Nearly Fanatical

I am close to being fanatical about protecting natural rights held be each citizen, libertarian prerogatives of the American voter, and the wondrous sovereignty, the underpinning of individual expression of one's liberty, guaranteed under our federal Constitution.

Wayward Idealist

Dear Idealist: you mean well but you could not be more mistaken. America is built on premise that the individual is sovereign, and that liberty is how he applies his reasoning power to decide how to live. Should he or she choose to refuse being vaccinated, that should be the end of the story. For the state to mandate this legal and divinely inspired exercise of personal power, the state will then no longer be a constitutional republic, but a totalitarian Leftist monster. At that point, it would be the legal and moral obligation of every American, vaccinated or not, to take up arms to overthrow the Marxist, thuggish, vicious totalitarian Leviathan that would then rule this land. Your idealism and concern for the public good are commendable, but the cruel, brutal state and its backers that would legislate such an evil mandate, is one that does not deserve to rule a proud, free people. When Idealists resort to support of tyrannical control of the people to compel obedient behavior, their noble goal is so fouled by cruel, inhuman means of enforcement, that their reform is now pernicious to the common good, and the injury to the republic can not be countenanced or tolerated.

Genesis 3:17-19

Adam disobeyed the Lord and was punished for his sins of disobedience and eating the forbidden fruit. The following verses from Genesis depict Yahweh;s judgment passed upon Adam for his trangressions (from my 1970 The New American Bible): "To the man he said: 'Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat, 'Cursed be the ground because of you! In toil shall you eat its yield all the days of your life. Thorns and thistles shall bring it forth to you, as you eat of the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face shall you get bread to eat, Until you return to the ground, from which you were taken; For you are dirt, and to dirt you shall return.' God holds Adam accountable: he was supposed to lead the family and be in charge of his wife, but he allowed himself to be convinced by her to eat the forbidden fruit, and God does not go easy on him for allowing himself to be manipulated, thought for, steered, ill-advised, tempted and then to succumb to the temptation from the serpent, seeking to corrupt all humankind by taking out the leader, working to seduce and corrupt him through the conduit of his wife, and it worked. God is angry with Adam, and divine justice is visited upon him. God cursed the ground of the earth so that humans now had to work and work hard to grow food, find shelter, and make a living. Now cast out of the Garden of Eden, they have to scramble to eke out a living, stay warm and not starve. Now they must work all the time just to make it. Thorns, thistle, pain, sickness, mosquitoes and flies inflict disease and hurt upon suffering humanity from thence forward. Mortality is now the human lot. Yet, I cannot but wonder if the Fall of Man was not intended deliberately by God to lead the the Rise of Man. As mortals, suffering natural afflctions and malevolence, struggling on earth to make a living, and to build an ethical and religious success, humans now are awake, alert tuned-in cratures with free agency. I believe to have the chance to make something of oneself, to make the world just a smidgeon better, to serve God and others in some modest way, these are real, positive, meaningful gifts that the individuator can give back to others, society and eventually up to God Deself, and it is a wonderful existential responsibility and opportunity. Let me quote the same verses from the Holy Bible (King James Version): "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thous shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou shall eat of it all the days of your life. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it was thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." The earth that was, before the Fall, heaen on earth, provided for their every need effortlessly; but now that the original sin was their heritage, Adam and Eve, and all their offspring going forward, were now biological creatures living on a mere, planet, hospitable to life. There they would struggle to make a living and survive, their, humans (half mortal beast and half immortal angel). Humans must work, suffer and die from then on, and that seems to be a blessing more than a curse.

Genesis 3: 16

Jehovah was irate and displeased with the woman, so divine justice dictated that she be punished (We have free will to choose to do sin and evil, but there will be consequences, sometimes in this world, and sometimes in the afterlife. We are free but either we work with and for God, or we do not, and God rewards or punishes us accordingly.). Here is what Yahweh said to the woman (from my 1970 The New American Bible): To the woman he said: "'I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.' This may seem like divinely sanctioned punishment to modern feminists and will enrage radical feminists. All sorts of mammals endure the pangs of childbearing, and we as mammalian creatures, our women will endure the same, so this may be less of a punishment than God's observing the obvious--that women bring life into the world, and much suffering, pain and sacrifice are the price paid for bringing a lovely child into the world. Women live, and women die, but without women, wives and mothers, there is no continuation of our species. Women are meant to marry and bear children--that is not their entire career, but it is a huge part of it. Within the tribal, nomadic culture of the ancient Hebrews, under that patriarchy, women feel and natural sexual drive and urge to cleave to their spouse--and vice versa--for procreation and pleasure--and men there were the masters of women. Now, in the time of Mavellonialism when women and men are invited by the Divine Couple to maverize as individuals and living angels, men are not the masters of the women that they are married to; they are partners, coequals, that walk side by side, hand in hand, in mutual love, respect and affection. Here is verse 16 from the Holy Bible (KJV): "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

Genesis 3:14-15

Jehovah was furious with the serpent for tempting Adam and Eve (From the 1970 The New American Bible): "Then the Lord God said to the serpent: 'Because you have done this, you shall be banned from all animals and from all the wild creatures; On your belly you shall crawl and dirt you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head and you will strike at his heel." The footnote in that Bible (Page 6) refers to he as Jesus Christ the Redeemer and the Son of God that will ultimately defeat Satan. There seems to be an ancient visceral repulsion between humans and reptiles, especially snakes, so it may be fitting that the slithering, sneaky, cunning, unctuous, reptilian snake is the animal symbol of Satan jealous of and dragging down warm-blooded humans, the favorites of Yahweh, now doomed to demotion, suffering, travail, sin, sickness and death. Satan and his legions, it is implied here, will ultimately be defeated after Christ the Redeemer dies on the cross so that human sins may be forgiven, and that the way of heaven will be opened, and that the House of God will triumph with the coming of Judgment Day. Whether evil is vanquished by good forever or not (I believe these forces are eternally combatting, and each one takes turns winning or losing in different epochs.), it is obvious that Satan rules this world, and all that are good and loving fight the good fight to restore earth to godly rule. Here are these verses in the Holy Bible (KJV): "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly thou shalt go, and dust thou shalt eat all the days of thy life; And I put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." God cursed and punished the serpent with one of the most powerful curses imaginable. What were Satan's sins? Satan interfered with God's plan for his newly created humans, and sowed rebellion and hatred where love and comity were the bond between Yahweh and the First Couple, that bond of trust and affection now shattered. It could be that the Tree of Life bore fruit that Adam and Eve eventually could have tasted, once they were worthy of receiving so wondrous a gift, a gift offered when they were ready, and when God was willing to share it. God have given them everything else, but held this in reserve, and they violated his commandment that it was forbidden. Perhaps the historical time for them to receive such a marvelous gift had no arrived. They ignored God's timetable, and thought that they knew better than De, which they did not, and their competing insouciantly with God did hurt and anger God. Though people are born evil, part of them is still good or potentially angelic, so the war between Satan and humans is eternal or nearly so long, as these bitter enemies duke it out physically, spiritually and biologically in each person, every day of her life, until the end of time.

Pure Evil

Yes, whites are now discriminated against. We are the new Jews as this reverse racism is now the new anti-Semitism. This institutionalized racism by Leftists and others against whites can lead to pogroms, death camps, genocide and race war. It is pure evil.

Genesis 3:8-13

Let me quote from my 1970 The New American Bible: "When they heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the garden at the breezy time of the day, the man and his wife hid themselves from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. The Lord God then called to the man and asked him, 'Where are you?' He answered, I heard you in the garden; but I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid myself.' Then he asked, 'Who told you that you were naked? You have eaten, then, from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat!' The man replied, 'The woman whom you put here with me--she gave me fruit from the tree, and so I ate it.' The Lord God then asked the woman, 'Why did you do such a thing?' The woman answered, 'The serpent tricked me into it, so I ate it.' Note that the Lord God moved move through the garden, so God has a body and physical presence of some kind. De had given Adam and Eve and Satan the gift of free agency. God then instructed them on what to do and what not to do. They agreed or appeared to agree to be willing to obey God, but temptation came their way, they sinned, broke God’s commandment to them, and were punished. We cannot violate divine law, natural law, legal code or social rules without suffering and being punished for our poor choices made. To be awake and to be free, to touch and eat from the Tree of Life is to enter the earthly realm, to encounter pain, pleasure, suffering, joy, want, hunger, disease, criminal behavior committed by other humans or oneself, mortality, love, hate, good and evil. One is no longer immortal, eternal, unchanging, pure good or pure evil. They knew that they were naked, and they felt ashamed, embarrassed, frightened and a need to hide in order that they could evade God, an impossibility. God knew everything, what they had done and why. To disobey God is to sin, and as soon as they sinned, this First Couple felt ashamed. It indicates that we, to some degree are naturally endowed to know right from wrong. Notice how Adam place the blame for his sinning on Eve and notice that Eve placed the blame for her sinning on the serpent. No one ever easily mans up and confesses straight away that he sinned and that it is his fault, solely and personally. Let me now quote the same lines from the Holy Bible (KJV): "And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. And the Lord God called unto Adam, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded the that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, the woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the Lord God said unto the woman, what is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, the serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." God walks and speaks just like a human being. If God is so like humans, or vice versa, and God made Adam and then made him a wife, could I not assume that the Father is married to the Mother? Adam and Eve fruitlessly sought to hide from God to avoid having to answer for their sinning. We too believe that we can hide from God, deceive God, out-maneuver God. Their efforts failed, so why should we hope to succeed where they failed? My sense of this story about being thrown out of the Garden of Eden was not a fall from grace, but a nudge to liberate these two first parents, and all of subsequent humanity. By enjoying and exercising free agency, by sinning and being virtuous, by living and dying, the fall from grace was actually a gesture of love and trust, that God liberated humans so that they could lead meaningful, responsible lives and earn a chance to become someone fine, developed and loving. Still, leaving God's side in perfect goodness, happiness, pure love and immortal bliss is indeed a fall from grace, be the ejection merited or purposively undertaken by God to boot humans out into the real world, where they have maximum liberty to build a life of their own. I cannot tell if the ejection was a punishment or hidden gift. For the pious, the devoted, the loving and wise, fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. But Adam and Eve were utterly without wisdom when they ate the forbidden fruit, but their consciences (innate sense of personal shame) kicked in and then they were afraid of God. It could be that Jehovah forbade their eating from the tree of life and knowledge because no life is meaningful, unless some standard of minimally acceptable behavior is commanded of us by God. In the Garden of Eden, humans and God easily saw each other, were comfortable with each other, and conversed readily with each other. After the Fall, God removes Deself from humans, and is invisible, largely unheard and remote. One would need grow in love, talent, truth, brilliance and wisdom to be authentic enough and awake enough to see and talk to God a personal level. I am fascinated that nakedness in Eden was not something for humans to be much aware of, let alone be ashamed of. After the fall, their nakedness is vulnerability, to be covered up, to survive in an unfriendly world.

