Gun Grabbing

Fascists always seek to seem reasonable. Grab our guns, grab our freedoms, gut our constitutional rights and then tyranny is the new America.

My Favorites

Two of my favorite intellectuals are Jordan Peterson and Stephen Hicks. They are pro-Modernism, pro-capitalism, pro-individualism, pro-America. They are anti-postmodernism, anti-Socialism, anti-collectivism, and anti-globalist. They like Modernism because it provides us with scientific knowledge, liberty, progress and prosperity. They disagree with the cynical postmodernists that words and ideas just serve raw power amassing for each avatar of each identity group as they claw their way up the hierarchical food chain. Marxism is rejected by both as a murderous, enslaving, tyrannical, impoverishing totalitarian retread political and economic system and culture. Dennis Prager, Jordan Peterson and I all share the tragic view of life. We believe that human nature is not good, that suffering and malevolend are basic to existing. Stephen Hicks is more optimistic, a secular atheist: he believes we are born good, and that happiness is readily accessible. He is too optimistic, but long-termi optimism remains a possibility andthe desired goal. Jordan to some degree is an elitist in that he avows that the competent and superior individuals (the brightest) rise to the top of every hierarchy and should. He believes that talent is rare, so the talent of these superior individuals must be developed, appreciated, praised and rewarded for the benefit of all. Hicks is not an elitist. Neither he nor I think talent is rare. He believes the individual can reason and think originally with no need for elites or authority to do his thinking for him any longer. Both would argue, but especially Peterson, that power is not the only or even the primary human drive. It is an important one, but they believe that empathy and power-acquisition can be to develop the self as an individuator, not to cquire power over others Jordn is correct in being suspicious of the relativism and skepticism by the postmodernists about the possibility of metanarratives. They are subjectivists about knowledge claims, while positing raw power grabbing as the primordial base drive of all individuals and groups vying for power, say and resources in this world. Peterson rejects this simplistic but universal objective overgeneralization, typical of neo-Marxists the new and active mass movement with one answer to solve the world's problems and unifactorial analysis of complex social problems. Both accept that the postmodernist Marxists are inconsistent and self-contradictory in denying any moral or epistemological claims to absolute or objective truth on one hand, while suggesting that all reality is socially constructed and delimited there within that milieu in that all thoughts and concepts are expressed and limited to relevance in that social linguistic world, that reality and language are coterminous and that there is no objective reality outside of linguistic enterprises. This is severe linguistic pessimism. Still, the postmodernists push that biologically instantiated power welling up in the psyche of each competing human being, struggling to gain rank status and money along that hierarchy, that their power drive comes from the outside of linguistic reality as an extralinguistic force; they reject meta-narratives while admitting that raw biological power, an extra-linguistic motivational drive in people, is at work in social settings. They glaringly here contradict themselves. Stephen Hicks (From March 12-16, 2020) was in Melbourne for a Culture Wars conference, and I below took notes from his two-minute characterization of Jordan Peterson; the excerpt is entitled: About Jordan Peterson: Here is my notes of an excerpt: Jordan Peterson has a foot in both worlds. He is a proficient man of science, especially biological psychology and its applied science. He is an inheritor of the modern world's big debate and dilemma over the scientific opinion that there is no relation between fact orientation in our thinking and value orientation in our thinking. My response: Jordan Peterson is a scientist, but he is also an existentialist philosopher, that form of subjective philosophy that places Peterson in the relativistic world of values. He is struggling articulately with defining the relation between our fact orientation and our values orientation. He is a genuine moderate. He will not declare if he believes in God, and nor will he directly characterize who and what God is, but he is a believer. Our values flow out of our religious faith, but we need science and religion both at the same time to lead civilized, fruitful, meaningful lives in the West going forward. Stephen Hicks seems to be an atheist and Objectivist and a scientist, but he wants no values that are religion. The scientific dogmatists and the religious dogmatists are both astray. We need mutual tolerance and no fanaticism from either the scientists or theists. Rational religion is a great way to bridge the divide and Marxist postmodernists are the real enemy of all. Here are more of my notes on Hick's excerpt: Jordan Peterson does not see how it is possible to define value as good or bad in a physicaistic or modern scientific framework. That points him back in the direction of values and meaning and the pursuit of those things that are absolutely critical to human identity. The modern world cannot deliver on that. We need to go back to the ancients, the pre-moderns to find those things. But then, the tradeoff there is not a rational grounding to speak about meaning. So, Jordan talks about religion and values in approximate, metaphorical and unsatisfactory language, and that frustrates people. My response: Hickes lives in a world of reason, consistency, and truth, or at least he believes that he does. Peterson, like I am, is a moderate, and we know that the reason, consistency and truth are part of the world, but so are evil, lies, irrationally, incompetence, subjectivity and mystery that cannot be explained. This is why the wisest and most honest metaphysical slant on the world is part science and part feeling or values. With every weapon of consciousness in our arsenal and utilized, we may come much closer to discovering the truth, and how to best cope with messy, muddy human existence. Hicks describes Peterson as recognizing that postmodernists are launching a deep, fully frontal attack on Western civilization, and it is a combination of ancient Judeo-Christian insights plus modern, rational insight. The project is to be neither pre-modernist or post-modernist but to find a synthesis, but Jordan Peterson says I do not know how to do this and that is the project. My response: I agree with Hick's characterization of Peterson here, and perhaps Mavellonialism is that correct synthesis, part-value and part-science.

