicals argue that gender self-identification is a personal choice, not a biological, natural destiny, naturally occurring at birth. What is obvious here is that the Generation Z youngsters are buying the line that gender identification is a social construct, a personal choice, not a biological condition. What is really going on here is young heterosexuals self-identifying as LGBT when they are not, and that is a sick outcome.

Jordan Peterson Debunks Leftist Ideology In 8 Minutes

Marxists insist that you the individual are not an individual—you are what your group says your are—and your group is engaged in warfare for dominance, and power wielding is arbitrary unless wielded by your group. All that is left is retrogression to tribalism fighting and bsrbarism. This regression is undesirable. This 8-minute interview excerpt is from a Ben Shapiro interview with Peterson. Ben starts off by complimenting Peterson for his self-help advice helping young adults get their lives together, and his unique strength to saying no to anger, attacks and accusation from Leftists. He is giving conservatives courage and hope to fight back and stand up for their convictions. Jordan reminds Ben that he, Jordan, is an expert on gender issues. He points out that the science is solid that gender differences are real, and that they are biological more than sociocultural. Jordan lays out the experiment to test gender differences: If gender differences decreases among more egalitarian societies, then gender differences are sociocultural, but in egalitarian Scandinavia, the gender differences hugely increased indicating that gender differences between the sexes do exist and that they are mostly biological. These gender facts emerged despite ideological, left-wing bias harbored by the social scientists conducting the gender studies. Some Leftists dislike this and suggest that people are malleable so if children are pushed socio-cultural harder and harder, then the biological differences between girls and boys could be minimized. Jordan objects that such artificial pushing could la to children rebounding against such social engineering, and he was doubtful that parents want to cede such gender self-control to be run by the government. Jordan notes that the Left employ cognitive systems to interpret the world. They have levels, axiomatic levels, with fundamental presuppositions, and some of these are at a deeper level than the ones above them. It is important to diagnose the axiomatic structures of the narrative of the Left. Leftists pretend that they are atheistic rationalist, that their deep axiom is on the side of science. That is not their reality. They believe instead in Marxist social constructions: All hierarchies are based on powerplay, are based on group identity, tribal identity. The entire history of the world is nothing but a power play among those identity groups. If science disagrees with these assumptions what to do about it. If science is the bottom axiom, the beliefs that go against the proven science will be discarded. With Leftists their beliefs are at the bottom, so they just altered the science. So, they stick with their unproven axiom: You are your group engaged in warfare and it is arbitrary unless it is your group. The Leftist meme is naked tribalism, fighting and barbarism, a regression to the violent, warlike past. The individual should be sovereign, and helped the West become civilized, rising above tribalism. The cultural war is about what is the proper framework, within which to view human identity and what is the relationship of the individual and the group in relationship to that identity. Leftists insists it all group and all power. Marxists insist that you the individual are not an individual—you are what your group says you are—and your group is engaged in warfare for dominance, and power wielding is arbitrary unless wielded by your group. All that is left is retrogression to tribalism fighting and barbarism. This regression is undesirable. Jordan Peterson’s positions here are consistent with what he has announced elsewhere, and I largely agree with his take on Leftist Ideology.

The Podcast

There is a Jordan Peterson interview online from May 2018, a podcast in London, Intelligence Squared. The title of the episode is: “Jordan Peterson on Gender, Patriarchy and the Slide Towards Tyranny.” The interviewer was Anne McElvoy, senior editor at the Economist. What I write below are from my notes on this interview. Jordan stated that his focus was to help individuals not members of identity groups. He pointed out that this self-help advice that he offers to the public in his lectures and books is not a finger-wagging, judgmental morality by perfect, supercilious, self-righteous, smug paragon, from on high, lecturing less successful people. He claims to be successful because people know that he too has feet of clay, and they sense that he wishes them well, not to criticize and yell at them. He distances himself from berating, moral injunctions, top-down moral lecturing and guilt tripping. I sense that he is not built like that, and that he really cares for his public, and wants them to be happy, healthy and successful. He wants to help the individual not the collective. He offers that life is suffering, and the authentic, moral adult must confront suffering and truth directly, and accept responsibility for making one’s life and the world better, and that is where meaning is found. He criticizes social justice activists that do not develop the self but blame and seek to change the world out there for their unhappiness, frustration and grievances brooded on. They are ignorant and lost, but they push an ideology of omniscience and moral superiority. Leftists view the world as a battle ground of rival ideologies. The patriarchy has its capitalist and individualist ideology that is mere opinion but serves to preserve this power elite, corrupt and to be overthrown. Power struggles is between factions sparring over opinions. Competence, merit and truth are just buzzwords justifying the oppression wielded by the male patriarchy. Archetypal truths have been watered down and bastardized into mere ideology. Peterson affirms that the individual sovereignty is the theological and philosophical claim underlying politics. Politics can degenerate into a mere ism. Individualism came about through thousands of years of development. The Right goes too far and turns fascist with claims of ethnic and racial superiority. Reasonable progressivism is acceptable, but the Left goes too far when pushing equality of outcome. This is their stated public policy, demanding equivalent representation of all possible identity groups at all possible levels of all possible hierarchies, claiming all tyrannical prejudice is to be rooted out. These social justice ideologues are filled with anger, hatred, envy and resentment: they express no gratitude for how good they have it in the West. They are obsessed with unfairness in fair America. Gender for them is a social construct, not a biological assignation from birth. Jordan seems to anger McElvoy by asserting that feminism play identity politics with men as the resented oppressors, and women as the oppressed victims. She disliked him saying that women express aggression by gossip or innuendo, and men use threat of force or actual force to express aggression. She accuses Jordan of being Hobbesian. He denied that, countering that he was also ½ Rosseauan. He argues that culture is both security and tyranny. We are good and evil. Nature is both benevolent and catastrophic. He asserts firmly that he is not dialogue. Most of this video were Peterson’s well-known views that I have gone over elsewhere. Two new perspectives are worth mentioning. Right abo above where Jordan self-refers as Hobbesian and Rousseaua, regarding culture as security and tyranny, nature as catastrophic and benevolent. He is declaring himself to be an ethical and ontological moderate. Notice that he refutes being an ideologue because these polar traits and polar viewslead to extremism, radicalism, mass movements and evil. That is important to identify groupism, extremism, totalism and mobism as evil. Peterson affirms that the individual sovereignty is the theological and philosophical claim underlying politics. Politics can degenerate into a mere ism. Tribalism underlies tyranny.

Cancel Culture

2/21/2021: I just watched a short Prager U video on Facebook about the menacing rise of cancel culture. Sephora talks about her Christian conservative views as a Latina and she was ordered to stay silent or she would not get any more work. She was threatened by the Leftist cancel culture which is really the Leftist mob, the mass movement bullies on the Left, seeking to shut down debate, conversation and independent thought and political opposition. They are totalitarian in tone and intent. We must fight back and hard, not flinching one inch. AOC defends the Left which lie again that the cancel culture even exists. She justifies it as an accountability culture to challenge and show dislike towards conservatives and Christians. The video narrator notes how vicious and dangerous these people are: a social media mob screaming at any dissidents from Progressivism. They want to shut down public debate. They seek to spread fear across the land to silence and end critical thinking. They will blacklist opponents and seek to end their careers. These are evil, vicious people-to be strongly opposed and given no quarter.

The Slippery Slope

Once a socialist dictator gets a liberty away from the people, he never gives it back. This power-craving addict just grows government more and more, and the individual citizens gets smaller and weaker. Each individual loses privacy, liberty, personal power and the ability to enjoy unalienable rights. This is the slippery slope that Americans are sliding down, ending in absolute tyranny, guns and freedoms permanently removed.