Heroicism

I am an individualist and insist that enlightened self-interest is more about self-discipline than self-indulgence, more about delayed gratification than immediate succumbing to temptation and desire. I admire courage in individuators but do not agree that self-sacrifice--up to and including giving up one's life in service to one's country or for the sake of one's cause--is the moral high ground, and one's duty to fulfill, unless it cannot be avoided. In that instance, it is one's duty to sacrifice oneself for others, the country or one's faith. That being granted, life is for the living, and living well and doing well requires that one live and stay alive to enjoy life to the fullest, even if that does mean staying alive at any cost, including betrayal of one's moral values and training. We should suffer, self-sacrifice and deny ourselves as we must, but we also should seek to be should be happy, seek joy, imaginative wonders and fabricate such creations based on this--these are a few of the results of living life with wonder, enjoyment and enthusiasm.

The Double Curses

Max Sterner worried and raised the alarm that duped egoists would form mass movements as they regarded the abstraction, their cause, as the one true cause to advance in the world, to unite around, and be willing to sacrifice everything that one has or is (including one's life) to serve this sacred cause. His legitimate criticism of the dangers posed by people worshiping and advancing their sacred ideal was based in fear that collectivized people, a mass movement, could lead to totalitarianism, murder, concentration camps, war, sever poverty, starvation and an utter loss of freedom and self-management. Stirner was correct in pointing out that excessive rational devotion to some mere abstraction would lead to very bad things. Where he was incorrect, among other things, was failing to point out that the feeling, sentimentality, ardent or "new citizen" passion in service of extending the range and power of the beloved 'sacred abstraction. It is a curse upon humanity for people to group-live, to form mobs--to over sell the expression of ism with too much fervency or too narrow and totalistic concluding in reasoning about how thinking must be arranged. Each human is to be moderate in thought, word, feeling and deed when thinking about perpetuation of his favorite ism, so that excess or meager passion or reasoning do not distort his relation to his cherished cause.

To Reconcile This

\ I admire Jordan Peterson deeply as a brilliant, ethical, truth-telling man that has done an awful lot of good. His insistence on the inescapability for humans to organize themselves socially within hierarchical structures, and that is how it is to be with the brightest and most competent running things at the apex, with the majority of people trapped and without power, money or options at the broad base of the hierarchy. But, as Eric Hoffer so eloquently disagrees, American history and experience repudiates Peterson's conclusions. Hierarchical society with class system, tyranny, near slavery with the oppressed having no power, money or say, and the few oppressor at the the top wielding most of the money, power and say--that is the historical human story, that fell apart in America. Here upward mobility is a real possibility if anyone works hard, relentlessly. They will improve their lot, and this meritorious competence has much less to do with intelligence, but much more to do with self-discipline and hard work. I know to the core of my being that hierarchies, class systems and elites running things is a system that sickens, corrupts and thwarts being liberated for all humans. Hierarchies are an instincitive arrangement for humans to erect, construct and maintain but the degree to which lawful, legal, well-planned anarchy or minarchy replaces hierarchical society in most of its institutions, whose citizens grow into individuating supercitizens, able to manage their own affairs without much state regulation or interference. A society of constitutional republicnim nd free market economics will allow a nation of individuating anarchist to create a classless soceity of uppermiddle class superachievers. This is the future not for Jordan to reintroduce a caste system. There will always be a caste system but it must be weak and not influential and central to releasing people to run their own lives.

From God

Yes, guns do come from God, and there should be just about zero regulation on the individual American's right to keep and bear arms, to fend off criminals, crazies, terrorists, foreign invaders and federal tyrants.

The Fall of Man: Genesis 3: 1-7

That is the title of Chapter 3 from my 1970 The New American Bible. Let me quote from it: "Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the Lord God made. The serpent asked the woman, 'Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?' The woman answered the serpent: 'We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, 'You shall not eat it or touch it, lest you should die.' But the serpent says to the woman: 'You certainly will not die! No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it you will be like the gods who know what is good and what is bad.' The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eye and desirable for gaining wisdom. So, she took some of its fruit and ate it; she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they were naked; so, they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves." Now Satan lied to them, assuring them that they could eat the forbidden fruit and yet remain immortal. Those that eat or touch the forbidden fruit of experience in this world as a free agent knowing good and evil, and living and dying, is now a mortal creature, neither an immortal good angel or an immortal devil. Adam and Eve likely were meant by God to eat the forbidden fruit. God is strong and secure. God wants the higher love of free agents that turn to God because they are good and holy and just, not just adoring, immortal robots that praise God and can do nothing else. Note that the first couple are husband and wife, so marriage is between a man and a woman. Note that Satan is depicted as a cunning serpent or dragon, a creature that seems to be a symbol of chaos, hate, or evil, while God is likely a human type creature, a symbol of order or goodness or love. Note that the serpent was made by God. God is more powerful and is prior to De's creations, but God made an evil Satan or at least instilled in Satan free will to choose to obey and follow God or disobey and oppose God. Note too that the serpent approaches Eve first, and this may be a primordial symbol that women are a bit more wicked than men, so that all satanic plot to taint and bring down all humankind was more likely to bear fruit if the evillest human was tempted and converted to the dark side first, and this strategy by Satan worked. First, he led Eve into sin, and she helped Sa lead Adam into sin. When God instructs Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge, it tells us several things. First, Adam and Eve are not pure goodness or pure good robots even when just created and innocent of sinning, in their existence in the Garden of Eden. God has given them the great but paradoxical gift of free will or agency. They can choose to do good or do evil, and this indicates that they have dual natures in their hearts and souls, part demon and part angel. This is also indicative of how alive/intelligent life forms of dual natures are not protected from doing evil and being evil by instinctive programming that renders then good robots or machines incapable of sinning, for all they can do is to be good. That Adam and Eve are bestowed with free will does require that they need commandments explicitly written and stated for them in accordance with which they have the opportunity to be good and build a decent life for their families. When Eve and Adam eat the forbidden fruit, they have become free, have sinned, and disobeyed God, for which their original sin will be visited upon all of their descendants until the end of time. They are condemned to die, have fallen and are disgraced in the eyes of God. The forbidden tree of knowledge, for me, seems to symbolize free choice, awakened consciousness, and experienced awareness of good and evil alternatives. As first humans, Adam and Eve, like good angels are made good, so they can only be good. The fall from grace pushes that alive free agent away from God and heavenly bliss, so it is a fall in that way. With the Fall of Man, the arrival and Promotion of Satan and Lera to run our world is the result. The Fall of Man paradoxically is the rise of man, a blessing in disguise. For in coming awake, with free agency, the first human couple then became mortal, unlike the immortal angels of God. By falling into the world and suffering, they learn of good and evil, and this could lead to wisdom. They were naked with their vulnerability exposed and Jordan Peterson they were now aware of and embarrassed by their newly discovered vulnerability. Note that the serpent tempts them with the ambition that they will know as much as the gods, it seems like Satan wants the first couple and their offspring to compete with God, and that is very Jewish and Christian. God does not want us to compete with De, but God does want us to realize our full potential, and that performance per human is expected, even demanded by God Finally, they did disobey a direct order from God, and that is sinful. Note also that the serpent lied to Eve and Adam, and thus from early on sin and lying are inextricably wound together. Here is the same Genesis quote from the Holy Bible (KJV): "Now the serpent was more subtitle than any other beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden. And the woman said unto the serpent, we may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. But the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die; For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and it was pleasant to the eyes, and the tree was desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and also gave unto her husband with her, and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons." God gave them orders on how to act and to straight on the straight and narrow path, and they sinned and disobeyed God. They exercise freedom, choice and free will to some degree. They also have more confidence in themselves than in the advice and commands of brilliant God. Satan the serpent tempts them that they can gain knowledge and power, enabling them to rival and compete with mighty Jehovah, once they eat from the tree of knowledge. I do not deny that people compete with God, but I deny that the effort could ever be successful. The solution is to insist upon doing one's own thing with boundaries that must include ding God’s will as best that one can ascertain what that will is. If their eyes were not opened until after they ate the forbidden fruit and sinned, how could they exercise free will they knew what they were doing. By sinning they did enter the mortal world, and their life and death struggles with experiencing and sinning allowed them to have a soul to be judged by God, a free soul able transcend petty personal concerns, and rise up to serve e God and know good and evil, right and wrong as a personal commitment.