Genesis 4:8-16

Here is the quote from my The New American Bible: "Cain said to his brother Abel, 'Let us go out in the field. When they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. Then the Lord asked Cain, 'Where is your brother Abel?' He answered, 'I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper? 'The Lord then said: 'What have you done! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the soil! Therefore, you shall be banned from the soil that opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. If you till the soil, it shall no longer give you its produce. You shall become a restless wanderer on the earth.' Cain said to the Lord: 'My punishment is too great to bear. Since you have now banished me from the soil, and I must avoid your presence and become a restless wanderer on the earth, anyone may kill me at sight.' 'Not so!' the Lord said to him. 'If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged sevenfold.' So, the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest anyone should kill him at sight. Cain then left the Lord's presence, and settle in the land of Nod, east of Eden." Cain is rotten to the core, and his resentment and bitterness are now so rabid, that he cannot stand being alive, but rather than kill himself, for he is a selfish coward, he lies to himself further, asserting that Abel is the cause of all his problems, and he deserves execution as his just deserts. He then lies to Abel, who trusts him, and lures him out into the field, where he murders Abel. He lied to Abel to commit a grievous sin. Now, when Yahweh calls out to him as to where Abel is, Cain lies again, still competing with, deceiving and trying to out-think Yahweh. Cain as a blameless tiller of the earth, brought bounty into the world. As a killer, he no longer can bright forth bounty and life from tilling. He is a marked man doomed to roam the earth. This coward is worried about angry strangers killing him. He still clings to life, as lousy as it has become. God vows to protect him. Notice how he is banned from the Lord's presence: I wonder if that banishment is this world only, or in the next world too. Here is this quote from the Holy Bible (KJV): "And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood cries unto me from the ground. And now thou art cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that findeth me shall slay me. And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord said a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden." When God asked Cain how his brother was, Cain evaded again, and got snotty retorting: "Am I my brother's keeper?" And though I am a staunch individualist, we are still our brothers’ keepers. We want them to succeed as self-realizing individualists. Note that though God punishes Cain, he still shows him mercy. Note that Cain wants to live, even though his life is ruined. Even a cornered, miserable rat wants to keep living.

Genesis 4: 3-7

Here is the quote from my The New American Bible: "In the course of time Cain brought forth an offering to the Lord from the fruit of the soil, while Abel, for his part, brought one of the best firstlings of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offer, but on Cain and his offering he did not. Cain greatly resented this and was crestfallen. So the Lord said to Cain: 'Why are you so crestfallen? If you do well, you can hold up your head; but if not, sin is a demon lurking at the door: yet you can be his master.' Jordan Peterson finds it remarkable and no accident that this chapter on Cain and Abel occurs right after the Fall when humans awaken, know good and evil, exercise free will, and will die. Both Abel, the keeper of flocks, and Cain, the tiller of the soil, offered sacrifices to God. Yahweh accepted and was pleased with the offering from Abel but rejected the offering from Cain. Now, I assume both offerings were prized offerings, so God does not reject Cain's offering because it was an inferior offering, so cheap and shoddy, that is an automatic insult to the might Jehovah. No, God wants humans to sacrifice to De, and to offer a sacrifice respectful and worthy of a benevolent deity of Yahweh's rank and standing. What Yahweh or any other good deity will reject is a sacrifice from a sinner that does not love, fear or obey God. When that occurs, the sacrifice is a hypocritical insult, a bald attempt to pay lip service to Yahweh, or manipulate Yahweh into heaping blessings upon the insincere petitioner that does not deserve God's blessing. God loves love, the pure heart, a person of moral and spiritual good will, that is with God and works for God. A sinner like Cain, unrepentant, and in defiance of God, while secretly (He mistakenly believes that he can fool God.), while serving Satan, should not be surprised that his empty sacrifice is rejected by God. Cain is crestfallen when God disfavored his sacrifice, but rather than admit that he was sinning and rebelling against God, that he needed to admit his sin, confess his sin, and do penance, while genuinely striving to be better and more holy, he is filled with resentment and disappointment. Peterson points out that arrogance, deceit and resentment are an unholy trinity of traits that turn one into a demon. Cain was arrogant: he cut corners and thought God would not catch him. He is so proud in that flinty way, that he cannot admit that he is flawed and has sinned, so there is no need to repent. He lies to himself about his dangerous shortcomings. He resents Abel all the more and begins to blame this innocent paragon for his own failures and rejection by Yahweh. Yahweh gives Cain a chance to shape up, and urges him to reject Satan, to practice self-control, to come and love, honor and serve Yahweh, and then his sacrifices will be favored as were those from Abel. But, Cain insists on doing things his own way, and he convinces himself that he has done nothing wrong to warrant God favoring Abel while disfavoring him. Abel is better treated because he is a slick con man, not because he is loyal to God. Cain not only does not repent his evil, but he is about to go all in, and commit murder--this is where his rebellion, jealousy and resentment have led him to. Note that God talks to these first humans one-to-one, but still that did not impress Cain. Notice that the master of sin is a demon, a male Satan, so Yahweh allows that both good spirits and evil spirits exist, and they are existing personalities and presences with names and followers. Now I will quote the same lines from the Holy Bible (KJV): "And in the process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and his offering. But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." Since Yahweh respected Abel because he was good and did well, Yahweh favored his offering. Because Yahweh did not respect Cain due to his collaboration with, association with, and sinning with the demon, Yahweh could not and did not respect him, and could not favor his offering. Cain's willful rejection of God and God's law forced Yahweh's hand, to punish Cain. Cain was furious, blaming God and Abel, but not himself. It is the individualist that tells the truth, takes responsibility for his sins and misdeeds, and makes amends to go and sin no more. Cain is selfish, self-indulgent and in denial, but he is not individualist. As a deceiving and self-deceiving groupist running with Satan and his pack, Cain is leading a degenerate lifestyle. He allows Satan to rule him, instead of vice versa. He will not allow God to command him, so he ends up serving the Dark Lord.

Racist

I have long agreed with Dennis Prager that America is not a racist country. I have changed my mind: Certain groups of Americans are profoundly racist. Their racism is an obsession for them, as they demonize whites, calling us the bogeyman for everything wrong about their wretched, unhappy, grievance-prone, resentment-laden lives. Their reverse-racism against white is now institutionalized and systemic. Democrats and Leftists mean to make us second class citizens in our own country. We are to be separated, to suffer pogroms, and eventually genocide against us is planned. We must not give up our arms.

