White Nationalist

 

The other day some slandering Leftist creep sought to skiver terminated Tucker Carlson by dismissing him as a white nationalist.

 

Dennis Prager defines Leftists as socialist ideologues that believe the lies they spread, and Liberals do not believe these lies, but are responsible for voting for Leftists so that they are able to dominate the Democratic Party.

 

Prager insists that most whites are not racial supremacists, nor rabid nationalists—these negative attributions, falsely attributed to white and conservatives, is a smear campaign from Leftists attacking regular, decent Americans.

 

I believe that Progressives are true believers in Marxism and they are internationalist, revolutionary Bolsheviks that seek to smash America and set up a global, Marxist, totalitarian state. They are the ones that are fascists with some Leftist trappings, be they white or of some other race.

 

Tucker Carlson is white and a conservative, but American conservatives are not fascists, or Nazi-like nationalists out for compelling white supremacy on America first, and, second, upon the world.

 

These accusations against moderate conservatives, whites and Republicans is to accuse the Right in America of being what the Left actually is and are up to, though they disguise their ruthless radicalism quite well.

Never Too Old

 

You are never too old to worry, be frightened or even despair. But, by the time that you are 25 years of age, you have a moral obligation to strengthen your good, strong individuating will, in service to loving the Good Spirits, others and yourself, so that you may soldier on, never allowing worry, fright, indecision or despair to shut you down for very long.

Equality Sought

 

I have long vehemently opposed Progressive attempts to overthrow the American System and Way because they seek raw power and totalitarian revolution, not relief for the poor and disenfranchised as they claim and lie about. Lying is their cunning way of life to dupe the credulous, emotional masses into accepting their project as proposed.

 

The old socialist theory was that the community was what counted, and that all need to be equal, and none are allowed to stand out as individuals to make more money or gather power and wealth to themselves as members of a higher social and economic class. None could individually get ahead or strike out on one’s own.

 

American culture traditionally has clashed with that theory: here is has been the tradition that free markets and individual initiative, hard work, and liberty, will provide significant material rewards for those that acquire them honestly by hard work, honest but smart effort—in effect, merited material personal success.

 

 

Still, we classical liberals must address the issues of inequality, injustice and the pain naturally caused by a class system. We must offer the masses relief from these by products of our capitalist system so that the people will not seek socialist relief anymore.

 

I think I know how the American Way can be preserved with inequality, injustice, and hierarchies—and the pain they deliver to the masses distributed along the class structure—minimized. It seems that the Pareto law where 20% of the workers end up with 80% of the wealth is a natural law, or close to it.

 

I propose a way to beat the Pareto Law of distribution. We can alter nature and history as Mavellonialists. First, we raise a future generation of children to be individuators-anarchist supercitizens. They will, on average, achieve upper middle-class rank, power, and material success by their merited achievement as workers and owners in our free market constitutional republic.

 

Where and when 80% or higher of these adults, in their generation,  are successful and very free and prosperous, there will only be  a few citizens who are very poor, or lower middle class. And the few millionaires, billionaires, and trillionaires at the top will have great wealth, but almost no political power.

 

This great, mass society of upper middle class, empowered, feisty individuators and supercitizens will be so fulfilled, happy, wealth, powerful and in charge, that any class system will be much reduced and much less a factor.

 

Such just statesman-like citizens, will voluntarily enjoy their freedom, power and wealth, but will suffer no injustice to be done unto them, and will self-restricting from being unjust towards anyone.

 

This new social, economic, and political reality will minimize the size, scope, depth and pervasiveness of hierarchies and groupist-living patterns. With this conscious, unnatural way of having merit be near universal, then the Pareto law can be stood on its head with 80% or higher having enough money, power, freedom, and justice that these masses will not want or desire socialist revolution to get their justice and equality needs met.

 

Then individuals rising out of the group with inequality vanquished and merit being unleashed, without the caste system and group-living that has always kept unsophisticated citizens subjugated and owned by the state their ethnic group, their family, their religious tradition, can live in a just, prosperous, free society based on merit, but with inequality and injustice mostly having disappeared.

 

 

One Extreme Triggers Its Opposite Number

 

Stephen R Hicks is a a Objectivist philosopher, professor, author and Randian expert. His most brilliant work is his 2004 book, Explaining Postmodernism.

 

Hicks is an original thinker, and he might be the foremost expert in the world on Postmodernism.