The Similarities

Tom Shactman's biography contains many new revelations about Eric Hoffer. The biography, American Iconoclast, has shown me two things at least. First, there is an existentialist streak in Hoffer that is similar to the one in Jordan Peterson. Both men are agnostic, or at least unwilling to be specific about God existence, personality and purpose. Both men are fascinated with the Old Testament and Dostoevsky. Let me quote from this biography, Page 22 about Hoffer: "The Pentateuch was a revelation, though not a religious one. 'What grandeur, vividness, and freshness of perception, ‘he later wrote, using terms he also used to praise Dostoevsky. The Old Testament's pages reflected 'a primitive mentality, naive, clumsy, bold and all-embracing,' and a Jewish people that imagined a lone God who made mankind in His image--a God that gave man the tasks of acting as He had, to create, to subdue nature, to build cities, and to live fully in the present. Hoffer was impressed that the ancient Jews have been so involved with the present that they did not bother to imagine a hereafter; and that several thousand years since the Old Testament had been written, its characters still came across as very 'real.'" Both Jordan Peterson and Eric Hoffer like historical people and fictional characters that are alive, lively, gritty, facing life head on, with all their flaws and suffering and sins laid bare, and some of them actually, heroically facing their suffering and hurt, and transcending it. It is gripping, real, truthful and authentic, and both these genius intellectuals relish the Bible and Dostoevsky.

Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism was a pseudoscientific set of theories, popular about 100 years ago, that suggested that Darwin's evolutionary concepts of natural selection and the survival of the fittest applied to people in economics, politics and culture. The fittest rise to the top and increase their clout and holdings, and the unfit that cannot keep up, lose ground ending up poor and at the bottom rungs of society. The strong take over and the weak lose out. Such an ideology can be racist, or this label could be used to characterize an especially harsh version of free market economics. I add quickly, that conservatives and capitalists in America championing the free enterprise system and lawful, peaceful competition has nothing to do with the law-of-the-jungle, brutal form of capitalism that Republicans and conservatives are accused of supporting and practicing. Let me quote this question and answer about social Darwinism that I found on the Internet: "What are the beliefs or social Darwinism? Social Darwinism is the belief that the individual is more powerful than society. It encourages a ruthless system of self-interest and intolerant treatment of others. Those who believe in social Darwinism believe that society is inferior to the needs of the individual." My response: "There may be some billionaires that claim that the individual is more powerful than society, that selfish individualism is their game, and that brutal competition to stomp anyone weaker into the ground is their way, to amass all wealth and power to oneself, but most individualists, conservatives and capitalists today would rephrase this to state that the right of the individual must be given precedent over the rights of society, but that the rights of society are very, very important and deserve serious consideration where conflict occurs. It is obvious that the individual is not more powerful than society, but an individuating anarchist super citizen would be powerful and competent, and as a populace of such achievers, society would be very powerful. It is self-interest and egoism that should be in ascendancy over other-interest and altruism, but the competition and cooperation among business people and workers vying for goods and services need not be ruthless, dishonest, corrupt, venal and predatory. Most individualist would treat others with tolerance and respect. Conservative emphasize individual needs over societal needs, under Mavellonialism, but the collective good concern is near and dear to us all, nonetheless. With my Google search of the phrase social Darwinism, the following piece came up--the same place as the one mentioned just above: "What are the principles of Social Darwinism? Social Darwinism was the theory that societies and classes evolve under the principle of "survival of the fittest.". Natural Selection eliminated weak persons and groups. Most Social Darwinists were, therefore, against improving the conditions of the poor." My response: Natural selection does influence who outcompetes whom, but the difference in strength, intelligence, will and diligence is not a matter of genetic difference, so much than if the person, of any race, color, gender or creed, has the right values to succeed. If the individual from any identity groups plans her life according to the principles of self-actualization, she can rise to the top of any hierarchy and Americans will not discriminate or block her in any significant way. Deep down, the poor, must save themselves, as self-actualizing individualists. They are poor because they are lazy, and they are criminals because they are immoral, not poor. An individuator will makes tons of money, and lead a moral, creative intellectually superior life. This right set of values is the gift that successful individualists can share with the poor--not much else makes any difference. Succeeding is a personal decision, and no one can save anyone else. If we succeed, it is our victory. If we fail, it is our fault, and ours alone. Only we as individuals can make ourselves win or lose in life. From that same Google search came the following quote: "What was the basic idea of Social Darwinism? Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is an ideology that became popular in the late 19th Century. The main idea behind Social Darwinism is essentially "the survival of the fittest". People used Social Darwinism to explain the reason why some societies are more advanced and wealthier than others." My response: People lie when the claim that the survival of the fittest makes some groups more advanced and other less developed and poorer. All humans from whatever identity group conceivable are all more or less created equal. With introduction to Mavellonialist values about the miraculous self-development opportunities through self-realization for any particular individual anywhere, it is nonsense and a bigoted lie to claim that certain groups are better off or more powerful than other groups due to their superior genes. That is crap. Some ethnic groups may be a little smarter or tougher or industrious naturally than another group, or have a better culture promoting more successful values leading to superior achievement, but with the right values, any individual, anywhere, at any time can soar like an eagle. Any other opinion here is pure rubbish. It is obvious that I do not like the concept of Social Darwinism, and I suspect that Leftist and Marxist intellectuals hurl these pseudoscientific labels at whites, capitalists, Americans, Christians, heterosexuals and men to offer a bogus justification for we alleged supremacists to justify our having all the wealth and power at the expense of those "downtrodden" identity groups that the Left regard as oppressed and held back here. America is a huge, multi-ethnic society, and is the least racist, unjust, intolerant country of its size in the world. People enjoy freedom prosperity, justice peace and the rule of law here, plus fantastic opportunities for material wealth acquisition if one works hard and goes after it. Thomas Shactman, the biographer of Eric Hoffer, may be a socialist. He labels Hoffer as a social Darwinist. Shactman seems to qualify this "accusation", but Hoffer is not social Darwinist as a racist, capitalist, white supremacist or billionaire robber baron from the late 19th century. Hoffer is an individualist that never babied himself, and he likes capitalism and American democracy and he wants people to make it on their own without a government handout. That is not social Darwinism, period. These are the values of a rugged individualist that wants all other Americans to man up, and bootstrap themselves into personal and material success, as rugged individualists, self-made people, that have made it. I want to clear Hoffer name from being demonized as a social Darwinist if I can. he was no selfish exploiter of anyone. He lambasted the rich for siding with the poor against the middle class, and he scolded the rich for being alienated but wealthy, and heir scions were some of the worst revolutionaries of the 60s and 70s. He also wrote eloquently and often about how the weak, the misfit, the outcast confounded the strong, and set society on its ear. Hoffer liked the competition inherent in the capitalist system, and he wanted each person to not baby herself and get rich or prosperous on her own, not by government largesse. That is not social Darwinism. Let me quote from Tom Shactman's book, American Iconoclast, Page 25: " . . . From his experiences as well, he developed his viewpoint, a version of 'social Darwinism.' Irreligious from childhood, and immersed in a lifestyle that reinforced at every turn the need for toughness and resilience, Hoffer evolved the view that human existence was governed, if at all, by the imperative to survive, and the concurrent belief that only the fittest survived . . . His version of social Darwinism also differs from that of others in that Hoffer's never included the usual concomitant belief that an individual either fights his or her way up the ladder of success or is consigned to failure. Hoffer's experience in work gave the lie to the idea that ambition was part of human natural selection. His smart and resourceful attributes had now and then become obvious to various employers--such as Faberstein--and they had offered him managerial opportunities. He had steadfastly rejected them, unwilling to leave the working class for the dubious perquisites of the supervisory or academic class. His refusal to rise was tied to his belief that survival was a relative concept, not an absolute, and that its degrees must be measured not alone by toting up material comforts, but must also factor in the individual’s assessment of himself--his own view of what he needed and wanted. Furthermore, although Hoffer was not an entrepreneur, he had the entrepreneur’s insistence that society was under no obligation to help any individual survive and, similarly, that governments ought not to do any large-scale tinkering with society. All that was required by individuals to prevail in a reasonable society, Hoffer was certain, was good availability of opportunities." Hoffer was for free market competition, but most individuals if healthy and sane, with the right values, should be able to succeed in America without government intervention or assistance. He was no social Darwinist, though Shactman mistakenly labels him as one. Hoffer took care of himself and expected others to do the same. His tough love approach to people making it on their own was not to exploit anyone, but to set people free to run their own lives. He competed but refused promotion because wealth and promotion disinterested him. He lived an austere, spartan existence in his one-bedroom apartment without phone, tv, or amenities. He was an intellectual and philosopher not a materialist or manipulator of his fellow citizens for gain.

Obey God

Obey God and you will be rewarded. Disobey God and you will be punished. The choice is yours: how you intend to live, and what will be the consequences now and later, for how you choose to live.