Inspiring

I just watched a video on Facebook of a man splitting blocks with an axe, for firewood. This man had no arms and used the splitting axe under his chin to split the blocks. This disabled man is profoundly inspirational, daring to do the best he can with what he has to work with. Think what the average person could do if they just enjoyed this wonderful man's fierce, blazing will to be better and succeed, to overcome his severe physical limitations. The truth is that the will to succeed, on steroids, is what self-actualization is. It may be to pursuit great wealth or power, but far more commonly it is just the will to become a brilliant plumber, a poet, a philosopher, a carpenter, a hair stylist, super smart computer programmer and on and on. Jordan Peterson is right about most things, but he thinks that talent is rare, and those that are smarter, a genetic elite, will rise to the top of whatever competence hierarchy that they choose to work in. Most of the innovation, superior workmanship, productivity, brilliant performance and the accompanying lion's share of the wealth, accolades and credit for advancements in the field will rightly go to the 10% of top performers in that field, while 80% of the professionals in that field will be mediocre, less well paid, and stationary for life in that field. That is how nature makes us. Obviously, I strongly disagree with Jordan about this. Talent is universal and plentiful if suppressed and not expressed; human potential is wasted on a massive scale. I read this morning that Eric Hoffer defined talent as a species of vigor, and I believe his view of how talented the people are, and how marvelous they can perform if they just believe in themselves, demonstrate the will, energy, hard work, ambition, and focus on excellence instantiated by the armless wood block splitter mentioned above. Jordan's elite performers will still run the show at the top, but those underneath will set the bar of super-excellence very high, as their own individuated performance as average people turning their more average talents into excellent performance. Conceive of that anarchist/individuator society of hyper-competent supercitizens and realize that still existing hierarchies will be of exceptional merit and stellar performance.

Gender And Social Construction

Jordan Peterson rightly argues that biology dictates that there are two genders, and men and women are the sex that they were born as, period. They are equal but not the same. The social world of language and construction do influence how we learned and are trained to think about our sexuality and other issues, but it is not the full or final answer. I agree with his gender assessment.

Social Justice Buzzwords

Equity, fairness, inclusion and diversity are four favorite causes championed by social just warriors, implying that America is a white, male, corrupt hierarchy where non-whites, women and LGBT minorities are treated unequally, unfairly, with their diversity ignored or put down, and they are excluded. This is not the view of America that I know. Equity insofar as it is equality of opportunity is the norm here, but equality of outcome is not practice here and nor should it be. People are treated fairly here and are promoted and selected based on their merit and competence. White do not exclude those of diverse skin color, and as individualists we welcome individuals of all shapes, sizes and color, and that is the most diverse approach possible, and it is inclusive. Collectivists are racist, and those practicing the grievance and victim griping known as identity politics are racist groups.

Does Satan Warrant Defeating?

Is the Devil ultimately defeated? Under the Christian plan, the Devil is vanquished forever after the second coming of Jesus Christ. I like the idea of eternal change, motion and many, unlike the Parmenidean conception of ultimate reality as One, eternal, unchanging, motionless. Because becoming is all agents growing and developing, the ultimate defeat of the Devil may not be desirable, and the total, ultimate, unending defeat of evil by good and God may not be desirable, perhaps even possible. My moderate ontology makes me believe that God is a bit evil and the Devil is a bit good, so that they understand each other. Change is vital for moral growth, for free will to have meaning, neither God or the Devil can or must win eternally. Were God to enjoy final, ultimate victory over Satan, forever God’s followers would be good robots, but not knowing or exercising free will. Were Satan to enjoy final, ultimate victory over God, pure nihilism and pure chaos would blow up the ordered cosmos, and Satan’s minions, would be purely wicked robots, without a scintilla of free willing going on in their minds. Without the eternal battle between good and evil, new generations of sentient beings would not have a purpose, no moral aim to strive towards, and free will is a meaningless concept.

My Ethical System

There are many schools of ethics that can and should be studied, and I will in the years ahead. I just want to start by assuming that my ethical system of egoism and moderation does grow out of some sort of natural law school, with mixing and matching from the other schools of ethics as they seem fruitful or helpful.

Be Outraged

Such evil people, hate-filled Marxist ideologues; without a hint of mercy, kindness or respect for the fine departed man. Rush was a great and good man, and God has called him home. Hollywood celebrities, overjoyed that he is dead, convinced that he will burn in hell for eternity, are moral monsters that deserve permanent boycotting by an angered, shocked, outraged public.

Petersonian Hierarchies

Jordan Peterson talks a lot about how hierarchies are part of our biological heritage, going back 350 million years. He seems correct. He then applies this biological reality to Marxist claims that all history is but a struggle for power between warring identity groups, and that corrupt hierarchies of the haves and victimizers oppress, enslave and exploit the have-nots and the victims that need to rise up and overturn the status quo. Peterson objects that the capitalist system is only 300 years old, so it cannot at all reasonably be blamed for hierarchical injustice. He recommends that political, institutional, political and economic injustice be redressed but not by Marxist totalitarianism and equality of outcome ends. I like his emphasis on individual’s developing their talents, so they can rise up hierarchies of competence, based upon individual merit not identity group quotas. When hierarchies are taken over by corrupt leadership, then they turn vicious and are doomed to decay and increase human suffering. Hierarchies are permanent, but they should be flattened, made democratic, even as anarchistic as possible. Where or if 90% of adults were individuators, widespread, brilliant competence would prevent any hierarchy from turning corrupt, oppressive or very stratified as they hard work, and brilliant performance and super-competence of each citizen would allow for reach citizen to accrue roughly his fair if slightly unequal share of power, money and rewards based on an equality of opportunity governance. This is the most just and workable way to counter the fair socialist complaint that the spoils of society are unevenly distributed along the stratified structure of society. One of Jordan’s worst errors is to assume, based upon his own genius, that talent is rare and a genetic elite rise to the top, get the lion’s share of the money, power, beautiful women and societal approbation. I like Eric Hoffer before me object the average people are lumpen with untapped talent, and as maverized, living angels, their talent will be so smart, so artistic, so productive, so brilliant that a high civilization will be the outcome. Talent is not in short supply, the waste of human talent is the norm, and my Mavellonialist philosophy is my attempt to rectify this horrible social norm.

Human Nature

Yes, I have concluded that people are born evil, to hate others and themselves, but immediately I insist that the following qualifier is critical to providing proper context. People are born primarily evil, but not entirely evil. They are still perfectible. People are born as mostly but not entirely corrupt robots. The good news is that they also possess innate but weak, recessive traits for goodness. Part of their will is born free, not enslaved by natural or supernatural genetic, biological and supernatural forces, be those controlling forces good or evil. People are roughly 60% innately depraved, will-less puppets. The rest of their biological and spiritual makeup is 40% innately good, free-willed agency. With proper, ethical upbringing, love and faith in God, others and the self, each human being can grow into a good person. The more the individual person maverizes, actualizing her potential as a living angel, the better and more free she becomes, and then her will might become 70 or 80% good and free, as her developing consciousness enables her to appreciate that knowledge, long internally instantiated good habits and growing awareness and wisdom lead her to be a good, holy person leading an exemplary life. She still enjoys developing free will, but her will to do wicked, hateful or stupid things proportionately decreases.

No, Max Stirner

No, Max Stirner, we require abstractions, meaning and words to make sense of the world and to talk sense. Whether our view could be absolutely trute or only approximately true or partially confirmed, it is still meaningful. No, Max Stirner, the world is not pure irrationalism, and I will not accept that the universe is pure absurdity, without meaning, love joy or hope to be realized or construed. The world is absurd but it is also sensible. For sure, the world is meaningful to God as numbers, words and concepts dscribe and capture accurately, actually and factually how the universe works and is laid out.