Jordan Peterson With Ben Shapiro

I watched and took notes on a video of The Ben Shapiro Show with Jordan B. Peterson, showed on Sunday, Special Ep 1 on 5/6/2018. Jordan starts off with his sensible, typical advice to young adults to try to lead a meaningful life rather than just a happy life, in order to survive. I like Jordan's tragic sense of life, and love his explanation about human depravity, but Stephen Hick's objection to Jordan's excessive pessimism is a need corrective. Hicks the happy Randian atheist warrior is an optimist that sees good in the world, and positivity breaking out everywhere. Ben noted the stereotype about Jordan as being so prominent with enraged, young white males. Jordan sighed and agreed that Leftists smear him as an Alt-Right fascist, so no real dialogue is undertaken. He is right most of the time, and they demonize rather that debate and dialogue--these are their only weapons. Jordan denies that he is pushing hyper-masculinity as accused of by his enemies; rather, he is advocating for powerful, heroes, competent but routine masculinity, and he is accurate in his self-description here. I would take it farther: Jordan wants powerful, competent males, but he also is for competent, able women. I would go farther and suggest that women maverize too--that they can and should be all that they can be. Jordan promotes masculinity based on competency not power-accumulation. Jordan back hierarchies based on individuals seeking competence rather than power as they compete and cooperate for rank and status in whatever hierarchy they are seeking to climb up, but there the rank is based on merit, not group-affiliation or tyrannical self-promotion. Jordan is mostly correct here, but hierarchies should be flattened and devolved as much as possible in a world of Mavellonialists. I have no interest in groupism, tribal rivalry, their endless, violent power struggles, and class system. Hierarchies can be about power-grabbing based on one's group becoming dominant and oppressive, while vanquished competitors are enslaved, tyrannized and oppressed as victim classes. Jordan wants people to realize the value of hierarchies being used to fulfill their function, not just reduced cynically to an apparatus for acquiring power. Peterson argues that healthy hierarchies are based upon leaders of merit driven by the desire to work and serve and are sympathetic, not ruthless, conniving, selfish power accumulators. Ben praises Jordan as helping a lot of people, by making a difference in their lives. They are taught by Peterson to learn self-discipline and take control of their lives. Jordan is a good man, teaching people how to lead good, fulfilling lives. Jordan rejects this praise, and says, no, all he did was give people courage. They begin discussing gender differences as biologically-driven, much less so as a socio-cultural conditioning. The research indicates that genetic differences increased in egalitarian societies, and no one realized that. Jordan worries about countries that push gender sameness wholly by conditioning the children, but Peterson doubts that you want to cede to the state to socialize your children. Leftists/atheists/secular humanists claim to be rational and pro-science, but their Marxist/postmodernists axioms are paramount for them, and their assumptions fly in the face of biological, scientific research. Leftists assert that all hierarchies are based on power and all power plays are based on group identity. History has been a power play between different, warring identity groups. Peterson explains that is science if the bottom axiom, incorrect intellectuals, life the Leftists, when faced with the overwhelming evidence., may ignore that science in favor of their primordial deep biases, then science is altered to match their cherished narrative. Jordan denounces group warfare and arbitrary power-wielding and clashed break out between the rivals. Jordan believes that the core proposition guiding the West is that the individual should be sovereign. He has concluded that the Liberal culture answers these questions: What is the proper framework to view human identity? What is the relationship of the individual and the group in relationship to the individual? The individual in the West is sovereign and thinking or Logos or spiritual consciousness are best expressed by the maverizing individualist leading his independent life of liberation from group and hierarchy. The Leftists answer that the connection should be vying group identities and naked, raw, brutal power rivalry. This leads to totalitarian hell, I recommend. Conservatives answer with pushing the ascendancy of individualism and their willingness to compete, cooperate and show empathy to each other. I agree, as did Eric Hoffer. Ben responds that the cultural war in the West is collectivists versus individualists, or some individualists versus other individualists. Ben notes that he and Peterson are considered part of the Intellectual Dark Web pushing for revitalizing the Enlightenment. Leftists reject the Enlightenment, seeking to go back to tribalism. Jordan offers (here I am interpreting his explanation and I may have missed something.) that Enlightenment values are based on older, deeper ethos, the source of the self and the modern ethos. Its description includes pieces of expressed, less articulate, nonverbal pattern recognitions and include borrowing from art, music, dance and ritual. My response: If Divine Reason is free, individual and rational and spiritual, it could well be the source for the Enlightenment values. Inputs come from our brain's left hemisphere that conveys what we know, and the right hemisphere operates on what we do not know. Both sides of the brain play a role as deep motivations and emotions are satisfied over time. The question is how to validate our axiomatic system of ethics--to play it out on the world and the self until it satisfies participants. We get the ethical, axiomatic system justified by making people happy p play that game. As adults we make rules of the game; we now have a structure and then get monotheism. Heroes are admirable because they embody a principle. as the erect and manage hierarchical systems. We adapt and map out our adaptations. We map out customs as rules, then get law codes. Rules were customs until identified and written down. We evolve structures of success: adaptation is captured in art, drama, etc., and semantics codes then build up to the Enlightenment. Jordan warns that if you obsess with evil long enough, it takes you over. And if you get good enough, that takes you over too. Ontological patterns characterize good and evil. God used logos (I found online an Oxford Dictionary definition of Logos as: "the Word of God, or principle of divine reason and creative order, identified in the Gospel of John with the second person of the Trinity incarnate in Jesus Christ." So, Logos is divine reason, creative order and the world of God. God the Creator is Pure Reason as the universe is ordered and natural law operates the cosmos.) at the beginning of time to extract order out of chaos. The spirit of good acts in the world on the potential of the world to generate the actuality of the world. Judeo-Christian values confront the potential of the world with good in mind with truthful communication--the order that you extract is good. God used the word to make the cosmos out of potential. This was an encounter with the good and it was good. Jordan's proposition: If one encounters potential with good and truth, the cosmos that you create is good. Ben Shapiro: We separate values from the universal and make human values. Then humans build their own ideology. Jordan: we feel vulnerable, mortal, naked, awake with knowledge of good and evil after the Fall. Ben: We make our system and then get grandiose, then challenge God, and then all turns totalitarian. Rules are necessary precondition for discipline. Our need for ethics underlies the rules. Christ's idea was to orient the self towards the good. An alliance with God and tell the truth. Jordan: What is acting through people as the good is the Holy Spirit or the Logos. Logos and consciousness are real, hard to define. Consciousness has a role in choosing reality. Sexual selection is consciousness, not chance, not just natural selection. Darwin believed in both, but materialists ignored sexual selection. Jordan: females choose competent males, heroes at the top of the hierarchy, but men vote on who is the competent here, and then women abide by this selection of the popular hero. Consciousness steers the direction of evolution. Consciousness, through its active expression, transforms the potential of the world into actuality. To live well and make good choices, we cannot dissipate but we behave and make good decisions. We have to treat each other as divine centers of consciousness. Be responsible, set up order and telos. Jordan suggests that consciousness selects the direction of evolution that becomes biological reality. From Dawkins to Jung it becomes obvious that consciousness extracts the proper world of being through truth and that is good that manifests itself at, for humans, the individual level of consciousness. This is logos within the individual, and it is the metaphysical foundation of the idea of natural rights and responsibility, expressed as the hero of heroes, the driving force behind evolution. Logos drives evolution and order out of chaos. Logos is consciousness or God, and it gives us order and drives our efforts: we trust each other as logos. Jordan has noted that we do not understand what consciousness is. My response: Could it be the soul, I wonder. It could well be that evolution is natural and biological, but its ruler and controller is Divine Logos.