The Oppressed

In the 2010 Kris Klim edited edition of Eric Hoffer's newspaper columns, The Syndicated News Articles, on Page 237, Hoffer writes: "It is doubtful whether the oppressed ever fight for freedom. They fight for pride and power--power to oppress others. The oppressed want above all to imitate their oppressor; they want to retaliate." The Leftists, elitists and intellectuals, decrying and denouncing America as a corrupt, capitalist white male patriarchy, rotten beyond redemption to its core, only salvageable through violent revolution, to be reshaped and remade into a Marxist democracy and Ameritopia. All their championed current oppressed identity groups are being hailed by the Progressives not out of compassion or love for the people, for equality, freedom and justice, but for pride in ism (Communism and postmodernism) as a substitute for the bottomless self-loathing felt by these true believers completely frustrated and willing to abandon their flawed, empty lives and bankrupted selfhoods. They view the culture and values of the Modernist/Enlightenment ethos, that underwrite the American Experiment, as just subject truths and relativistic opinion espoused the by elite groups in power to justify their staying in power. What the Leftists really are after is total power, first to oppress those identity groups that they have identified as those running things: whites, males, heterosexual, Christians, conservatives, capitalists and individualists. Though they lie and denounce us awakened conservative that have their number, by denying that they are anything more than gentle, tolerant racial and social justice warriors out to get equality, economic justice, racial fairness, and inclusive treatment for all Americans. Those of us in the disfavored identity groups are to be enslaved, oppressed, targeted, ostracized humbled, and then attacked, tortured, sent to concentration camps and then wiped off the face of the earth. These aims are the current "oppressed" and their self-appointed saviors are after no matter how hard they deny. They will commence discriminating against their disfavored identity groups and then they will enslave, exploit, oppress, jail, torture and then murder dissidents and even conformers from every identity group. At the bottom, Satan and Lera are backing these revolutionaries.

Hierarchies

I have many blog entries over Jordan Peterson's insistence that humans are biologically destined to arrange their lives to live in hierarchies, and he is correct in one sense, and mistaken in another. He is correct in that the tendency is there, and there are ways for good people to live in hierarchies. He is mistaken in that we should only live in hierarchies minimally and wisely. I wish to add that Peterson is trying to get it right concerning hierarchies, but he requires help from my Mavellonialist philosophy to sort out this tricky subject of hierarchies. I wish to remind myself, and the reader, that I will later need to go back and review all these entries of mine on hierarchies and Peterson's take on them. Somehow, I sense my fascination with and objections to his insistence, about the primacy of hierarchical living for humans going forward, is a subject of vast significance, and one that I must flesh out and resolve. I am optimistic that I am close to coalescing a strong argument in my various, splintered blog entries on Peterson and hierarchies. With this in mind, I likely have made points in other blog entries of importance that need to be added to what is written below. Stay tuned. As naturally wicked creatures, and group-living nonindividuators, people by instinct to tend to arrange their lives in hierarchies, and that proclivity is 350 million years old Peterson suggests, and it did previously contribute to our surviving and flourishing at prior, historical periods and levels of development. Jordan wants us to live in hierarchies today based on competence with the best and brightest like himself an elite on top with the bulk of societal power, wealth, authority, wealth and position granted to this elite, and the mass of humanity, the have-nots, are told how to live, and get what is left over in some mass poor class grouping at the base of the societal triangles. I have worked for 50 years in public and private domains as a worker within institutional hierarchies. Based on this vast real-world experience as a natural individuator and great soul in the making, I know first had how constraining it is for a maverizer to work or exist within assembled, established hierarchies at work, at church or socially. My hunch is that existing within and operating within existing hierarchical structures is not the best way to run society in the future, a world in which each citizen likely will be working to develop herself as a living angel. I instinctively have long rebelled against such existing. I feel to my toes that working, praying, soldiering, learning or socializing in hierarchies sickens, corrupts and makes lethargic, wicked, stupid, selfish, cowardly, herd-creatured lazy and powerless all in that hierarchy, regardless of rank. The future requires at least four changes: First, to eliminate, flatten out, democratize, minimize and make as few levels of occupancy for people to live at along the rungs of the ladder of the hierarchy as possible. Second, liberation is the future for humanity if it is to strive, thrive, evolve, survive and be happy. An anarchist society of individuating supercitizens is one in which hierarchical living is minimized. A society of lawful anarchists is one with healthy power relationships among the citizens and workers. A society with rigid hierarchical institutions for every aspect of society is one with tainted, destructive power relationships, and all are enslaved. Third, hierarchical existence prevents people from gravitating to individual-living, the social arrangement most conducive to people dedicating themselves to life-long maverizing. Anarchists individuators require individual-living as their primary mode of existing, with group-living coming in secondary. Fourth, hierarchical existing keeps people from individuating, as crowd pressure in all hierarchies that the individual belong to exert overwhelming pressure on her to keep her back, down, mediocre, equal and listless. A society of shrewdly, prudently deinstitutionalized hierarchies is the society in which living and growing up in a community of lawful anarchists under a free market constitutional republic dominated by and run by supercitizens. Returning to current hierarchies, work-related and otherwise, the tyranny, corruption, incompetence, vast waste of talent, the lack of shared decision-making powers throughout all levels of the institution, makes for a top-down model preferred by Peterson, essentially elitist and authoritarian though that is not his intention--I hope. We need to flatten out the hierarchy with not too many levels of performance and position within an existing institution. A society will not flourish unless things and each institution and each hierarchy is more lawfully anarchist, populated by great souls. These mighty individualists will cooperate give orders and take orders the CEO but the institutional will be run from the bottom up, not the top-down which is what will happen if Peterson's view of hierarchies is not revised. He does not intend for his proposed competent hierarchies to deteriorate into tyrannical, dying institutions, run on the old Soviet style command and control czarist model, but that inevitably will be the end result. Eric Hoffer warns repeatedly that totalitarianism is the social set of structures run by intellectuals (Peterson's peers and fellow professors): these cruel, terrible elites are vicious tyrannical, favor severely institutionalized working and living, they are incompetent, inefficient, and heaps truckloads of suffering upon its residents within each structure. I also sense that Peterson, though very much an individualist, is more popular and group-oriented than I am. He seems revered by people as a guru and that social popularity social clout and adulation could color his scientific appreciation of the value of hierarchies and the need for intellectuals like himself to serve as philosopher kings at the pinnacle of the hierarchies to run things for people. To provide Peterson with a general appreciation of Hoffer's optimism about the little people running everything without much in the way of elite bosses, coupled with my additional input from Mavellonialism, that each little person as individuating anarchist supercitizen makes all average and elitist (superior performer)—simultaneously at the same time within each citizen—and that this creative, paradoxical existential positioning creates a citizenry so powerful and self-regulating, that this new state of affairs largely eliminates the need for hierarchical supervisions of the masses by an elite group of philosopher kings like Peterson gone bad-(and let the CEO or President be an average person—that would be Hoffer’s suggestion. I am going to quote three paragraphs from The Syndicated News Articles (Edited collection of Eric Hoffer's newspaper columns, brought together by Christopher Klim in 2010.); these paragraphs do not directly refute Jordan Peterson, but they provide a sense of Hoffer's warning against elites running things, and the need for the little people to run things, and that they are able to do it well, with proper training and the right values: Reflections On America, April 19, 1970: "People who lust for power are not likely to be happy in America. Here neither money or education equip a man for the attainment of power. The opportunities in America are for learning, experience, money, achievement, comfort freedom, but not for power. One of the chief problems a modern society has to face is how to provide an outlet for the intellectual's restless energies yet deny him power. How to make him a paper tiger. The intellectual will feel at home where an exclusive elite is in charge of affairs, and it matters not whether it be an elite of aristocrats, soldiers, merchants or intellectuals. He would prefer an elite that is culturally literate but will put up with one that is not. What he cannot endure is a society dominated by common people. There is nothing he loathes more than government of and by the people." From the second paragraph of this quote is can be detected that Hoffer fears and dreads how dangerous and destructive intellectuals in power are to a decent, free, prosperous, happy, capitalist society like America. Hoffer has detected THE problem of the modern world: intellectuals in power cause war, civil destruction, and install collectivist economies ruled by intellectuals favoring totalitarian rule over and control of the masses. That is hell on earth, to be avoided at all costs. Hoffer offers a solution: keep intellectuals out of power. But, he does not provide an answer as how this is to be done. This is where I come in: by setting up a society of individuating anarchist superitizens, the problems created by excessive institutionalization of society, tyranny from the top down by power-mad intellectuals, and the historical dilemma of power, wealth and authority ending up in the hands of a few, to the detriment of the many, is solved. Under my solution, power is kept decentralized and distributed among the powerful, competent, power-wielding confident supercitizens that are willful yet very virtuous and principled, so they will not have a political structure that allows them to centralize power and nor do they crave to centralize power to themselves and nor will they tolerate anyone else grabbing their share of the power. Liberty (The state of existing in which the individual wields his share of societal power as is his natural right without willing or being allowed to amass and abuse power belonging to each and any neighbor.) is the individual situation, whether regarded as a worker, socializer, or political participant, under which every citizen is roughly equal in power, wealth, talent and liberty as an accomplished individuator. All are common people, but talent development and talent dispersal are so evenly shared and universal enjoyed, that each citizen is common and elite or aristocratic in performance and talent expression, that there is no way for any intellectual to be so superior that he is able to grab power and wealth to himself to abuse others, having snatched all the authority, power and money to himself. This is how I propose to answer Hoffer’s recommendation hat we keep the intellectual a paper tiger. If we as workers or in some other hierarchy (be it social, etc.), let us wield maximum power possible to run our own affairs for the sake of the employer or the social mission but in our own way and by our own creative decisions, that the scope, size, centralized power and influence of work hierarchies and social hierarchies are minimized.