Self-Made Or Anointed By God?

Are great souls anointed by God or self-made? Both types have existed and will exist again. Typically, God selects one before birth, or one of God's archangels lays a finger on the should or forehead of the fetus in its mother's womb, and that is all it takes for the child to think and dream of great deeds to come in the future. The child then has the divine nod to do some great deed or take on some heroic, leadership role. What is the Mavellonialist faith but a religious training system to grow ordinary children into great soulhood, if they elect to take such training to heart? Such personal greatness can be natural (anointed) or can be acquired by just about any ordinary person that selects such an undertaking. Those of average ability, are of spiritual and intellectual talent in some ways at least, that can serve as their foundation for being a life of spiritual and moral greatness. Each has the potential to grow in great soul talent, status and communication with God.

The Gamut

Here is my current gamut of epistemological stances from left to right: nescience, nihilism, solipsism, subjective idealiism, realism, common sense realism, objjective idealism, absolutism and omniscience true believers.

He Is Gone

Rush Limbaugh was a principled conservative with a great sense of humor. He taught us all so much. He reinvigorated the faith of the American people in themselves.

Not Making It In America

There are two classes of people not making it in America. One group are the poor, the have-nots, but with a plan and undying work ethic, most of them could better themselves. The other class of people that are not making it in America are the thousands or millions of blessed, highly educated, smart, wealthy, spoiled, pampered, enraged, grievance-prone and revenge-seeking clerisy that deeply desire to deprive the average free, happy responsible American of his wealth, freedom and independence. Because the members of the ruling class, these angry clerisy members that are not able to make something of there lives, they do not blame themselves, but blame society for vicitimizing them in some way for which there is not evidence. Their solution: to revolt and overturn society, remake it, rule it, wipe out all vestiges of Western civilization. Here is what Eric Hoffer said about them in his book, The Syndicated News Articles, Page 108: "Those that lack the capacity or temperament for to achieve much in at atmosphere of freedom usually clamor for power." These true believers in Marxist America, seek to enshrine their mass movement, radical progressivism, and one Party Democratic rule, because their personal lives are hoplelessly spoiled. They are as antithetical to individuator/anarchist supercitizens as can be imagined.

The Fall of Man

I have been reading John MacQuarrie's excellent introduction to existentialism. I quote from his book, Existentialism, Page 136: "To be aware of the comprehensive or encompassing is to be delivered from a narrowly objectifying relation to our environment, to transcend the subject-object gulf by participation. N. Berdyaev seemed to think of 'objectification' as not far removed from the fall of man. Following the anthropologist Levy-Bruhl he holds that man's earliest thinking did not objectify but remained in union with that which it knew in accordance with loi de participation. But this participation was broken. The awakening and development of the conscious mind was accompanied by division and alienation. Man had to pass through a stage in which he subjected his thought and reason to a critique. To pass through is the fate of the spirit of the world. But he thinks we now to return to a new mode of participation. Existential philosophy marks a new transition 'from the interpretation of knowledge as objectification to understanding it as participation, union with subject matter, and entering into cooperation with it." What MacQuarrie is talking about here is that aristotelian, traditonal and modern epistemology of Western philosophers is large of objective perspective, with the thinking subject separated from others, the world and objects out there in the world. This rational perspective is the most accurate and productive way to grow knowledge and find the truth. Of course, the exisentialists have a corrective view to add, that closing the gap between subject and object as the subject participates with others, objects and the world itself at close quarters, in the world, not aloof from the world. MacQuarrie quotes N. Berdyaev opinion that once human thinking became "objectified", that led to the fall from grace, the fall of man that thus became self-conscious, learned to sin, suffer from original sin, and were in rebellion against Jehovah. My take is that epistemological objectification did not lead to a fall from grace, but actually it was a granting of grace to Adam and Eve from Jehovah. God instilled in the first humans free will, and the tree of knowledge, with its forbidden fruit, was a temptation for them to sin and be worldly, a chance for them to come alive and be conscious of suffering, reality and mortality. The eating of the forbidden fruit by Adam and Eve is symbolic free agency, the right to sin and the right to do good, with divine consequences. As the first couple sinned, they lost their dream-like state of innocence and pure goodness and naivety, a bit like good robots, not alive, not contrary, not competing with God. Once they sinned, and knew good and evil, with the concomitant divine rewards and punishment in this world and the next, then they lost their simple innocence, and became awake, and then they realized that they must choose to be good to regain a mature, wise innocence that grows out of suffeirng, learning, growing, love, experience and living right to be able to go with God. The Fall is more a blessing than a curse. They were aware of their nakedness and were ashamed. Jordan Peterson ascribes this sense of shame to human anxiety about their discovered vulnerability. Jordan feels that evil is the awareness that if one is personally vulnerable, then that is how we know that we can hurt our neighbors. Now, I am an epistemological moderate, more absolutistic and aristotelian, for objective truth, with some admixture of existentialist epistemology with removing the gulf between subject and object so that the subject participates intimately and up close with objective reality and all its being and objects out there. Subjective truth is the watchword. On the subjective side, the extreme of not knowing would be nescience, but that is not in play hrere.

The Points Of Convergence

I have spent decades studying Eric Hoffer, and one of the sources of enjoyment for doing so is to see how young, current conservative thinkers arrive at some of his conclusions independently. For example, I was watching a Jordan Peterson video this week, and he was pointing out that the fundamnetal proposition of the West, that the individual is sovereign, has led to peace, prosperity, individualism and captialism as we have moved away from collectivism and tribalism with their incessant warring and savagery. Let me quote from Thomas Shactman, Page 195 and 196, of his autobiography (American Iconloclast) of Hoffer: "Hoffer would eventually decide that the calm of the 19th was an aberration, and that in the twentieth the world would return to its old savage ways though in a post-industrial rather than in a preindustrial context: 'The nineteenth century despite its unprecedented changes was a century of law and order. In Britain, where the changes were most spectacular, the lower orders that early in the century had turned the cities into savage became meek and law-abiding. The First World War was a watershed of effective authority . . . Was it the terrible slaughter of the war that shook authority? Hardly so. It was the loss of hope.' Elsewhere, Hoffer has characterized the 19th century as the century of the middle class, and it is. Now the middle class is the class of Western individualists, and they are the most civilized, opponents of trialism, collectivism and endless conflict of what identity group against other identity groups. Now, the middle class is under attack, especially in America, by the Left, as they regard the world as nothing but an incessant struggle for power between rival groups, rival tribes. Neither Hoffer nor Peterson want the collectivist to take control of society again with their regressive, revolutionary policies.

Reification

I don't accept that abstracting is reifying a mere universal concept. We do not want to worship ideas, but univerals are central to our using concdpts to build worldviews.

Absolutism

This confident epistemological stance is very optimistic tht truth and knowledge are knowable, eternally right and are objectively real. Though I an am epistemological moderate, accepting that skepticism and relativism are true in part, I still side more with the absolutists.

The Absolute

Is God the Absolute? No. Is Satan the Absolute? If Fate the Absolute? Yes.

Absolutes

Are there absolutes? Maybe. If there are, it may be hard for us to identify and characterize them in language.

Hellcat

There are some hellcats out there, disagreeable, shrieking, verbally aggessive women that are very unpleasant to be around or do business with. But, then, plenty of men are mouthy jerks also. Perhaps one could try to avoid a hellcat when one could, or at least do not get entangled with them in fights or the games they play, when one is around them. We should, as we grow older, spend less and less time with nasty, disagreeable, incorrigible people. Life is too short.