The Economic Stranglers

Mark Levin, in Plunder and Deceit, on Pages 54 and 55, brilliantly delineates how Obamacare and Medicare, over time, will consumer more and more of America's GDP: "The key problem in America is the increasingly centralized role of government in the provision of health-care services, which does, in fact, becone administratively unmanageableand financially unsustainable over time. Top-down command-and-control decision-making, combined with political and social engineering and redistribution subsidies, destroy the application of genuine insurance practices, distort and eventually contract the marketplace; hugely inflate costs; gnerate widespread economic inefficiencies, unpredictability, and scarcity; and severely diminish the quality of health-care services and their availability to countless patients."

Come Crashing Down

Mark Levin, in his book, Plunder and Deceit, Page 30 and Page 31, gloomily forsees the economic death of America on the horizon, due to our gross fiscal irresponsibility: "The American people are facing some very unpleasant realities about the nation's financial vulnerabilities. The federal government is deeply in debt; the largest federal program, Social Security, is hemorrhaging; the natioanl birthrate does not provide enough working people from whom money can be transferred to subsidize beneficiaries; and most individuals do not have enough personal savings to get them through severe economic times. As the late economist Dr. Herbert Stein once wrote, 'If something can't go on forever, it will stop.' And in this case, the federal government's biggest program will stop with a crash, taking down the older recipients and the younger payers alike." It may take down our entire country when the government and the overtaxed enocomy collapse togethet.

Prager At His Best

Dennis Prager, on 4/17/21, on Facebook, played an excerpt of one of his Fireside chats; it was poignant and brilliant. Here is what he wrote in the title: "A person given great power WILL MISUSE IT. Human nature is not good and people need to know it." Here is the title of his snippet: "Why We Must Resist Globalism." Here is Dennis's motto and my notes on his video: "The bigger the government the smaller the citizen. America is the only country founded on the belief that government should be small. This core belief made America uniquely successful, uniquely free, uniquely opportunity-giving to so many people from so many backgrounds. The reason the Founders of United States feared Big Government because they knew human nature. And human nature is not good. There is good in human nature, but human nature is not basically good. Therefore, why give a lot of power to a creature that is not that good? You don't want people to have a lot of power over other people. They will misuse it. Lord Acton in the 19th century said that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. You don't want to give a handful of people power over a lot of people. Who is powerful? From the Talmud 1800 years ago: Who is the powerful man? He is the one that conquers his own nature. If you can control you, you are powerful. If you can control me, you are an autocrat a tyrant, a dictator. . . . The Left wins because they tell the voters: Give us power and we give you goodies. Conservatives say we want less power, so we give you less goodies. People vote for those that give them goodies. People are not good, but Mavellonialist training to self-discipline and self-realize will help them to become powerful citizens seeking no government goodies, no power over others, and insisting that no tyrant will rule them, even if they have to rebel and take up arms. Collectivist, groupists and altruist make up poor citizens that grow government and tyranny. We will work against that fateful change.

The Latest Ism

In a video with Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson defined intersectionality as pathological denial of individual status, that all one is one's group affiliation. Shapiro defines intersectionality as society as a hierarchy of identity groups, especially those that are victimized by straight, white males. The more oppressed groups that you belong to, the highest your status, the more you are listened to and your words matter. White males have nothing to say that is important or correct, so they are to remain silent and be lectured. This Leftist model is anti-individual, anti-white, anti-heterosexual male, anti-Western, anti-conservative, anti-capitalist and anti-Christian. I cannot imagine an angrier, revenge-driven, unjustified, lie-embracing and cruel attack on Western people and their societies than projected by these radicals. Now that intersectionality has been defined, let us look at the notes I took on a 3/3/2018 video, entitled, "Is intersectionality a religion? The Q & A video was hosted by Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose. These three liberal atheists were allied with right-wing religions people (The video may have been produced by PSU, College Republicans.). Helen noted that the term was coined by Kimberle' Crenshaw. Intersectionality is the intersection of marginalized identities that come together, coalescing into hierarchies of oppression. She denounces this doctrine as messy and contradictory, as each victim has status in several overlapping victim groups. Helen, a staunch gender biologist, denounces intersectionalists for claiming that race and gender are culturally constructed, not innate. These three are basically drawing a parallel between fanatical, fundamentalist religion and this ism with its radicalized true believers exporting it to the world. They accuse opponents of being various kinds of bigots, and this smear campaign of baseless accusations are unfalsifiable. James brings up their epistemology (standpoint epistemology): Where an individual is identified aa and is a member of one of the identified oppressed groups, they can only see the world from that subjective vantage point. White males, by contrast, they insist, can only see the world from their subjective locus, the oppressor group, but somehow the oppressed individual sees the white point of view but not the other way around. The more victim groups that the oppressed one belongs too, the wiser she is, but white males must shut up and be lecture and hear the truth from these victims. Intersectionalists, like other zealous, woke postmodernists, assert that there is no objective reality, no scientific truth or universality to serve as a moral guide. These woke believers regard political incorrectness as blasphemy and belonging to an oppressor group is the original social sin. In their born-again fervor, the intersectionalists attack loathed liberalism, the Modern concept that discussion, dialogue and intelligent conversation are informative and uplifting to all participants. The authoritarian intersectionalists demand silence, conformity, rapt obedience and acceptance of the speech content laid on the unwoke by the enlightened woke crowd that has religion. James refers to the rebranding of specious technical words as insidious as Trojan horse terms. The world inclusion seems liberal, tolerant and accepting, but that is not their aim at all--they are using it to apply a space with severely restricted free speech. That is no reform and is not just. Helen points out that intersectionality and identity politics are but critical theory that retains cultural constructs while looking at systems and hierarchies of power. There is no universality and no liberalism. We are losing our individuality, and we lose our shared humanity when all we are considered is being an avatar of our identity group memberships. James classifies intersectionality as opposed to hegemonic dominance or the ruling orthodoxy of white male patriarchy, to be defeated and deconstructed, make it a problem and then tear it down. I think these intersectionalists and critical race theory advocates are revolutionaries and nihilists, dangerous, destructive, resentful, totalitarian and cruel. They wish all Americans ill, and destroy whatever they touch. Nothing good grows out of the ism that they promote. They enforce speech conformity and thought conformity in the spaces that they now control in society, James notes, by policing the shape of the moral community by running dissenters out. The new Devil is hate and those that defy intersectionalists are labeled and demonized as haters to be attacked and repressed. Equity replaces reasonable, liberal, traditional goals of equality, by making all outcome fair by imposing equality of outcomes with strict quotas for all jobs and all levels of every organization. Equity is about making up for old wrongs by new attacks on former or current groups of oppressors. There is nothing innate--all traits and behaviors are learned and socially constructed within the linguistic community to which one was born. Biology denialism occurs here, obviously. Intersectionalists diagnose America as a matrix of oppression and all of society's discourses promote that complex system of injustice. Intersectionalism is a dangerous ideology, whose adherents share a rigid, ideological worldview, and island epistemology that those outside of their group or groups cannot understand them and have not right to criticize them because they are not woke insiders, so no valid arguments can be raised against them. This anti-reason, anti-logical, anti-evidence or critical argumentation leads insular thinking and inbred, erroneous, dogmatic thinking. James notes that intersectionalists want to invert not overthrow the pyramid of oppression, for now the many will oppress the few at the bottom. They are not about injustice resolution--they are about seizing power and exacting revenge on whites, males and all Westerners. A more wicked and cruel group of haters cannot be envisioned. These people are unfit to rule anywhere, and heaven protect us, should they come to rule America. Helen announces that their project in this Q & A is to waken and mobilize the silent majority to fight back against isms and their radical advocates pushing against that majority from the fringes. I agree that intersectionality is a manifestation of the neo-Marxist, postmodernist ism and mass movement now seeking to destroy America. They mean no one well, and these true believers are to be stopped and kept out of power before they destroy us all.