Hopeless

No matter how dire your circumstances are with suffering, evil and enemies closing in on you, you must not give up hope. If nothing else fight on, pray to God and do the best you can as long as you can. That is positive and hopeful, and that is no mean thing.

Prager And Values

The wise Prager often counsels us that with good values, people are unstoppable. With bad values, there is no hope for the sinners. Happiness, love, advancement and hope for a blessed afterlife might all elude them.

Obeying God

We are made in God's image and likeness. The Mother and the Father created us to emulate how they love, create, work, exist, lead virtuous lives and interrelate with other beings. When we act like they act, we obey them, and that makes them happy with us. When we refuse to do as they do, or remain ignorant or willfully blind to their wishes and commands, that is sinful disobedience, and they are then not happy with us. We do not want the Mother and Father to be angry with us. For the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

Your Ambitions

Many of the goals that you wish to achieve--part of your bucket list--are worthy goals and will bring you much happiness. But, ultimate happiness is a mature, solid relationship of faith and daily communion with the good divinity of your choice, in anticipation that this source of complete joy will carry on in the afterlife.

Language And the Postmodernists

One of the important and significant contributions, that the podcasts between Gad Saad and Jordan Peterson have made for me, is their emphasis on the tight relationship between the scope, depth, range and the sheer mastery and intelligibility of the correspondence between thinking and expressing this thought in words, and how those mental contents do or do not constitute certain knowledge for the human mind as its utilizes thought and language to communicate its interaction with the external world. Both thinkers, as far as I can discern, are fallibilists of some sort, arguing that the objective world exists, and that we can apply or thinking, communicating and mathematics to it with sufficient certainty that we may claim highly probable knowledge of the world of human subjects interacting meaningfully with the objective world. Gad may go farther and claim absolute knowledge about reality. I am some sort of fallibilist myself. All three of us, then, absolutely refute and condemn the Stirnerian/nihilistic/ postmodernist/Derridan assertion that there is either no objective reality, or that, if it does exist, it cannot be explained with absolute certainty by any human being. All we can know and express in words, that grow out of and are our subjective opinions. These opinions arise from communal creatures that group-live, and their interactions and private reflections arise out of and are delimited by language that is socially constructed. This social domain is reality for humans, and anything outside of this domain other does not exist, is unreachable, or cognitively meaningless and unintelligible. Saad and Peterson define postmodernists as positing that language determines reality. I deny this bleak epistemological view of human capacity for understand themselves, each other, and the world around them and outside of their social reality. Like Modernists, I am very optimistic epistemologically, if not absolutely optimistic epistemically. As we maverize, and as Mavellonialism is a theology and philosophy, in the coming decades, that humans mix with their native metaphysics and their religious outlooks, will enable humans to produce much knowledge about the world and our place in it. And our natural and symbolic language and mathematics will evolve to allow us to better express in words and numbers, the essence of these evolving, deeper thought patterns. Since God has an IQ of 60 trillion or more, God's thought processes and the divine language, that in words relays what the Mother and Father are thinking, symbolically conveys thoughts in words, the arranged and operating thoughts whirling about in these divine minds. The Mother and the Father are not the pure Absolute (that is Fate which is pure Absolute and pure Fragment at the same time and in the same place), but they are almost Absolute Divinities. Therefore, the divine language that captures what they are thinking or not thinking, is a language that accurately identifies the nature and happenings in objective reality out there while also impacting the unfolding of objective reality out there. This is not quite the Parmenidean line that Being, and Thought are the same, but it comes pretty close to that. Back to the postmodernists: if the divine langue used by the Good Couple and their angels is able to capture the essence of objective reality beyond the conscious of any sentient being in existence,--be that being biologically alive or spiritually existing--then I conclude that arguing that language use and development within the narrow confines of social goings-on within any human community, does not capture or circumscribe the existence of objective reality, and our ability to grasp and express the nature of that reality. If humans are meant by the Divine Couple to individuate and grow into living angels, then language, thoughts and our ability to perceive reality in a common-sense way that is expressible in rationally recognizable language and thoughts, indicates that modernism is our way forward. We cannot be good, rational, artistic great souls in-the-making unless we use language to express our meaningful thoughts. This is God’s will and expectation for us. The postmodernist view that language is reality and reality is language, all arising out of and confined to the social reality of the given community is to lead to group-oriented, nonindividuating, sinners and followers of Satan and Lera that favor existence in vast hierarchies covering every inch of society, a Marxist, totalitarian hell-on-earth. My other thought is that the Great Chain of Being metaphysic is reality, more or less, and that higher and higher levels of consciousness from angels just above humans in intelligence, in thought, goodness and language spoken, might be understood by the Divine Couple and even Fate Feself, but there languages used, spoken and written, might not be understood easily or at all or never completely by those at lower levels of existence and less awakened consciousness. It could well be that Satan and Lera and their demonic and human acolytes would have their own thought patterns, levels of awareness, and corresponding languages that they speak and think in, that outsiders may not readily comprehend or be able to translate or converse in.

To Live Forever

To live forever or for thousands of years spiritually is desirable and perhaps realistic. To live for other biologically likely is not a worthy goal, and would radical alter human sense of purpose, because they have only a few decades to make a difference, so they should not waste time getting going right out of the date.

Repent

You are born depraved. You suffer from original sin. Your lifestyle, actions and rebellion against God's will indicates you are sinful and in need to acknowledging your sin, then repenting and asking for God's forgiveness, and then atoning for your sins though you have been forgiven after you asked for God's mercy. Repent.

Believe

God exists and loves you. Believe, open your heart to God, allow God into your life and be saved.

Hunted

When a great soul has suffered much from the mob, the joiners, the nonindividuators--his enemies--that surround him, he tends to isolate himself, and be very wary and suspicious of their attempts to get close to him (His enemies can only hurt him if they can get under his careful defenses so they can get right next to him, to hit, hurt and wound him, perhaps fatally.) so they can further isolate and demonize this great soul to break him, end his political career, get him socially disgraced, silenced, arrested, perhaps imprisoned, even killed. This jealous, enraged mob will become more and more furious as he refuses to submit or surrender. They go into baying yips of rage and frustration as he goes on and on, refuting their hostility and program. They become more and more cruel and ruthless, willing and eager to be as vicious and terroristic as needed to break him and end his movement advocating human liberation. As the campaign by the howling mob ramps up, the fence straddlers that are semi-friendly or even more friendly than that do provide the ostracized, lonely great soul with some friendship, sympathy and support. The mob is cunning, and they identify the people around the great soul that provide comfort and companionship for him. The mob then approaches the fence straddlers and intimidates them, bluntly warning them to betray, spy on, attack or forsake the great soul. The mob warn them that they are making it easier for him to withstand their pressure, that they have been making it too easy for him. Either the fence straddles openly join him, or abandon him, or they will face the same harsh punishment that he is reeking. They are instinctively clever. They know that the fence straddles are weak, selfish and cowardly, terrified of being punished as the great soul is being punished. The fence straddlers will of course buckle and abandon the great soul so that he is utterly isolated. The fence straddlers will run for cover and the great soul will stand alone against the entire community or society. At this point the great soul is completely alone, but he will not apologize, he will not relent, he will not confess, he will go on never surrendering. He works for God and that is his calling, the howling mob to the contrary.

The Devil Exists

The Devil exists. Evil exists. It is not rare or undetectable: it is in your heart; you wear it on your sleeve; you practice it everyday. Yes, there is good but make it stronger and more widespread and its proponents victorious by working personally to make the world a better place everyday.

Margaret Hoover

My notes on Margaret Hoover, political commentator are shared below. I have some notes on her, perhaps that I jotted down from an interview that she conducted with Jordan Peterson. Here is what I believe that she said: "Men today are angry and confused by their loss of status, no longer the supreme gender so much. Cisgender white males are anxious, depressed, angry and feel lost and left behind by what they deem to be an evil revolution by women and Progressives that have passed them by. They keenly feel this loss of power and privilege as white males." My response: It is true that males, especially white males, feel left behind and reduced in status and respect here in America. Jordan Peterson is offering all young adults, but mostly young white men, a renewed sense of manly worth as they are finally encouraged by someone to become powerful, feisty, assertive, taking-charge and competent. This is not seeking white supremacy but revenge upon women, nor is it an attempt to reinstitute a corrupt patriarchy. Rather, young men need to be proud of themselves, and to go for it and make something of their lives. I would go farther than Jordan and urge them to individuate. Then their powerful, loving and competent presence and love in the world would make a huge difference to reverse the sagging fortunes of society. This need not be anti-feminism, or anti-any identity group. We do not build up those groups by tearing down men, especially white men. No one is to be torn down or discouraged going forward.

Gad Saad

Here are some things that Gad Saad said (my paraphrased notes): 'Postmodernists break down reality. They espouse that language defines reality totally; nothing exists outside of language. Yet, alien power motivation exists--now where did that come from outside of language? Language creates reality." My response: I am not a pure Objectivist as in Ayn Rand, but she is correct in insisting that reality exists independently of human consciousness. It, its beings, things and persons exist, whether ever perceived or not. Language does not define reality or create reality, but it is our conceptual and linguistic explanation of our encounter with the independently existing world. Still language does help us create social reality as we interpret the world that we encounter, enter, and exist within. Power does exist and comes from outside of language, but it is not the only, the basic or sole motivation for human interaction. Nor are human interactions only based on power struggle between groups. That is but one example of human motivation and how we interact.