Smooth

Smooth? No I have never been adroit or smooth in business decisions or social occasions. Perhaps what most of us can settle for, with a clear conscience, is not to go out of our way to insult others, hurt their feelings or attack them. If we are honest and fair in our business and social dealings, that is an honorable, sufficient substitute for being a smooth operator.

Double Crosser

I do not betray people, or rarely have, and do not like traitors or snitches. Anyone can show bad judgement once in awhile, and double cross someone, but if you do that routinely for gain or out of jealousy or revenge, you are a rat of the first rank.

Sophisticated?

I think not. I am not worldly in the sense of having a rich, complex, cultured social or intellectual life. I have lots of worldly experience in the world of business, but that is not the same thing. If I am wise to the ways of the world, it is the experience of a life time as a laborer on the farm and in the work place.

Get Close

I do not know if objective truth exists, or, if it does, if any human is intelligent enough to isolate it and then describe it in a clear, concise, understandable statement of such exactitude, so that the statement's semantical content can be readily transparent to any reader. Still, we can get close to arriving at the truth.

Despitefulness

If malice against others is your primary motive, you not only hate the target but you despise yourself thoroughly or you would not be so motivated to tear down and inflict pain upon another.

Keep Building

Keep building, keep improving, ever strive to better yourself. To cease growing is to turn stagnant, and then slowly begin to deteriorate from there. Do not settle for that.

Toady

One cannot be an individuator of either gender, and live as a boot-licker. This contradiction is insurmountable.

Ashley McGuire

She is a Senior Fellow at the Catholic Association. She did a 4 minute video for Prager U on Gender Identity. I like her common sense, traditional view of gender roles, as they are my own. She argues that gender is not a choice but is how one is born, and to speak as a social constructionist, offering that is is a mere choice is anti-scientific. She vigorously denies that males and females are the same, and that gender identity is but a personal choice. McGuire asserts that males and females are differeent, though are similar too. We are born male or female, not one of 50 or so genders suggested by the Left. Ashley worries that women will be most injured by failure to point out gender differences between men and women. Women will feel more pressure to have casual sex, and that is something they dislike typically. She does not want women serving in combat. She does not want women to dismiss the blessings and joys of marrying, having a husband and children as part of her career choice, not just having a work career. She is correct. Boys should be raised to be strong, powerful, competent, confident, take-charage, courageous, forthright, strong-minded and loving. These traits are desirable in men.

Tough Times Coming

In Plunder and Deceit, Page 41, Mark Levin lays out some drastic, painful adjustments that may become necessary because Social Security is already broke, paying out more than it takes in annually. These possibility are frightening and yet likely unavoidable. Here is Mark: "The future suggests several unpleasant scenarious. Benefits will be slashed, benefits or other income will be heavily taxed, the retirement age will be pushed back further, and/or the federal will eliminate other spending or go further into debt. Inasmuch as those retiring today will receive less than they 'contributed' over the years into the system, it is difficult to see how younger people will be left anything but horrendous debt and broken promises.

Irresponsible And Immoral

Mark Levin in outraged and upset that this generation's willingness to not pay as we go for public spending is to jeopardize the chance for prosperity and well-being for coming generations of Americans. It is not only cowardly, callous and selfish, it is immoral. This is what Levin writes on Page 36 of Plunder and Deceit: "Ultimately this is not about dreary but didactic statistics, but, as Dr. Williams insisted, it is about morality. The devastating consequences of wealth redistribution, intergenerational thievery, massive federal spending, endless borrowing, and unimaginable debt accumulation on American society, and most particularly on the ruling generation and futre generations, are a travesty. Stealing from the future does not establish the utopia promised by the statists. It is the rising generation's grave moral failure."

Misleading

It is scary to read what Mark Levin warns about how the federal government is understating and misleading the public as to how serious is our insolvency, and how easy it would all collapse into bankruptcy. Here is what he writes on Page 30 and 31 of Plunder and Deceit, : "In fact, even the GAO and CBO understate the true nature of the economic and financial calamity facing the nation. On FEbruary 25, 2015, Boston University professor of economics, Dr. Laurence J. Kotlikoff testified before the Senate Budgest Committee about 'America's fiscal insolvency and its generational consequences.' He flatly stated that 'Our country is broke. It's not broke in 75 years or 50 years or 25 years or 10 years. It is broke today. Indeed, it may well be in worse fiscal shape than any developed country, including Greec.' He condemned Congress for 'cooking the books.' 'Congress's economically arbitary decisions as to what to put on and what to keep off the books have not been innocent. Successive Congresses, whether Republicans or Democrats, have spent the postwar accumulating massive net fiscal obligations virtually all of which have been kept off the books.' "Professor Kotlikoff explained that the real debt picture is far worse than the federal government admits. 'The U.S. fiscal gap currently stands at $210 trillion . . .The size of the U.S. fiscal gap is massive. It is 16 times larger than official U.S. debt, which indicates precisely how useles official debt is for understanding our nation's true fiscal position.'" We are in grave trouble as a people and there is no public will to fear this truth, and work to balance our books and pay off the public debt. We are in serious trouble as a people.

Out Of Control

Mark Levin, in Plunder and Deceit, points out that the out-of-control federal spending is now reaching so mucy of the GDP, that it will become unsustainable as workers can no longer pay enough payroll taxes to support the welfare state--Page 29: "In order to pay for these balooning expenditures, CBO forecasts that payroll taxes will grow significantly over the same period, yet another enormous weight dropped on the heads of the rising generaiton. Not only is federal spending out of control, it is also inefficient and poorly monitored."

Genesis, 2: 21-24

Let me quote from The New American Bible: "So the Lord cast a deep sleepn the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. The Lord God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man, the man said: 'This one at last, is the bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called 'woman,' for out of 'her man' this one has been taken. That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and the two of them became one body." If I were a sexist and a mysogynist, which I deny, I would offer these Biblical passages as proof that man is to rule and direct women because man was created by God first, and women are but genetic descendents of the first man's ribs. I deny all that and just conclude that men and women are coequals, in that they both have souls, both are loved by God, and both have free agency. They will compete, quarrel and spark against each other, but their primary moral foci must be on loving one another and cooperating with one another, as human counterparts to the loving Divine Couple. One could speculate that first man was made by intelligent space aliens that then created first woman from the rib of their first created man, but there is no historical evidence to prove such speculation. Note that a man is to grow up, leave his parents, find a wife to cling to and become one body, and have children to perpetuate the species. These passages are so rich. The healthy, pious adult is to grow up, go out on his own, honor the divine sacrament of marriage by marrying a woman and having children with her. My 1970 version of The New American Bible (Page 6, footnote on verse Genesis 2, 2:24): "One body: literally 'one flesh'; classical Hebrew has no specific word for 'body.' The sacred writer stressed the fact that conjugal union is willed by God." It would seem that sexual relations are approved of by God for reasons of procreation, pleasure and to validate marital bliss through conjugal union. How gays, single straights and transgender people have sex and whom they enjoy it with is far outside this Biblical sanction. But I believe the Divine Couple made other kinds of people than just cisgender, binary, married couples, so these other humans' use of sex with whatever partner they select is likely just fine, as long as they are not promiscuous, cheating on their partner, raping another person, spread sexual diseases to another person, or are inclined towards S & M or kinky sex. Sexual "sin" is a minor sin, and God and religious humans need not worry much about it, for other ethical concerns take precedent. I could speculate about how as as promoter of Mavellonialist individuation, how the married adult, straight guy fights fulfillment with his married partner, a woman that he enjoys conjugal union with. Both he and she can be ardent, accomplished, advanced individualists and yet enjoy this union with a partner, and from such a strong and loving marriage, children are best brought into the world, to be raised as strong healthy individualists. Let me quote that other passage from the Holy Bible (KJV): "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and close up instead the flesh thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall have one flesh." This section from Genesis reveals God creating a new race, the human race. If I am correct and I think I am we too are creators, at our best, and are meant to imitate what God what wrought. Are we to create intelligent life, like robots that are then a new intelligent race? Maybe so, but it must be doe with humility and caution lest we create a race of powerful, smart violent thugs, so superior to us, that they turn on their former masters and subjugate or just eradicate us. Innovation does not always end well, though we must keep improving our technology.