The Panel

I watched and took notes on this Aspen video from 2019 and here is the verbatim introduction to this video on Applied Postmodernism. Bad ideas, ideological but not grounded in evidence, science or logical argument, are now being applied, and the effect is the crippling of our universities and the progressive destruction of civic culture. These three authors, all liberal atheists, wrote fake papers that were often published in peer-reviewed journals. Academics are promoting postmodernist ideology over sound scholarship: "Applied Postmodernism: Idea Laundering - Pluckrose, Lindsay & Boghossian 647 views •Aug 8, 2019 25 1 Share Save Aspen Jewish Community Center - Chabad of Aspen 32 subscribers How "Idea Laundering" is Crippling American Universities and Destroying Civic Culture In 2017 and 2018, as a part of a whistleblowing effort, James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, and Helen Pluckrose wrote ideologically-driven, morally horrific papers and submitted them to leading peer-reviewed academic journals. Seven of these were published, and seven more were under review before their project was uncovered and subsequently revealed by the Wall Street Journal. The trio's intention was to expose a kind of academic corruption that puts radical social and political agendas ahead of scholarship and a dispassionate search for truth." Helen commences by criticizing Applied Postmodernism that denies that sexual selection goes on, as humans compete with their same-sex rivals to select a mate to couple with. Helen also believes that race matters less than shared goals. She is very bright and very articulate. She is hard to disagree with. Peter Boghossian dislikes that on campus, conservatives and liberals are so intimidated that they cannot push back against those asserting the need for safe spaces against trigger warning and microaggressions. It seems that students are regarded as too vulnerable to allow the open exchange and expressions of alternative ideas. Freedom of speech and outspoken ideas are discouraged and disallowed on campus, and this most un-American tyranny and ideological oppression must cease. Young people, it is insisted, need sheltering from controversial ideas, as dissident intellectuals are attacked and cowed into silence and overt conformity. By institutional design, no free speech, no free enquiry is acceptable. Neither evidence or logical justification of ideological stance is welcome or permitted. If one challenges their wild assertions by asking for evidence, that inquiry is regarded as racism. They explain how their friend and Professor Brett Weinstein at the same liberal arts college in Olympia, Washington, fought against Maoist-like woke fanatical students that saw racism everywhere in this ultra-liberal college, where none existed, and rioted and took over the institution. Helen, Peter and Jim Lindsay wrote junk, ideological papers, 7 of which were published in professional journals, and they did this to reveal how much poor-quality crap, driven by ideology not science, has invading academic publications. They exposed the postmodernist bent of fraudulent academics that claimed that objective knowledge does not exist and cannot be discovered. All there is to be discovered and written about is subjective knowledge that is mere opinion up against other opinions, and these opinions are made by people whose language is artificially constructed. They accuse white heterosexual males of foisting off their subjective knowledge as objective, rational and scientifically discovered, when all it is language of justification asserting white power conglomerating as their rationalization using language to protect their knowledge power to help them protected their oppressive hegemony. They recount how the oppressors punch down against the oppressed who conflict with these oppressors by punching up against them. Reverse discrimination is justifiable for the racist oppressed can never be bigoted against their white oppressors. These identity-politics obsessed postmodernist radicals hail subjective victim knowledge as good, while subjective oppressor knowledge is bad and dismissed. These radicals are anti knowledge, anti-reason, anti-evidence, anti-science anti-liberty and anti-individualist, and these cruel prejudices are a cruel, effective, concerted effort to undermine Western values. Helen observes that Enlightenment values like liberalism, equality among individuals, and freedom for all is dismissed as reasons pawned off on the public by white heterosexual oppressors. The postmodernist collectivist would replace white patriarchal ideology, a linguistic fiction allowing them to keep power for themselves, I believe it was Jim Lindsay that quoted Brett Weinstein as the one that coined the phrase idea laundering (woke, extreme biases are pawned off as objective scientific and per-reviewed in respectable journals to make them emerge as impressive, legitimate and often cited. Just as dirty drug money is filtered through bogus businesses to make it appear clean, that money has been made clean and presentable for regular society and economic exchange. and investment. These three intellectuals started with outrageous biases, their conclusions that they started with and produced reasoning and arguments to make these conclusions seem solid and rigorously vetted. Many of these fake papers were accepted by academic peers. These three are showing how junk science and Marxist crap has been mainstreamed and made promising, as the woke ideologues take over campuses across the nation. Not good, not good at all. These three lament that academic woke scholar are now lost from swimming in this inbred, postmodernists pond for the last 50 or 60 years. These ideologues deny biology, insisting that men and women are the same, and that different roles are not innate, but are made up by society. Helen dismisses the insane assertion that men like women, taught to like them, and sexual attraction is not a natural desire to procreate. Academic dissidents are threatened with censure, not being published, Title IX violations or not granted tenure. Postmodernists do not play by the rules of engagement--their opposition are to be crushed and silenced. None speak out against them. They demand that we examine our white privilege. These three are trying to lead a counter-movement against academic leftist fascism. White skin is a privilege? Helen discovers that postmodernist leftists deny that economic status and education do not much matter, because race, gender, sex and sexuality is where discrimination is most telling and hurtful? She wonders why a white homeless man is more privileged than a black millionaire. To be white is to be racist, all are complicit in racism, and all whites or born into it and speak it. She denounces their neurotic focus on language. The postmodernists see the power imbalance as permanent and racism as universal. Grievance studies are what much of modern college is all about. They demand that others accept and follow their ideology; no disagreement will be tolerated. Knowledge is relative, and the only reality is the social community captured by and expressed by language and power struggles among the vying identity groups are all that there is. This video, Applied Postmodernism: How 'Idea Laundering" is crippling American Universities." Postmodernist Marxists have taken over Academia, Hollywood and the media, and they aim to take over the entire society, and then the whole world, like the ambitious fascists that they are. They wield undue institutional power, and conservatives, moderates and liberals cannot speak their minds on campus, due to being intimidated by loud, bullying, vicious minorities. The Internet helps this mob silence opposition. We three liberal atheists are loved by the religious right. Postmodernists are fascinated with language: language and power wielded by the white male patriarchy keep others down through language domination, so they deconstruct language. Equity is not equality to treat all fairly: it is to grab the reins of power and then make up for past injustices via reverse discrimination. Science is not a valued methodology. These three want a Counter-Reformation from modernists and liberals to obstruct and stall out these totalitarian, postmodernist thugs.