Hypocrites And Liars

Reporters are hypocrites and liars, now, in America, for the most part. If one favors one group over other groups, one is not diverse, not equitable, racist and exclusive. If one favors the so-called oppressed identity groups, one is enlightened, noble and inclusive. If one favors conservative groups or men's groups, one is a hater. How about if all favor individuals over groups of any kind, that would actually be inclusive in a maximally diverse way.

Pro-Capitalist

Jordan Peterson favors capitalism because it generates wealth for all people, and is making all people richer everywhere, and Marxism cannot compete with this marvelous economic machine. Peterson is also pro-liberty and pro-individualism, and those views are best expressed under a free market economy. In that Dutch VPRO documentary in 2019, Peterson denied that hierarchical structures are social constructs. The structures of Western society are not social constructs. This is untrue. Humans are evolved from lobsters and both creatures have lived with hierarchies for 350 million years. Hierarchies are an inevitable evolutionary framework for organizing society and our lives. Capitalism is but one expression of this ancient need to arrange things in hierarchical ways. Capitalism then is not a social construct, and nor are Western hierarchy a sign of the corrupt male patriarchy. Jordan has a point but elsewhere I have commented at length about my objection to how he sees us as living within inevitably formed hierarchies.

Thoughts By Jordan Peterson

I do not know where I got these notes from by Peterson but here they are: "1) Free thinking and thought are not possible unless we are free to risk offend someone. 2) Radical leftists are authoritarian ideologues. These activists claim to speak for everyone else in their identity group, but they have not right to speak for their whole community; we speak only for ourselves. 3) Philosophy guiding radials: utterances led to the death of millions of people is built on the axiom that group identity is paramount. 4) Cathy Newman, in that infamous interview, accused Jordan of being provocative, enjoying playing the provocateur, stirring people up. She implied he did it because spreading divisiveness advanced his career. Jordan firmly denied provoking anyone, and by extension, would not see is opposition to poetical correctness and postmodernism as provocative, just honest criticism instead. 5) Biological structures: nature sets the rules of the game and we operate as socially conditioned and expressing our free agency with those limits." My responses to these quips from Peterson: 1) Yes, fee thinking, and free thought are the intellectual tools by which an individuator thinks and expresses himself in the world. He speaks the truth, and if that offends others, that is the price of seeking honest dialogue. We want radically free speech, with just a very few traditional limits on free speech. We cannot reach and enjoy the high civilization of this individuating anarchist supercitizen doing his own thing in his constitutional republic, unless free speech and free thought are not restricted by government. 2) We need to no longer teach high school and college students that their adult goal is to chase after the life of the public, socialist activist seeking to change societal structures in line with woke economics, its green new deal, its vision of utopia under which social and racial justice are perfectly administered and mandated by government. Rather, they mainly are to be a private activist, reforming and proving themselves as individuators. We do not speak for other members of our identity group, whether so speaking was an appointment by other members of the group, or the assignment was self-appointed. We are individualists, so we only speak for ourselves, and we demand and expect that others stand on their own two feet, become independent thinkers, and then to pal for themselves. 3) We no longer can afford mass movements that grew out of ideologies and the utterances of its men of words. A hundred or 150 million people in the 20th century was murdered in the name of idealism. Philosophy we need, but it must be handles by self-actualizing individuate lest it decay into ideology. 4) I think she is wrong and mouthy. Jordan is principled but will say not to bullies and Leftists attack him all the time and he is but defending himself. 5) I mostly agree that our biology is a shaper of our destined limits. We are born women or men biologically. We are half-beast and half-angel. We are good and evil, and loving and hating. We are rational and passionate. Beyond these natural conditions, we can be altered somewhat by social upbringing and by freely chosen acts.

Prager Rules

I took some short notes on a snippet from one of Dennis Prager's Fireside Chats. He is reading an email from a college student complaining about her/his professor going on about the concept of whiteness. Prager derided the woke professor: "Your professor is a racist and an idiot . . . The Left makes up lies and then build theories on it." My response: Prager did not, in so many words, note that the stupid, racist professor is reverse-racist against whites, but that is what is implied, and is obvious to me. The Left does not want to end racism and injustice: they beat the dead horse of white supremacy to justify their plan to stoke up hatred against whites, to the point that we are to blame for anything wrong, for anyone, anywhere in the world, allegedly so innately vicious and corrupt that Jim Crow and every legal and social injustice against us is justifiable. Reverse slavery, confiscating our wealth, and then depriving us of life as genocide against us gets under way once their Marxist revolution and takeover of America is complete. We must stay armed, united and fight back and fight back hard against these racists. The lies, of systemic racism and white supremacy being alive, wide spread and rampant in 2021, were concocted by the Left and murdering us will be their Final Solution, the logical limit of their spurious theories against us.

The Taliban Live Here Now

Now there are Progressives screaming that the Mount Rushmore sculptures be torn down because Jefferson and Washington were slave owners, and the Black Hills were stolen from the Indians. These absolutists must be told no and stopped cold.

Fence Straddler?

Is Jordan a principled moderate like I am or is he a shameless self-promoter with one foot in the domain of Christianity, and the other foot conveniently positioned in the world of academic science, secular reasoning and biological psychology. In effect, is his insistent vagueness sincere, or can one suspect that his remaining non-committal is expedient, that he is being all things to all people to avoid being yelled at for choosing an ideological side, or reduce his reach or lose sales? I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is a principled moderate. I believe he is a genius and original thinker. He is an ethicist of the first rank. He is an existentialist, loving truth and authentic living. He is an individualist, and a moderate, and an individualist that is a moderate, truly despise being pigeon-holed on one side of polarized, conflicting ideologies, or on the other. A principled moderate sees truth and falsehood, merit and deficiency in arguments both pro or con, about any view or ideological posture. It might help both the Christians and the educated, secular humanists, scientists and academics if he would clarify his fence-straddling outlook. One hint that he is a moderate not a fence-straddler is revealed when he speaks out against ideology. Both Eric Hoffer and Max Stirner also warned about the danger and lure of over-devotion to a totalistic, absolutist abstraction of any ilk.