Genesis, 2:18-20

Let me quote from The New American Bible: "The Lord God said: 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him" So the Lord God formed out of the ground various animals . . . The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be the suitable partner for the man." I am an individualist through and through, but we are social creatures, and we are not meant to live totally alone without other humans around. Dogs are gret companions, but we need human companionship too, a reality that God acknowledges early on. Note that God made man but man needs a woman, as a suitable partner, and this is divinely announced and ordered. Let us look at that quote from The Holy Bible (KJV): "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him. And out of the ground, the Lord God formed every beast of the field . . . And Adam gsve names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him."

Genesis, 2:16-17

Let me quote from The New American Bible: "The Lord God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except from the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die." What does all this signify? First, Adam is living in the garden of Eden with great freedom, luxury and ease. Still his freedom and choice of actions are not unlimited. He appears to be innocent and living immortally. Once he disobeys God, he will have real world consciousness, an intimate awareness of good and evil. He will die as a punishment. Once he has knowledge (intellectual awakeness), then he will know tragedy, good and evil, and mortality. Now, it that punishment for his sin or a reward? Once Adam can sins, dies, and gains knowledge of good and evil, then he has free will; then he has a chance to grow, self-perfect, and grow spiritually and morally. It is a life of merit. Here is the same quote from The Holy Bible (KJV): "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of that knowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Genesis, 2: 15

In the New American Bible, it is written that God made Adam and then, "The Lord God took the man and settled him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate and care for it." Right away I notice some things: at this point Adam is nameless. I am curious to see if Adam is named after he eats the forbidden fruit, which might mean that we have no name and no personality unless we have consciousness of right and wrong, and free will to exercise behavorial choice, with a nature both fallen and naturally loving (more the former than the later). As a flesh and blood sinner, first man is now real actual, so he deserves to be named. Adam was taken by God and placed in this Garden of Eden, an earthyl paradise of plenty and beauty. Note that the Hebrew tendency for humans to reguard nature as their property and world to cultivate (use for their gain) and yet care for it too. That is a most Western approach to dealing with nature. From my KJV, Holy Bible: "And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." Note the use of the word choice, "to dress it." Is Eden not perfect without human touch? It is but God had determined that human use of nature is a way to complement natural beauty, excellence and pefection. Humans are apart from nature, and are algined with God the Creator, so, if they care for nature wisely and smoothly, then human cultivation of nature and structures built on the survace of nature to alter nature a bit is an acceptable way to make room for human society It can be a moving and uplifting undertaking, as well as endeavors blessed and sanctioned by God. The world is not complete without human presence, intervention and existence, even affecting perfect garden Eden.

Prager On Human Nature

Tonight I watched a short excerpt from one of Dennis Prager's recent fireside chats, and he never disappoints. Dennis like me believes that human nature is not basically good but that there is not, that there is still good in human nature, or as Jordan Peterson allows, humans are still perfectible. What amazes Dennis is how good America is despite starting with such flawed citizens, an astounding moral achievement, the only country ever to give people from all over the world real access to freedom and opportunity. He excoriates the educated, that understand nothing he editorializes, They see people as born good, but then are angered and horrified at how bad America is. They do not see this country for what it is, not perfect but pretty good, better than most other places. The Founders wanted citizens to be virtuous, pious, righteous, profit-oriented individualists with a chance to develop their talents and express their unalienable rights guaranteeed by the fedral constitution.

Marjorie Taylor Greene

This brave, principled Congresswoman from Georgia warms the cockles of my heart: She posted this meme today on Facebook: "Today, I introduced the Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA), a bill that would eliminate federal funds used to enforce gun control on law-abiding American . . .

Power

Dennis Przger says that people lust for power, and, outside of America, the state has always been large and power, with much tyrannical power and control over its individual citizens. The Founders were unique in setting us up with small government and separation of powers in our government. Today the Statists have created big central government, and their intrusions, direction and interference in the privat lives of our citizens is enormous and may go totalitarian. With individuating anarchist supercitizens, I seek to reverse this, where individuals have power over the state that rules them by their consent.

Bad Guy With A Gun

An angry, perhpas mentally ill man a day or two ago burst into a clinic in Buffalo, Mn. and killed a nurse and shot 4 other people. It was of course a gun-free zone. If the doctors and patients were armed, he could potentially have been put down before he got rolling. It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. Of course, the Governor, the Lefties on Twitter and the Democrats are seeking to use this to pass universal gun registration and Red Flag Law at the legislature. About 40 killings last year in St. Paul and maybe 50 or so in Minneapolis, mostly black on black and this kind of outrage does not happen, but if one white nutcase butchers people, then we need gun control. This racial double standard is outrageous and unjust. Blacks are shown more leniency by permissive Leftists that are criminal whites, cut no slack at all. You see gun violence is only bad if white people kill. If black people kill much more, they get a pass in some weird way. Why should anyone get a pass? But the much higher standard against white killers is reverse discrimination. It is also a most condescending discrimination against blacks because this pass implies that they cannot help but be so murderous--black on black murder is now so commonplace that it is not even worth outrage and controversy. Are not young black lives worth worrrying about--do black lives not matter?

The Party

Mark is a political genius. He reminds us the the Democratic Party only works for itself, the advancement and preservation of the Party. What gains the Party more power and clout is what they narrate about and back. They are without ethics, principles or honor.

Derek Hunter, Radio Host

Derek Hunter wrote a column for Townhall.com on 1/31/21, entitled, "I Can't Bring Myself to Care Anymore." Let me quote Derek: "There was a time when an allegation of racism was one of the worst things someone could be accused of. Now, it is a punchline. Back in the day, the word had meaning--aside from an occasional Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson shakedown, it was not cavalierly tossed around to score political points and it was not reported on without something close to irrefutable proof. Now it is a debate tactic of the left to avoid serious engagement and covere for a lack of factual back-up. Everything is 'racist' now, and as someone who actually used to care, who was disgusted at the conecpt and its existence, thanks to the weaponization of the term, I can't bring myself to care about it anymore." My response: Derek Hunter is totally correct, and his response to the weaponization of the term racist is the proper response. Let me record my stand on racism once more: we are all inherently born bad, and that means we overly love and give a pass, earned or unearned, our in-group associates. Those that are born into or are affiliated with out-groups, or strangers, racial or other, are those that we naturally dislike, fear, even hate, feeling racist or prejudiced against them, and will discriminate against them. But, as sovereign individuals, morally trained to treat all equally, fairly, with courtesy and respect, we are not racist. We have been trained and learned to act as civil, civilized adults. This is the truth, this is the American Way. The Left's accusation against whites, Christians and conservatives as racists is slanderous and libelous. They are scum and lying filfth. Their vicious smear campaign has so discredited them that they have lost the right to be heard. Institutionalized reverse racism against whites is now systemic and public policy of the Left and the Democratic Party. One cannot push identity poltics without promoting racism.

Candace Owens

She is thinking of running for the Presidency in 2024. Beautiful, a woman of color, a principled conservative and articulate as can be--I would support her.