Outweighing All Other Considerations

Should your natural right to exercise and enjoy your liberty outweight all other interests and priorities, all the time. Probably not, but it had not be denied systematically or very often.

Your Prerogatives

Prerogatives: you have them and should insist that your rights and liberties are respect and not trampled upon by the government or others. Your responsibilities: Jordan Peterson advises that these are more important for the well-being of the individual and for society--he is right of course. If you individuate, you will be exercising your divine right and obligation to maverize, and it is also your responsibility to take up the role that God has set forth for you to shoulder.

The Preamble

May your children show great promise as maverizers while still in secondary school. May their adult years be one of maverization.

Show Some Personality

Show some personality. Project your selfhood upon the the world, but not by hurting others and gaining power over them.

The Pivot

You do not want to waste your life as a mediocrity. You wish and plan never to lapse into indolence, laziness, stupidity and evil deeds. You will aim to go higher, be more loving, more intelligent, more imaginative. You can do this.

To Act

To lead a meeaningful and rich life, one has to act. Of course, doing research and proceeding cautiously are sensible precursosrs to acting, but, at the end of the day, one has to risk failing or being hurt, and must attempt something.

Accidents

Do uncaused accidents occur, for which there is no prediction nor prior knowledge that would necessitate such an event? I believe so.

4/10/2021

Dennis Prager posted today a piece from one of his recent fireside chats: he regards it as ridiculous, disingenuous and false for someone, black or anyone else, to claim that they are one with the global black family. We are individualists first, or should be, and our racial, ethnic and national affinities are an important and distant second to our individual orientation to life. Prager insists correctly that it is culture and values, not skin color, that make one what one is. Amen.

Absurdity

Yes, absurdity is integral and ineradicable, a primal condition of existing. Things can make no sense, and meaninglessness is what we encounter. Still, with good values, observation, and reasoned syllogism applied to our natural patterns, at least some of what we have experienced and observed can begin to make sense.

Abstractionism

We know that we do not want to attribute actual existence to the mere name for any universal, but, on the other hand, if Hegel was correct, and what is thought is what is real, then there may be a case for ideas actually existing as organizing parts of the structure of reality, not just presented as empty, arbitrarily assigned, nominalist names.

To The Contrary

Stirner, too the contrary, abstractions are useful, higher order concepts. We need abstractions in order to think, be logical, think well, and reach needed, insightful conclusions. Now, we do not want to worship any abstraction as an ism, but we need abstractions to live.

Absolutism

Those revolutionaries, that conspire and plot to overthrow the American government, to supplant it with Communist totalitarianism, use the specious ruse that they are wiping out degenerate America in the name of social and racial justice. In fact, amassing power is their only motive. Their identity groups, hailed as victims to be fought for, are but pawns and useful idiots. It matters not in the long run if absolutism is right-wing or left-wing. Either of these twins introduce hell on earth.

Aesthetic Enterprise

Some have suggested that aesthetic undertakings are of the highest value, the most noble and glorious enterprise that any human could engage in. I will not deny for a second that the aesthetic creations at the hands of an individuating artist can be marvelous to the discerning eye. A commitment to and appreciation for the fine arts is a most admirable involvement. But are moral or spiritual ventures less marvelous and sublime. I think not, so enjoy all three.

Absolutism

It could be that truth is objectively real, unchanging and the last word in truth matters. Are we able to ascertain the gist of such knowledge, and then communicate it with our English, everyday language. It seems difficult to me, but our discussions about truth can at least approximate the gist of absolute truth.