The Jordan Peterson Podcat

I took notes on podcast S4 E6: Gad Saad: Infectious Ideas, from February 16th, 2021, a roughly two-hour interview between Peterson and Gad Saad, a Canadian evolutionary psychologist and Professor. Gad Saad has written a book: The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense. Gad has written this book about how contagious, infectious ideas are infecting people's thinking, and this irrational, deluded thinking makes people hooked on poor thinking to think irrationally and lose common sense. My response: I wonder if parasitic ideas are another way of interpreting mass hysteria and impenetrable groupthink under which true believers in a mass movement believe the lies and half-truths comprising their ideology. Among collective joiners these infectious poor ideas spread rapidly and take over the minds of mass movement true believers, more so than the still critically thinking atomistic individuals. These conceptual pathogens are delusional, extirpating common sense and rational exchange. We reject ideologues commanding how we think, write or talk in accordance with woke dictates. Gad basis his stands on underlying foundational principles, and that enables him to differentiate between sensible ideas and idea pathogens or uncritical thinking that take over the minds of their hosts. The host then believes and espouses like a zombified fanatic the nonsense beliefs that have parasitized his mind. These pathogens take over the minds of the true believers that espouse them like enthusiastic zombies. Peterson asks Gad to provide some examples of idea pathogens or infectious ideas taking over the minds of thousands or millions of believers. Some that he cited as examples of idea pathogens are: cultural relativism, postmodernism, identity politics, biophobia (fearing to use biology to explain human affairs, radical feminism and critical race theory. My response: I agree with Gad's characterization of idea pathogens and his examples of them listed above. People run in packs and that makes them more gullible and credulous, more emotional about what they believe that they would otherwise be and demonstrate as skeptical independent thinkers. Jordan asks Gad why he only seems to attack left-wing pathogens in his new book. Gad replied that there are plenty of dangerous right-wing idea pathogens, but as an academic, he is concerned with wats to expose and thwart the Leftists idea pathogens and their advocates that have overrun Academia and now las unleased up to 3 million activists on society (Jordan's estimate from anther video). Today in America Leftists true believers and their idea pathogens are more threatening that alt-right filth that Nazis believe and back. I agree again. Gad defines sensible (what I would call moderate feminism) as equity feminism, under which men and women are equal under the law. Under radical feminism men and women are considered to be the same, which they are not. We must accept that it is biologically proven that men and women are different, not better or worse, and not to be subjected to equality of outcome metrics. My response: I like this feminist compare/contrast exercise. Gad then trots out the idea pathogen of cultural relativism. He describes this idea pathogen as possessing, like all such pathogens, a kernel of truth. From Boa he learned that this kernel of truth is then transmogrified into a noble cause, and then morphs fully into full-blown lunacy in service of the original cause. My response: Gad's idea pathogen sounds a lot like an abstraction or absolute idea that enslaves its ideological servants, and they are mesmerized and enthralled by it, worshiping spooks Mas Stirner notes. Stirner warns of duped egoists worshiping and enthralled by ideology and idealism that they fiercely and fanatically proselytize to the world with. These mass movements are very dangerous and spread like wildfire, so it is easy to see that other joiners are infected by these contagious idea pathogens as the mind and being of the enthralled myrmidon is a parasite to its host, the idea pathogen, then spread to millions of other dupes. Gad and Jordan then discuss now scientists build a respected and deserved reputation for having explanatory theories, storehouse of value, and that students go to university to glean that and become more productive. What has happened to Academia is that the solid science of respected departments has been taken over and parasitized the entire campus and specific departments within it. Solid science is connected to reality and objective truth while theories like feminist glaciology gain traction. My response: these socially constructed, politically correct theories are pure felt ideology and nonsense devoid of critical reasoning, not evidence-based from reality out there. Jordan asks Gad to define postmodernism, another idea pathogen. Gad defines postmodernism as the belief that there is no objective truth, that all opinions are just beliefs, and one's biases, that there exists no absolute truth. We are shackled by subjective truth. Jordan adds that postmodernism is the view that language defines reality totally that there is nothing aside from--or outside of language, I add--language. Postmodernism, like deconstructionism is the outlook that language defines reality. My response. Gad and Jordan define postmodernism quit well in its relativistic, subjective, irrational, feeling-based rationales for how to view the world. Somewhere in this two-hour dialogue, both evolutionary psychologists agree that how we use, learn and adapt language to press our thoughts do influence or can become our reality, although our reality is beyond all such ontological and epistemological speculation. Jordan adds that Derrida is a postmodernist and yet talks of language existing outside of external reality--or that it is all reality socially constructed or that external reality itself does not exist; his positing power as objectively existing as part of reality external to language, a quasi-Marxist position. Postmodernism is a weak theory, not abide by its own principles. Postmodernists attempt but fail at building realities with language. Gad dismisses postmodernism as intellectual terrorism. It is the complete breakdown of reality known to a three-year-old. It is a departure from objective truth, a claim about objective reality. My response: Jordan and Stephen Hicks conversed a couple of years ago about Derrida's hypocrisy and inconsistency in postulating that reality is totally circumscribed by the domain of language, and yet power motivation somehow enters the domain of language and discourse from outside of this social, subjective bubble. Even Derrida has to attribute power motivation to an external source, while continuing to deny external forces working on the human realm of consciousness, interaction, speaking, thinking or living in a community. Postmodernism is a weak theory. Gad dismisses it summarily as intellectual terrorism. He is a bit moralistic and uses bombastic descriptive metaphors, but essentially, he is correct. Stirner, Derrida and all postmodernists are revolutionaries and destroyers for without reason, God, abstractions and objective truth, there is no meaning, no ethics, no beauty, no love no Godly presence in our lives. Without these humanizing influences, all we default to is tribe versus tribe, a law of the jungle, brutal natural state of negative anarchism, chaos and disorder. Jordan seems to accept Gad's optimism about the existence of objective truth and objective reality. Gad seems to be an atheist, so his total epistemological stance of absolute certainty is not apparent to me, but he likely believes at least in high probable certainty to be so confident in science, materialistic investigation and the power of reason. I believe Jordan believes in high probable certainty. Gad goes on to report that postmodernism is intellectual terrorism because it is a narrative of lies. He accepts some of what is pressed by the social constructionists (All reality is socially determined for each individual, even his language exercising and cognitive development, I add.): our evolved, genetic predispositions are socially role-shaped, and we conceptualize our thoughts and communications through growing up with the local language present in our linguistic community. Gad admits that we are prone to socialization as social constructionists insist. And language does shape our conceptions of reality. Jordan responds that it is the matter of degree that the postmodernists and social constructionists have wrong. They are part right but present their solutions as universally appropriate and they are not and are inadequate. The postmodernists have oversimplified multifactorial or multivaried scenarios reducing them to simplistic unifactorial or univaried past solutions. Jordan likes scientific theories that are simple as possible, but not simpler, with as much complexity introduced as is necessary. The postmodernists love an over simplistic answer--it is appealing and attractive to offer one, over-simplified hypothesis to explain everything, something like sex or power, promoted as the last word in ideology. Gad introduces the idea of fast and frugal heuristics, as defined by Gerd Gigerenzer, to help people make quick, final decisions, just to function. This simplifying strategy is practical and efficient to maximize our utility. The downside occurs when the user does not know and accept that this simplifying, efficient heuristic is not be applied to complex phenomena that it cannot capture. The fast and frugal heuristic is sub-optimal single cause explanation when applied to complex situations. My response: with all this rich and complex discussion, using technical terms like fast and frugal heuristics, Gad and Jordan are really noting that the postmodernists and their ilk are neo-Marxists ideologues with totalistic, simplistic answers to multifactorial reality. They note that postmodernists shred the world, constructing a language that seems profound, meaningful and scientific but it is bogus. (I add: They seem profound, impressive and rigorous like real scientists, but they are frauds and terrorists all the way down). Gad points out that the woke trinity of Diversity-Inclusion-Equity are another parasitical idea pathogen. Gad recounts how recently a solid Canadian physical chemist was denied a grant because he could not meet the DIE threshold statement that Canadian universities now require when asks for a federal grant to fund research. Now on Campus ideological games are elevated over science, but no game is used to solve real problems. Science, truth, research, objective values are all deplatformed. Indigenous people, Gad lament, are considered smarter than objective scientists. He will cede to them domain-specific knowledge and expertise, but other than that, still bring the scientific method to bear to gain knowledge when working with indigenous people and everyone else. Gad offers nomological network development to tell truths, not yield to postmodernist cynicism that seeking for knowledge is but a way of amassing and using power. Gad wants a singular, objective epistemology to seek the truth, not 7 billion versions of subjective epistemology and private feelings and relative truth, person human being. Gad denies that scientists just out to gain power, and he believes that productive knowledge can still be discovered and gleaned from research and experiments. I believe I have him correct when he suggests that these nomological networks where many different scientists are grinding away to discover truth and add to our knowledge; their efforts are peer reviewed. Their investigations are based on common sense realism and their five senses, so each person contributes to human knowledge from his individual attempts. This willingness to explore and gain new knowledge some who is desirable in evolution of our species as learning from experience and experimentation make the perceiver smarter and selected for survival and propagation of the species. My response: I like Gad's theory here. Jordan defines an epistemology of truth as a way of adjudicating competing statements for truth. Gad rejects the postmodernists attacks on truths, on very a priori axioms themselves. Gad advises that individual scientists, working by themselves and collaborating-- this is knowledge growing out of knowable reality accessed by multiple people. This nomological method offers humans multiple lines of evidence to overcome personal bias. We can know objective reality with some certainty. My response: This paragraph above reveals that both Gad and Jordan advocate that probably certain knowledge of objective reality is achievable by scientific reasoning, theorizing, and theory experimentation. They are wise and correct. Gad repeats that postmodernists are intellectual terrorists, attacking all to gain power and status. Even their attack on truth itself is an attack on the whole civilization. These are angry, bitter, hating nihilists and revolutionaries. He also contrasts the objective ethics of modernists (deontological) with the consequentialist logic of the postmodernists. My response: I like what Gad contrasts here the ethical distinction between modernists and postmodernists. Gad lambastes consequentialist ethics as a postmodernist parasitic pathogen espoused by the politically correct. They think: "If I murder truth in the service of this social justice goal, so be it. By contrast the modernists champion deontological ethics, reject moral relativity. The postmodernists engage in the language game, the subjective, which does not point to the objective world, beyond the language game. They espouse that living with their consequentialist ethics, with their lived experience, they will stay in their subjective cocoon, and there is no objective reality. The subjective is the ultimate authority, omniscient. Gad refutes all this nonsense; the goal of scientists is to maximize intellectual growth and grow knowledge. Pain for example is real and outside of language. My response: I approve of and agree with Gad here. Elsewhere I would note that there is a connection between consequentialist morality and moderate ethics, but, still objective ethics (deontological ethics) is righter and truer while consequentialist ethics are less right and true, but the two combined give people moral truths to live by.