Jeff Crouere, Radio Talk Show Host

Jeff wrote an editorial for Townhall on1/31/2021, titled, "A Different Thpe of Secession Is Already Happening in the USA." Let me quote Jeff: Lately, there has been much frustration with the last election and the direction of our country that some Trump supporters have been talking about 'secession.' Many conseratives and libertarians are asking if it makes sense for certain states to leave the union the way South Carolina left in 1860, after the election of Abraham Lincoln as president of the United States. Whether it makes 'sense' or not, we can be assured that it will not happen. Although the South Carolina legislature voted in November of 1860 to initiate the process of secession, no state legislature would do that today. This is because modern state legislatures, even conservative ones, do not have many members who are angry enough at the federal government to support seceding from it . . .While an official secession will not happen, there will be a different type. In fact, it has already started in our country. Instead of state legislatures, dominated by urban dwellers voting for secession, Americans who live in rural and some surburban areas are executing a secession of their own. They are disassociating themselves with the lifestyles, cultural mores, laws and self-inflicted wounds ehibited in our large cities. My response: the cultural wars pits urban and suburban blue areas against rural and red suburban areas. Let me quote Jeff further: "Citizens living outside of ultra-progressive urban areas do not accept what is going on in large cities. Surely, the thinking is, 'I am not one of them. They are different from me. We do not agree on basic things, like what laws should govern human conduct'. This mental disassociation did not exist in previous times of crisis in our country. There was much more national unity in December, 1941 or even September of 2001.At that time, rural Americans and city dwellers still had many shared values and followed the same laws. Clearly, the similarity in culture and politics between rural and urban Americans is dying, and the pace of its death march is quickening. The same type of disassociation is also felt by many Americans living in suburban areas. They recognize their way of life is incompatible with that exhibited in large cities. This results in suburban dwellers venturing into cities less often. Once there, they feel unsafe and unwelome. According to the FBI, crime rates in our urban areas are signifiantly higher than in suburban and rural areas." My response: This article is the tale of two cultures, one urban, and one suburban and rural, and the gulf is growing. It will only get worse. The suburban and rural people have not changed and drifted right or not much, but the Democrats and urban dwellers have veered far to the Left. They have abandoned middle America. I suggest that the suburban and rural people unite and form a Republican juggernaut to counter the Leftist/neo-Marxist/Democratic movement to tranform America into a one-party socialist dictatorship. Let me quote Jeff further: "More crime is not the only difference Americans notice in large cities. There are also different laws regarding decency, civility, and cleanliness. Unfortunately, manners and traditional customs are rarely, if ever, practiced . . .Over the past few decades, millions of Americans who support traditional American values, and even some who value safety, have already left our large cities. They are disgusted with the political corruption, high taxes, racial politics, homelessness and , over the past year, the excessive Covid-19 lockdown orders . . .With unworkable policies and massive bureaucracies, these cities will need greater and greater subsidies from productive, tax-paying citizens living in rural and suburban America. Urban areas have been failing financially for many years, but as the policies become more progressive, the costs are escalating even highter . . . How much longer will productive taxpayers living in rural and suburban communities agree to subsidize large cities? Sooner or later, these citizens will say, 'Enough is enough, we want out!'" My response: Suburban and rural people now despise city dwellers, let alone voluntariy supporting them. All are on a collision course. I have to think that the conservatives need to run a concerted, intelligent narrative about traditional values, free market economics, the primacy of liberty presevation, gun rights, closed borders, energy independence, our constitutional republican system's perpetuation and a plan to return to viable urban cores. That message will spread and grow as we preach it to the entire country.

The Tyrannical Left

David Limbaugh had an editorial this week on Townhall,posted on 2/6/2021, an article titled, "The Tyrannical Left's Sinister Conspiracy to Silence Conservatives." Let me quote David: "Why does the left want to silence conservatives? Why do rank-and-file Democrats go along with this administration? Leftists have bad intentions, but how about the Democrats who enable them? I prefer to think they are being manipulated . . . I am even more worried about the left's success in turn America into a police state . . ." My response: I think it is apparent that what motivates the Left to silence conservatives is their desire to rule permanently as a Marxist majority party, and the way to do this is to eliminate any effective conservative opposition, and that is what they are mounting against us. I blame Liberals for allowing authoritarian Leftists to mount this campaign against consrvatives, independent thinkers and dissenters. There is no excuse for it. Let me quote David further: "People still able to summon their rational faculties during this pandemic have to be concerned about this insane,, concerted effort to control peopple's thoughts and speech. How can those who purport to rage against the fascism of former President Donald Trump, which was an abject Democratic and media myth, promote actual fascism in our culture? It strains the mind to imagine that fair people can deceive themselves into believing that silencing and canceling people for 'offensive' views is consisent with our liberty tradition. Sone rationalize tht because government is not the moving agency in this censorship, and because the Constitution only restricts state action, not that of private entities, there is no violation of our constitutional principles." My response: Biden officials want a czar appointed to monitor and police 'seditious, domestic terrorist-like speech" from American citizens. The Big Tech billionaires silencing conservative thought and speech are extension of if not the new masters of the Democratic Party, so a good lawsuit may show that these private businesses are deeply interewoven with the federal government and make billions from federal contracts. How private are they? Our constitutional rights have been violated. Let me quote David further: "They can lie or fool themselves, but don't let them fool you. Let's not pretend that this consortium of overblown, unaccountable digital oligarchs does not represent an equal threat to our speech. If you can live with censorship by these immensely powerful companies, then you don't believe in the spirit of constituional liberties. They are just nice-sounding platitudes--a means to justify their end of gaining control over the people." My response: David is reminding us that the ruling class is tightening its grip on the averae people, and they favor a social dictatorship which they run and prop up. Trump had to go because he was an outsider, a populist for the common people. By taking him out, they took us out. The people that they fear and hate were about to rise up and take back the country from the swamp-dwellers. We must get informed, stay informed, develop alternative networks of digital communication and platforms. We must, as little people unite, take ove rthe Republican Party, and grow so politically smart, competent, activistic and powerful, that as an army of indidivuating, invovled, awakened supercitizens, we cannot be subjugated, nor ordered how to think, speak or live our lives. Let me quote David further: " The left has been quite strategic in its sinister plans to silence and control conservatives. If it could sufficiently demonize us, it could emasculate us as effective opponents to its agenda. Leftists have laid the groundwork for decades, along with their extremist ideas they are now peddling as mainstream. They've persistently hammered the narrative that conservative speech is inherently hateful and inciteful, leading people to vioent behavior. They've framed mainstream conservative ideas and speech as racist, bigoted, homophobic, devoid of compassion and hateful. Some conservatives naively claim the left has so overdone the race slander that it has lost its effectiveness and no longer warrants a response. How can people be so oblivious? The smear is more powerful and malleable than ever. Leftists have exploited it to drive their open-borders policy--essentially arguing that America is the first nation in the history of the world that does'nt have a right to control its own borders and prentending it could survive if it were to give up that control. They're using it to advance socialism, arguing that our 'racist' past requires us to scrap the founding principle of equality of opportunity and replace it with 'equity', a euphemism that means guarnteed equality of outcomes. Equality under the law and equality of opportunity mean nothing anymore, nor does justice, whose meaning has likewise been perverted in service to the leftist cause. Justice is now social justice, which also means cashiering principles of equality in favor of forcing equal outcomes. 'White privilege,' critical race theory and 'systemic racism' are part of the same mix. The racism smear has even found its way into climate change and pandemic politics. It's embarrassing how mind-numbed we've become. In order to credibly argue that we need a fundamental reordering of our constitutional and judicial systems, leftists must show that America is irredeemably drenched in the sin of racism and can only expatiate itself through the atonement of socialism, reparations, guaranteed universal income, outright wealth redistribution and the rest." My response: I quoted David verbatim and at length because he lays out their plot so completely and clearly. He knows that they have gaslighted and libeled conservatives and Trumps so completely with lie after lie, that many Americans believe that America is a repressive, oppressive white male patriarchy so rotten and evil, that it must be upended and replaced--telling this Big Lie over and over again is changing hearts and minds of close to a majority of useful idioats and dupeed altruists among the common people. David wants to excuse most Biden votersfor backing the fascist plan by Biden in office and big tech private oligarchs seeking to suppress conservative thought and speech, on the grounds that they are deceived. Let me quote David: "I would prefer to think that most Biden supporters would oppose using the awesome powers of digital media, mainstream media, government, academia, cultural shame and other methods to shut down conservatives, but only time will tell--a very short time."