Josh Hammer for Townhall.Com

Writer and conservative pundit Josh Hammer wrote an opinion piece, The Coalition of the Un-Woke, for this online magazine, posted 4/2/2021. I would like to selectively quote from his article and then comment on his opinions. Let me quote his first paragraph in full: "The metastasis of the 'woke' ideology is the most comprehensive threat facing the American republic. It is appallingly totalitarian, insofar as the woke wield the levers of cancel culture to suppress all dissident speech, root out all wrongthink, and achieve by sheer force an intellectual homogeneity. It is outright racist, insofar as intersectionality and identity politics, to say nothing of vogue concepts such as 'critical race theory' and 'racial equity', overtly discriminate on the basis of race and thus undermine the preeminent American ethos of equal protection under the law." My response: He is bright, articulate, informed, hard-hitting and completely accurate. His alarmism and beating the drums of calling the silent majority to organize, fight back hard and how, and be loud, proud and in their face. The Democrats and Progressives are now a secular, Marxist mass movement, out to wipe out America and the West. They seek one-party Communist rule with open borders to bring in 60 million socialist-loving people of color to make the final conversion to full-on Ameritopia. Leftist reverse-racism against whites, heterosexuals, constitutionalists, conservatives, men, Christians, capitalists, originalists and republicans is a vicious, ugly campaign that we will to our being place in concentration camps, even executed as they wipe out "enemies of the state". Let me quote Hammer further: " . . . the woke ideology has nonetheless become the unifying creed of the American ruling class. That ruling class, which extends from public sector bureaucracies to the Fortune 500 to Silicon Valley . . . has become in recent years to imbibe, promulgate and disseminate the core tenets of wokeness." My response: Other members of the ruling class include college-educated professionals, teachers, professors, clergy and reporters. Let me quote Hammer further: "What's more, that universality often takes the more insidious form of cross-institutional collusion: As Mathew Schmitz put it in a Tablet essay last September, 'Governmental authorities and corporations now coordinate in enforcing the dictates of the new secular progressive faith.' Thus has the woke ideology completed, a la the Italian Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci, its long march through the institutions. And let's not mince words This is Marxism. As Israeli political theorist Yoram Hazony carefully outlined in a Quillette essay last August, 'The New Marxists do not use the technical jargon that was devised by the 19th-century Communists.' but 'their politics are based on the Marx's framework of criticizing liberalism.'" My response: Hammer opened my eyes by showing how corporatists and government are collaborating to advance the new progressive faith, like when the tech giants and old media worked to get Biden elected President, helping him steal the election. They are powerful, organized, cunning, and dangerous. The rot runs very deep and wide to the American body politic now. Jordan Peterson and Stephen Hicks warns that Marxism is not dead but was repackaged as postmodernist leftists, similar to what Yoram Hazony is detecting and reporting. Let me quote from Hammer further: "Liberalism--real, actual, Enlightenment liberalism--is increasingly on the defensive in America. Though there remain many right-leaning classical liberals--those who tend to prioritize the free market and individual liberty--the locus of intellectual energy on the grassroots American right now comes from those who question whether our modern societal commitment to values-neutral liberalism has actually succeeded in 'conserving' much of anything. On the left, the traditional 'live and let live' liberalism of John Stuart Mill has been far too reluctant to push back against the woke ideology. Left-liberalism is not quite vanquished yet, but it is on the decline, as evidenced by such developments as the Democratic Party's present infatuations with ending the Senate filibuster and packing the federal courts. So much for 'neutral' proceduralism." My response: Yes modernism, Westernism, Americanism, individualism and capitalism are under severe, damaging attack by Communist revolutionaries out to overthrow us from within. The moderate Democrats, the liberals, run interference and cover for the radical Leftists, and do not condemn so they are emboldened to promote overthrowing our government and entire way of life. Our RINO politicians and conservative intellectual too often are weak, submissive, part of the Swamp, are so jaded and corrupt that they no longer believe in defending, let alone advancing conservative principles. Hammer points to a couple of courageous Leftists that denounce, expose and oppose the woke crowd and their nihilist ideology, but they are too few and too weak to stop the woke mob in its tracks. Hammer wants a Counter-Reformation, a coalition of the organized, powerful, outspoken and effective un-woke, and he is correct about this. Let me quote Hammer: "The solution is for a political coalition of the un-woke . . . so, too, can a coalition of the un-woke be based around a commonality of interests arrayed against a mutually shared, authoritarian foe . . . Either they will dance to the tune of the Marxists and help bring Western democracy to an end, or they will seek to develop a pro-liberty alliance with conservatives . . . The survival of Western civilization, quite literally, depends on it." My response: We need to work together to stymie and stall this Communist mass movement, and work to restore the American Way.

The Filibuster

Democrats and Progressive deeply crave to cheat at voting, to keep the borders open so illegal immigrants that will vote Democratic. They want huge urban majorities to rule every red and formerly red state by simple majority rule, shredding the Constitution, wipe out the Electoral College and eliminate the filibuster in Congress. The filibuster thwarts one-party rule, so that simple majority rule democracy is the degenerating our political situation to that of majority tyranny, and no minority rights or protections. The filibuster is one means of protecting minorities under the constitutional republic.

Do Not Live This Way

You can spend your entire life in denial, but happiness, healing, progress and meaning will elude you because you are a liar at the core of your being.

The Lying Press

This past Sunday, the StarTribune (4/4/2021), had an article in their B section entitled, "Gun proposals going nowhere in the Legislature. Just underneath that title, staff writers Stephen Montemayor and Jim Spencer note: "With debate stalled, carry permits and background checks are at record levels." These writers lament that no mass shootings in Minnesota leave people unmotivated to support gun control legislation. Let me quote them again: "The impasse over new gun restrictions at the divided State Capitol continues even in the aftermath of the state's own deadly shooting at a health clinic in Buffalo, Minn, in February. Meanwhile, gun sales in the state are soaring to record heights." Gun control efforts here are stalled but the writers hope that coming legislative redistricting for the 2022 will give the Democrats more seats so gun control bills can pass. Instead of noting and giving credit to the Dorr Brothers and Minnesota Gun Rights for pushing the Republican legislators to stand firm against gun-grabbers, the success and quotes come from Rob Doar, policy director of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus. In reality the NRA and Doar's group compromise and will allow gun restricting legislation. The unyielding, no-compromise stance has been built and maintained by MGR and its followers. Here is Rob Doar's quote: "We've seen in the past 10 years the parties get more entrenched in their ideologies; there are fewer pro-Second Amendment Democrats, and there are fewer pro-gun control Republicans. " That is true enough. We in the gun rights movement are stronger in Minnesota than ever, and whether districts are purple, red or moderate, we will get those new legislators to be pro-gun, even pushing pro-gun bills, not just staying on defense. We have a couple of pro-gun legislators now in the House, and these champions of gun rights will lead to Minnesota being pro-gun not anti-gun far into the future, but do not expect the Strib to give credit where it is due.

Profundity

Profundity is not synonymous with obscurity.

Praise

You should not be profuse or excessive in your praise of yourself or others. Instead, you should strive to be impartial in your descriptions of yourself and others. In truth, praise where people are praiseworthy, and critize where their values and demeanor are blameworthy.