At It Again

I have another blog entry to share on Jordan Peterson and his insightful insistence that humans arrange their political, economic and social structures as hierarchies. According to Peterson, the mission of each hierarchy in America is to carry out its mission, and the meritorious, most talented, most intelligent and most conscientious elite performers end up on the top of each hierarchy, and their motive is competence and working hard, not amassing power to tyrannize and oppress. Where that happens, the hierarchy has been corrupted by those grabbing the reins of power have wrecked the institutions so corrupted. Peterson is pro-Western, pro-individual, pro-capitalism and pro-American. He argues that the captains of industry are honest, competent, decent moral leaders. typically caring for their customers and employees, running the business well from their A suites, not exploiting, gouging consumers, oppressing anyone or impelled forward by sheer power-lust and accumulation. Likely Leftists would accuse Peterson of being a sold-out apologist and cheerleader for free market corporations and company hierarchies, and, though he is a little too optimistic about the benevolence and decency of those running private institutions, he is correct in he main. What do I mean by this? Well, capitalists’ hierarchies are the most tyrannical, corrupt and power-motivated of all systems--except for all others, and the worst of the others are the various hierarchical institutions operating under totalitarian big government and Marxist economics. These are totally corrupt while Jordan’s free market hierarchies are relatively competent and well run. With all of these qualifiers included, Jordan Peterson is more correct than not in praising capitalist and democratic hierarchies and intuitions as relatively humane, liberty loving and liberty extending, while creating ease, luxury, wealth and freedom for all of its citizens. Such American hierarchy are not the bulwark of a corrupt male patriarchy but is more humane, kind, egalitarian and wealth-generating than any totalitarian or socialist hierarchy introduces. When I started my recent job, the other maintenance guys laughed that "shit rolls downhill" and that as the newest and least senior guy, I was the end target of management abuse of workers. The organization is a for-profit business, and has a mission, and it is not power accumulation, but power amassing and some corruption and tyrannizing subordinates does go on, but it is less vicious here than in collectivist hierarchies. As an individuate anarchist and supercitizen, I agree with Peterson that hierarchies and institutors are naturally occurring, but they should be strong but small with people at all levels of the hierarchy dealt with dignity and respect, not exploited or oppressed. The supervision of those below should move away from corrupting tyranny and be a source of democratic supervising with employer and underlings as peers and equals as much as is possible. This would do much to eradicate unhappiness and mistreatment. To make things much better in any hierarchy in existence, each level of the hierarchy should be flattened out as much as possible so that employees at every level of the organization have real input, decision-making power and maximum autonomy while still taking orders from above and the chain of command still exists. Were 98% of employees in any American hierarchy individuator anarchist supercitizens, there would be no corruption and such powerful merit that none would allow corrupt tyrants or bosses from above to abuse or exploit them. This would go a long way towards making hierarchies more competent, humane, democratic with employees with less suffering, happy and content and loyal--and thus much more productive--because they would then like their bosses who really would then have their backs. Workers would work much harder voluntarily and the quality, quantity and creativity of their work would become evident. No longer disrespected, malaise will decline, and morale would soar. There would be much less turnover, and many would stay for years. To Peterson's credit, he points out that there are many kinds of hierarchies and that a brilliant, plumber as important to society as an A suite CEO, as people rise to the top of some hierarchy based on their elite, meritorious performance in an area of strength. The anarchist individuator super citizen is a being of stubborn, shrewd, willful brilliance intellectually, proud, difficult to dominate, of singular courage. They will democratize any institution that they serve in, at any level, and to some degree they may live, work and maverize outside of almost all institutions as we deinstitutionalize most bureaucracies. Highly hierarchicalized, institutionalized society will work for group-oriented, no individuating, small ego collectivists and group-livers. Institutions are especially enervating if they are governmental or socialist hierarchies, the most cruel, the most totalitarian, the most minutely controlling of each individual in every aspect and detail of their daily lives. Suffering and unhappiness would be maximized but people would not feel lonely. We are born wicked which means we are small-egoed, group-living, altruistic, self-hating and other-hating, nonindividuators that run in packs. Such joiners and followers make perfect negative hierarchy residents, spread over the various levels of the institutions with a few naturally or environmentally destined to out-perform others and rise to the top getting the status, money and power enabling them to boss around and direct the masses at the bottom with not much wealth or power. As we are raised with noble Mavellonialist values and training we become big-egoed, individual-living, egoistic, self-loving and other-loving, individuators that democratize and delimit the size, scope and severe reach and direction that any hierarchy enjoys over its citizens. As we individuate and individual-live, we will live in hierarchies minimally with maximum power, independence and freedom utilized in person by each individuator citizen.

Matt Vespa

He wrote an article on 2/25/2021, entitled, "Wait . . . These Are the Top Three Concerns for Democratic Voters? Yes, It's Insane." Let me quote Vespa: "It shouldn't shock us, but here we go again, folks. We can think Democrats can't be this dense, but they always find ways to amaze, don't they? If you would guess that the top three issues Democratic voters are most concerned with what would you pick? Climate change? The economy? Taxes. Nope. It's Trump supporters, white supremacy and systemic racism. I'm not kidding. We're facing job losses and a stagnant economy that will remain stuck in the mud if this minimum wage hike passes in COVID relief bill. And Democrats ‘top concerns are issues that won't help a single person in America. It's selfish. It's detached. It shows that these people really don't have a care in the world. It must be nice. Only the financially secure and the privileged can say they're really, really worried about people with differing political views." My response: Their three main worries is nonexistent worries. These people are Marxist true believers--pampered, ungrateful, resentful, filled with hate and rage against those that dissent from their one-Party ideology taking over America. Let me quote Vespa: "It's indicative of the Democrats' changing party base. Its richer, more educated, coastal and urban-based. The professional elites have taken over and it shows. Their problems . . . aren't really problems. They're not. White liberal problems and their solutions will not help America. It's only meant to stroke their self-centered and shallow interests. This is also a problem for the communities of color who have backed Democrats for decades. Rich white liberals give at disproportionate levels to the party. They're the ones that fill the coffers. It'll be their phone calls that are returned. the black community will once again be expected to sit down, shut up, and vote Democratic. You think that's going to sit well with these voters, having rich whites hijack their agenda, their demands." My response: The new Democratic Party has been taken over by radicals, well educated, well-funded and driven to see their socialist goals met and imposed upon all of America. These pampered elitists have left middle America and working-class people behind. May these groups vote Republican going forward. Let me quote Vespa: "There are two Americas. One is grounded in reality and wants to get this country back on its feet. And the other would rather wallow in a glass case of emotion whining about how Donald Trump has supporters. In other words, cry baby land. Democrats are simply a group of snobby, condescending elitists who don't really know what's going on--they just don't." My response: Vespa is reminding us that these people are out of touch, but they are in power, and they plan to overthrow traditional America and they must just make their objectives stick.

Radical Bill

Neil Munro, a writer for Breitbart, write an article on 2/24/2021 that I wish to quote from and respond to. Let me quote Munro: "House GOP Leader Keven McCarthy criticized the Democrats' revolutionary pro-transgender bill, now slated for a Thursday vote. The pro-transgender bill, for example, would use the law to deny a recognition of the two sexes' complementary differences. So, it would force women to treat men as if they are women, it would end single-sex private spaces, and it would allow males to participate in women's sports. regardless of male athletic advantages." My response: This law is bad law, bad policy, poor science and un-American. Let me quote Munro: "H.R.5, styled the Equality Act, would redefine 'sex' under federal civil rights laws to include 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity', overriding basic biology along with millennia of tradition." My response: Do we want to overturn basic biology and such traditions relied on for millennia? No w

Ben Shapiro

I saw a short video of Shapiro tonight. He was asked by a student that it is a given that unconscious or implicit exists, so therefore white privilege exists. Ben took her argument apart. He dismissed--how can what we are not aware of, be made conscious, and then retrained in diversity training to be no longer biased. Shapiro notes that racism is consciously chosen misbehavior. It is absurd to worry about what people think. We can only seek to push people to behave without bias or racism. There is no implicit bias and there is no white privilege.

Manufactured

Townhall editorial contributor, Derek Hunter, wrote a piece posted at Townhall on 2/28/2021. The article is: Democrats Manufacture Racism. I would like to quote from this article and then comment on these quotes: "If you want to tear apart a country, really have the people hate each other, the playbook the Democrats are following would be the way to do it. Take something irrelevant, but over which people can do nothing, and build it up into everything. Convince people others are out to get them, thereby absolving them of any responsibility for problems in their life, and they will eventually give up. Convince others they are perpetrators of something horrible, which only works with those out of real problems, and you have the makings of Nazi-esque powers of manipulation. This is what Democrats are doing with race, and it can no longer simply be laughed off. It must be actively confronted and exposed." My response: Democrats manufacture racism in America to pit group against group so that hatred, division and mistrust will build until civil war breaks out, and they can justify a Leftist President declaring martial law under emergency powers, then to be made permanent as a socialist dictatorship. This is their aim, and this is now they will achieve it, and it very well may work. Whites are smeared and denigrated as perpetrators of racism, which they are innocent of, and ironically, competing--now competing that used to cooperate more or less with whites--groups are becoming increasingly racist towards and hostile towards whites. The Left ruins all that it touches, and race-baiting is one of their most cruel and ingenious means of tearing America apart. Let me quote Hunter further: "The tip of the spear in this mental race-war movement on the left are Ibram Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, with their personal Mein Kampfs, 'How to Be an Anti-Racist' and 'White Fragility.' The basic premise of each book is white people are racists and everyone else is a victim. The only way for a white person to not be a racist is to self-flagellate on the altar of progressive politics while cutting a big check to whichever of these grievance grifters happens to be collecting a big payday from the nearest school that day." My response: Leftists are guilty--and much more so-- of whatever evil they accuse conservatives and whites of being guilty of. These charlatans and race baiters need to be tarred and feathered metaphorically and run out of town. Let me quote Hunter further: ". . . Now an entire industry of phony race-grievance exists, and it's motivating damn near everything the Democratic Party does . . . We now have the Cartoon Network running public service announcements telling children to 'see color' when it comes to people. . . Professional grievance has power over stupid people now, and everyone is excited to play." My response: Humans are good and advance as individualist and that deemphasizing the race, gender orientation, color or creedal affiliation of any human is the only way to eliminate racism or bigotry of any kind, because racism and bigotry are group prejudice against inoffensive members of another identity group. To tell children to start seeing color is to judge others by the color of their skin, not the content of their character, as group-livers not as thinking, independent-minded individuals and individuators. That this is what Democrats do not indicate that their whole program is phony, empty and cruel, only meant as cover as its ackers grab power for their Party and themselves, all while pretending to be the champions of the dispossessed, animated by compassion, idealism and superior standards. Let me quote Hunter further: "This racism as anti-racism can only exist as long as people keep funding it. DiAngelo has a new book coming out that promises to keep the gravy train rolling for her and the industry. Called 'Nice Racism: How Progressive White People Perpetuate Racial Harm,', because no one will ever be 'woke ‘enough. The description says, "Dismantling white supremacy requires white people to commit to a lifetime of education and accountability." My response: The Democrats stoking up hatred of whites is reverse racism, and it inevitably will lead to the increase in white supremacy and white nationalism in America where almost none existed, and then the Left will say: "See, here are actual white racists." Group versus group warfare will end and divide America as the reverse racism of Democrats and Leftists against whites hardens in systemic racism and systemic oppression against whites. It is a cunning but cruel, evil plan for targeting innocent whites. It is time to stay armed and to resist these bigots and Communists.