Sheepish

We sheep need ruling class guidance on every level.

The Red Pill Society

They are likely few in number, not of much consequence, and are mostly adolescents trolling the mainstream media, claims Jordan Peterson. Rose Burke wrote an article on 9/6/2018, entitled, "7 Most Shocking Beliefs Of The Red Pill Society." Let me quote some lines from Rose and then comment on them: ". . . The Community, which has become popular on REddit, believe that it's MEN who are oppressed in society, not women . . ." My response: I agree with Jordan Peterson that this group is small, and marginal, not representative of most men, so to equate their noisy online positions, legitimate and accurate or not, they must not be taken too seriously. That said, Peterson denies--as do I--that in the West men are oppressing women, or that there is a male patriarchy, or a white male patriarchy oppressing or holding back women in any serious manner. The West and America in particular are essentially egalitarian towards women and any other grievance-prone identity group. There is always room for improvement. This is not too deny that there is tension between men and women. Jordan suggests that the discovery and widespread use of the pill gave women reproductive freedom, and that since men are lost and confused about gender roles, and women are lied to to be told that being a wife and mother is not their career, only a work career is important for them. Jordan is mostly right here, but I suggest that women should have it all, have their cake and eat it too, but they need a monogomous partner whom they are married to to help them raise their children, provide enough income and to share their lives with. Most men and women are binary,and are fulfilled in loving relationships. Men should have no problem with strong, career-oriented women, and women should want men that are virile, mature, confident, powerful (competent not domineering--the latter is mere corruption, Peterson notes). Peterson also lambastes society that deemphasizes masculinity, calling it toxic and pathological. That is oppressing men and boys, disallowing them the competence, and self-empowerment to be able to self-realize as competent, forceful adults. Where men and women love each other, and cooperate and share power and child-rearing, most of their power struggling and clashes should be reconcilable, to the satisfaction of both parties, most of the time. In short, men should not oppress women, and nor should the cancel culture and woke men-haters of social justice bent with axes to grind, any longer be allowed to assail, put down, gaslight and demean men and boys. This new class of oppressors must be forestalled from attacking men just for being men. Let me quote from Rose's belief #1: "1. A Female Supremacy Movement Exists--feminism is a form of female supremacy." My response: Yes, female supremacy movement exists and its advances at the expense of very masculine men, and radical feminism, not reasaonbel feminism, is a form of female supremacy. This movement likely represents a small, but noisy, influential branch of the feminist movement, and is a small percentage of women, but it must not be underestimated or go unopposed, or it will gain ground. Men must oppose it while sending strong messages of love and respect for women, and expressing a willingness to get out of the way of any woman seeking to advance herself by self-realizing as an artist, intellectual, employee, entrepeneur, mother or wife. I would not want to see female supremacy over men dictating reverse supremacy, female oppression of men socially, culturally, economically or legally, and I fear that there is the coming trend pushed by radical feminists that really are Marxist social justice warriors, and they are man-haters out to subjugate men. Regular, moderate feminists are just fine, but I suggest that women, like any identity group, find liberation as self-actualizers and individualists not by quotas and artificial elevated position not based on merit but on genitalia, as promoted by equality of outcome standards. That is a non-starter, doing nothing for women or for men. Radical feminists are not useful or to be heeded. Let me quote from Rose's belief #2: "Women Are Illogical And Manipulative--It would appear that the Red Pill Community feels that while women are capable of being logical, they're more likely to allow their emotions to get the best of them, affecting their ability to make decisions. This causes women to be seen as erratic and fickle to all these wise, logical men in the world. These guys also feel that women are manipulative and persuasive, skills they use to as a form of 'mental violence' towards men since physical violence is against the law. Obviously, the guys who decided all thing have never had relationships with other men before." My response: Let me begin by repeating what I have written many times before in many places, comparing and contrasting men and women. I believe that women are a little smarter than men are on average, but women are also a little bit naturally more emotional on average, and men are naturally a little bit more logical than are women. Women are a little more evil than men, and men are a little more good on average, naturally, biologically, ethically and spiritually than are women. The reason for this is how I define moral and spiritual goodness. God is more rational, individualist, more masculine and pro-order, creative, moderate and temperate. Satan is more emotional, collectivist, more feminine, pro-chaos, more destructive, immoderate and extreme. Men are slightly better morally than are woman, naturally, because they are more egoistic (Love or good love is mostly self-love, out of which all other forms of love flow.) and women, biologically and innately are more self-loathing (Altruism or selflessness are really self-hatred, and all forms of hating others grow out of this low self-esteem.) These points made, as a given reality for humans, there is much room for optimism. Women can be who they naturally are, but with some training in the desirable, masculine virtues ascribed above, they can become womanly kind, strong, intelligent human beings that can work with and challenge themselves, other women, their male partners and their children. These starting points need not be the destiny of women and all humanity. Women may be slightly more illogical and manipulative than men, but most men run in collectivist packs and that leads to the over-feminization of all men and women that stay group-living. This barbaric communal structure holds humanity back and down. When and if both women and men individual-live and individuate, these very masculine states of existing, they will be logical more than emotional, and authentic, sincere, and abandoning game-playing and manipulation for pursuit of honest relations and open communications. Thee must be no more abuse of anyone by anyone, either emotional, verbal, psychologial or phsyical. Let me quote from Rose's belief #3: "Women are hypergamous--Apparently, women are only interested in men who are superior to them. The Red Pill Community believe that women seek out hypergamy, which is the act of marrying someone in a higher class system. Whether it's not having a lot of money or holding a high position in society, women don't look at men they see as inferior to them let alone marry them. These men are invisible. Women in relationships will then cheat with men they feel are more superior than their partner. And this is ALL women . . . Apparently hypergamy can be kept in check by 'a conservative upbringing and strong male family presence,' otherwise we'll be constantly looking to upgrade our relationships." I do not know of any of my blue collar coworker peers that think like this--which I why I think Peterson is right that the idea of backlashing against feminists is mostly online taunting and excess. Some of this may be that young men do not have proper upbringing, encouragement and training on how to be manly, strong, industrious, responsible, strong and exhibiting leadership skills. That women far outnumber man now in college is a sign that there will be a coming educational and class difference and gulf between young American men and women, so that growing gulf might fuel online complaining and whining about college-educated women that may seem haughty, hypergamous or snooty to blue-collar men. My guess is most Red-pillers are attending or attended college. My recommendation to young men would be to become and act manly but be courteous and respectful and protective of dates or potential mates, but never patronizing or seeking to dominate a potential partner. If a guy is clean, fit, articulate, considerate, polite, upbeat, well-behaved, gentlemanly, gainfully employed, and self-educating and self-actualizing, he should be attractive to some if not all women that he meets. If he is a Christian or conservative with family values, and traditional values, so be it, and he should find a partner that goes along with that set of values. Patience is necessary. Men should be manly and macho, but never bullying. They should think for themselves, ever educating themselves, and curious about everything, and yet gun-loving, America-loving, liberty-loving men that are mature, fit partners for mature, loving women. Let me quote from Rose's belief # 4: "Women Need Men More Than Men Need Women." My response: I do not know the answer to this one, I