Snuggle

Ironically, it may well be that our most self-defeating trait is our powerful desire to snuggle or nestle with others. To snuggle with others keeps us group-oreinted and unaccomplished To desire to be apart from others can lead to one that self-realixes out of bordeom or oportunity.

Soaked

Perhaps no other human trait has caused so much pain and suffering in the world than our predisposal to absorbing what another thinks or does. We are herd creatures so ready to soak up whatever our neighbor as doing, regardless of the harm such borrowing may do.

Gifted

Can only the genius or the gifted self-realize? Emphatically no. Get going. Amount to something--please God.

Risk-Taking

One has to take risks if one is to go out into the world at all. Maybe wisdom is prudent risk-taking.

My Brand Of Ethics

I am a psychological altruist, asserting that people are more motivated by other-interest than self-interest, and that they are more born depraved than benevolent. Satan is an altruist more than an egoist, and God is more of an egoist than an altruist. Satan is more about hatred than love, and God is more about love than hatred. To be born human is to be naturally other-interested, and that is to be selfish, cruel, violent, passionate and uncivilized until one learns the proper values as how to live and treat God, oneself and others with kindness and respect. So, when Christians advocate an altruistic ethic, they are promoting Satanism. When, under Mavellonialism, I promote normative egoism, I am promoting the values of love, order, creation, truth and beauty. In ethics, I admire the principle of moderation is behavior, actions and thought, most of the time. With this in mind, the moral person is more self-centered than other-centered, but one must be both at the same time. Also, the individual is invited by God to self-realize, to become a great-souled individualist and to individual-live. The individual is invited by Satan to amount to little, nothing, or just get by with mediocre performance. One is not to develop one's talents, be an atrophied soul, a follower, a conformist, a group-thinker, a member of the herd, and to group-live.

Genesis 3:21-24

This 3rd chapter of Genesis is so rich in meaning and import--I know my analysis is not exhaustive--that I am quoting the rich, remaining lines in full. Here they are from my 1970 The American Bible: "For the man and his wife, the Lord God made leather garments, with which he clothed them. Then the Lord God said: 'See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad. Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever. The Lord God therefore banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he had been taken. When he expelled the man, he settled him east of the garden of Eden; and he stationed the cherubim and the fiery revolving sword, to guard the way to the tree of life." Note that Yahweh had to slay a cow or sheep or pig to sow together leather garments for the First Couple to be dressed in, so this seems to indicate the Yahweh allows humans to kill animals for food and clothing. The Lord God announced to his angels that the man--and his wife--had become like one of the divine souls by sinning. They now were alive, conscious and instilled with a conscience and soul. But as free-willing sinners, mortal humans were to remain separated and barred from touching or eating the fruit of the tree of life and knowledge. Only Yahweh and his angels were good enough, strong enough, loving enough and self-disciplined enough to live in two worlds, extending and ruling the real of good on both sides of the divide. Let me explain: Yahweh and his angels could live in the world, know of good and evil, perhaps sin mildly, without the exposure damaging their inherent and earned goodness. They remained immortals, and touch and taste from the tree of life (Heaven where pure goodness and a lack of free will is the state of most of the beings there, except for Yahweh and a few cherubim able to work in heaven and on earth. By living and working in both worlds Yahweh and the angels were able to protect the existing kingdom of God while expanding its territorial growth on earth. Yahweh gave Adam to concept of tilling the soil to feed his growing family. He showed him where to farm. Note that the cherubim established by Yahweh as the sentry to keep humans away from the tree of life; he held a fiery revolving sword. Banishing humans from touching or eating the fruit from the tree of life might seem cruel, but again it likely was an act of love: primitive, ancient humans, nonindividuating and groupist with altruistic ethics, were not moral enough, strong-willed enough or loving enough nor wise enough to be worthy to be trusted to know heaven (the tree of life) while alive as undeveloped, unenlightened sinners and brutes wandering around freely on the earth. Were the uninitiated given free will and allowed to access directly the tree of life as uninitiated, sinful, free-willed Adam and Eve has been allowed to enjoy, the descendants of the First Couple would have failed and spread the realm of the serpent much wider, much faster, very early on. They were banished from accessing heaven, and only allowed to live as mortals on earth, because they could not resist the powerful, irresistible temptation of eating that forbidden fruit. They would be allowed to live out their mortal lives on earth, and, if freely willed to be good and serve and love Yahweh, they could in the afterlife come once again to enter the Garden of Eden. Until Yahweh and the angels of light were able to vanquish Satan, Lera and the evil spirits, then and now ruling this world, there will be no heaven on earth, no more Garden of Eden on earth, until the end of time when a good deity like Christ restores light, love and order to the inhabitants on earth. Until then, heaven must remain in heave--there the Garden of Eden has retreated to and will remain safe and untainted. Let me quote these verses from the Holy Bible (KJV): "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skin and clothed them. And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever. Therefore, the Lord sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. so, he drove out the man; and he placed him at the east of the garden of Eden, cherubim and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." Yahweh notes that Adam now knows good and evil as a mortal, a creature of free agency, a sinner and one that has eaten from the tree of life before his time; therefore, his awareness makes him embarrassed to be naked, so he must be modest and clothed, unlike creature of pure nature that go about naked and un-self-conscious about it. It implies that Yahweh and the angels enjoy free will, have sinned a bit, and that they too wear clothes to hide their nakedness. But, they are so good due to their free-willed choice, not just immortal, kind, puppets and robots that cannot do evil, and do not understand what evil is. If evil Adam became immortal while sinful and nonindividuating, he would grow evil over a large area, perhaps expanding its realm forever. This U=Yahweh disallowed. Note that Yahweh showed Adam where to go and how to live, so Yahweh still loved and guided his human children. If the sword wielded by the cherubim was forged in heaven, then divine factories and smiths may well have existed.

Named Afterwards Genesis 3:20

After the fall from grace, after Yahweh banishes Adam and Eve from the Garden, and they are doomed to suffer, sin, recover and die, at this point Eve receives a name. I am speculating, but being name makes one an individual, and one is only an individual if one thinks, and enjoys free agency of will. Eve, the sinful mother of humankind, has become real, flesh and blood. she has become an individual, a unique. Is the fall from grace a blessing more than a curse, more a gift from God than a punishment? I would think so. Here is that verse from my 1970 The American Bible: "The man called his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all the living." Here is this verse from the Holy Bible (KJV): "And Adam called his wife Eve; because she was the mother of all the living."