think most women and most men, binary and heterosexual, need a life partner to share with and to have children with. There are exceptions of course. Women may seek commitment more than sex, and men might seek sex more than commitment. Both men and women need each other and are not as a rule meant to live alone. Perhaps this needs to be decided on an individual basis. Let me quote from Rose's belief # 5: "Women Are Depreciating Assets--The only value women hold are their beauty and their fertility." My Response: This male fantasy belief reveals the callow, shallow, selfish, immature, hedonistic, cynical view of a young male out to "love them and leave them." We all age and are no longer so fertile, sexy and physically desirable. Marriage is a sacred sacrament from God and is part of natural law, and most of both women and men are to marry, settle down, be monogomous, have and raise children according to God's law and presence in the blessed family. In light of this traditional take on adult women, it is obvious that women are an appreciating asset to be love, cherished, and enjoyed as lifelong companions for better or worse, through sickness and health, until at death they do part. Let me quote from Rose's belief # 6: "The 80/20 Rule--According to these Red Pill nutjobs, 20 percent of men are having sex with 80 percent of women. That leaves 80 percent of the world's men without a swxual partner, which seems quite illogical. But these guys seem to think men are entitled to have sexual partners whether women are interested or not. And it all has to do with family values.'Only in conservative pro-monogamy communities is each man guaranteed a wife within his relative social league. Guaranteed a wife. Sounds like the kind of society I denfintely want to be part of." My Response: Who writes such beliefs?--are these Red Pill writers a bunch of virginal, computer nerds that only talk to themselves like a bunch of girl-fascinated, girl-obsessed but frozen, willless, scared boys in the 7th grade, at the school dance, afraid to leave the clique of their buddies to go invite a girl on the other side of the gym to dance? If they are 25 now and still not crossing the gym to ask the girls for a dance? If such, they are in a state of severely arrested social and psychological development. I recall reading on line about the huge number of young Japanese--mostly young men I believe--so into computers and the cyber-world that they seemed to have no interest in sex or even a serious relationship with a member of the opposite sex. Perhaps that is what we are dealing with here. It seems aberrational to me, and these young men need Jordan Peterson to educate them on how to act like heterosexual men, grow up, assume adult responsibility, how to work, clean up their rooms, get clean, educated, sociable, making good money and learn how to interact with women with courtesy and respect so that the vast majority of them are able to find women willing to sleep with them or wed them. No one is entitled to a sexual partner or a marriage partner, and society should never force the issue. All such match-ups must be and remain voluntary. I do not know if 20 percent of the guys are getting 80 percent of the women--I suppose psychologists should have studies already done on this--but if young men self-improve as suggested above, most of them will find someone to have sex with or to marry. Still, a few may never find such a partner, and I can say is that life is not fair. Maybe the rejected few should go hire a prostitute for sexual relief, and then get on with living and inviduating alone--they are not to turn bitter against women or society and attack or kill women out of revenge. That is wrong and inexcusable. Mark Levin is, I think, one of the most brilliant, insightful, decent and well-situated politcal philosophers in America today. His number one take on America is that our whole national experiment has been a Constitutionally-guaranteed, federally structured, political and legal framework that allows each individual citizen the opportunity to express his personal liberty as he sees fit. The protection of and pursuit of liberty for all Americans is our mission today as Leftists conspire to grow tyranny and socialism to eradicate personal liberty and freedom of conscience. If each man would exercise their share of national power, as a private citizen expressing his liberty as he will, how could he in any way force a woman to marry him or have sex with him? Each American woman too has her God-given natural right to express her liberty as she sees fit, and who she sleeps with or marries or not is no one's damn business, and if Red Pill Community would have a problem with this, then they are still digesting the blue pill. Her expression of her personal liberty as an individual and individuating American is the only legitimate form of feminism that is to be sold to women. Let me quote Rose's belief #7: "White Men Aren't Privileged--Redpillers believe that any woman are non-white male who achieves something or outperforms them cheated somehow. For example, if a woman receives a promotion at work over a man, those of the Red Pill Community will likely believe that she performed some kind of sexual favor or used her manipulation skills in order to get ahead. They wouldn't ever think that she actually worked hard and deserved the promotion. That thought just wouldn't cross their mind. When white men have an advantage over women or those of color, it's because they're simply better at the task at hand. Redpillers don't believe race or gender has anything to do with their positions in society. Even though the community's beliefs are far from traditional, their little cult continues to grow. As you can imagine, this concerns the public as the Red Pill Community have some twisted view on rape, racism and a woman's position in society. They are thought of as a gateway community to the alt-right, aside from other creative labels people have come up with. If you're a woman, a person of color, or anyone with an ounce of common sense, then this definitely isn't the kind of group you want to befriend." My response: Rose Burke seems bright, articulate and aware. She is also a Leftist. She obivously believes in White Male Privilege, which tells me most of what I need to know about her worldview. If you espouse white male privilege, you are for Marxism, social constructionism, critical race theory, radical feminism, wokeness, and the entire racial and social justice memed diatribe. All lives matter in America, and all enjoy privilege here, including white males, roughly no more or no less than any other identity group. Dennis Prager claims only two privileges matter in America: that you are born in America, and that you grew up in a two-person family. I would add a third privilege--if you were trained in my Mavellonialist philosophy, you stell achievement would follow, with no consideration required about who was trying to hold you down or back, it would be irrelevant as you would be unstoppable, no matter what series of identity groups that you belong to. Where Leftists blame white males in America for unearned success, favoritism and discrimination, where Redpillers, if Burke is accurate in representing them of accusing women and people of color here of getting ahead without merit and competence, based on sexual favors, manipulation, connections or quota system favoritism, then both sides are to be condemned. What are they missing? We Americans enjoy liberty and wondrous opportunities for success at work and in business if we work hard and apply ourselves. We need not worry about how others, men, women or people of color, got ahead or did not. Our job is to self-realize and become so skilled, brilliant, productive and valuable to our employer and society, that we enjoy impressive personal success. To worry about who is an oppressor or who is oppressed, or who got there by being favored or discriminated against, these whiners with their rage, their ingratitude their self-pity, their willingness to quit and settle for third place achievement, their grieveance-carrying appeal to the government, to HR and to lawyers to enforce stultifying equality of outcome limits on all so that the winners cannot go farther or have more than the losers or the mediocre performers, is in the best interest of no one. If some or all the the Redpillers are collectivists, then they do belong with the alt-right collectivists that could grow into a fascist movement. That is very dangeorus and quite undesirable. Prager points out repeatedly that the Left, the alt-Left (which is not the Democratic Party running our government) is very dangerous and very powerful in America right now, and journalists like Burke that do not recognize how authoritarian, radical, revolutionary, cruel, violent, intolerant, hateful and hating are these tyrants, these true-believing Maoists bringing their Marxist mass movement down upon America, fundamentally transforming the best country in the world into a socialist dictatorship into perpetuity. Under the guise of being compassionate, noble and idealistic, the proponents of social and racial justice are are Leninists at the bottom: the world is comprised of tribe versus tribe, and all history is an endless, brutal record of warring rivals, and victory is what happens when one's tribe comes out on top. It is 1917 in America and the Bolsheviks are at the gate of the czar's castle.