 

Let me quote him from Pages 84 and 85 of this book: “Chapter Four The Climate of Collectivism From postmodern epistemology to postmodern politics

 

There is a problem with making epistemology fundamental to any explanation n of postmodernism. The problem is postmodernists’ politics.

 

If a deep skepticism about reason and the consequent subjectivism and relativism were the most important parts of the story of postmodernism, then we would expect to find that postmodernists would represent a roughly random distribution of commitments across the political spectrum. If values and politics are primarily a matter of a subjective leap into whatever fits one’s preferences, then we should find people making leaps into all sorts of political programs.

 

This is not what we find in the case of postmodernism. Postmodernists are not individuals who have reached relativistic conclusions about epistemology and then found comfort in a wide variety of political persuasions. Postmodernists are monolithically far Left-wing in their politics . . . Of the major names in the postmodernist movement, there is not a single figure who is not Left-wing in a serious way.”

 

My response: Hicks has noted this glaring contradiction: postmodernists, on the one hand, espouse  extreme epistemological nominalism, skepticism, subjectivism and relativism about any axioms, principles or causes that any objective epistemology, championing the ideals of expressible, comprehensible objective truth and objective values; on the one the hand, the same ideologues are speaking with one unified voice, and totalistic uniformity of political outlook, far-Left absolutism, when revealed, is compatible or leading to Leninism overtaking America and the world.

 

How can a Leftist professor be postmodernist epistemologically and then a political absolutism in the same moment?

 

Is he a hypocrite, confused, unaware of this internal contradiction, or a crazy person that lives with contradictory axioms at work in his mind. Hicks will explore all of these points, and does not dismiss them so much as conclude that postmodernists do follow a narrative, they are Leftists seeking to overthrow all ruling classes and to set up their totalitarian collectivist agenda worldwide. They have a narrative and a set of values that they believe in and that they are noble

 

and correct, and all the world should live by them, whether or not, they accede willingly or at the point and prodding of a soldier nudging them with a machine gun.

 

This is why I have long known that postmodernist Leftism is a Marxist mass movement and these adherents are fanatics. They preach Max Stirner-type epistemology to undermine the American masses still following the main narratives and culture of the American Way, but these Leftists have their ideological values, absolute and pure, to introduce and to crush all, once the revolution is successful, and all in America and the West are overthrown.

 

Fanatics use claims of subjectivity, objectivity, truth and lies, words and force as tools to gaining victories on the road to achieving their real goal: world domination and the subjugation to their cause, their adored set of values, their sacrosanct narrative and loyalty and service to the ruling Party that will run governments and everything else, once counterrevolutionaries are sufficiently trounced.

 

In the sense just mentioned above, it makes sense that postmodernist epistemology is a political tactic for gaining power and winning people over, and this is what Hicks is accusing these mendacious, insincere gaslighters of doing, and he is correct.

 

I think postmodernist Leftists are complex creatures—like all humans—and there are other psychological tensions at work here too. As Hicks points out, logically and empirically, Marxism and socialism were well debunked and refuted 50 years ago, but professors and other ideologues, chose to remain radicalized believes in Leninism based upon irrational devotion and illogical, unswerving loyalty to the cause they idolize. Postmodernist epistemology gives them cover so they can dismiss out of hand the empirical, economic, and logical criticisms that classical liberals and conservative have heaped upon Marxist thought as intellectually bankrupt, practically unworkable, compatible with mass federal murder of millions of people, and an engine for impoverishing whole nations.

 

I add a thought from my ontological law of moderation: one extreme triggers its opposite number. On one hand, they tout relativism and subjectivity in epistemological orientation, and on the other hand, these atheists, nihilists, materialists, and secularists are without values or meaning. No one mentally can toleration a values-vacuum for very long. People are driven by existential emptiness to elevate their political ideal to religious status, a faith to worship, Big Government collectivism is their God, and Marx is their prophet. A lousy faith to adhere to trumps no faith at all.

 

Where people have no objective truths to live by and up to, their lack of value and meaning drives them to latch onto a passing cause as the one truth faith (a fetish or phantasm, perhaps backed by demonic prodding), the star to hitch their wagon to as I believe Eric Hoffer wrote.

Mike Gallagher

 

On 4-20-2023, I was listening to Mike Gallagher and he was furious over what a famous Broadway actress said about Christians opining that they were as bad as the Taliban.

 

This false and slanderous comparison is typical of Leftist ideologues. The Left ss more guilty as villains than offenses committed the Right in America. Though they exaggerate their innocence and fallaciously accuse their conservative enemies of all kinds of shortcomings. to make conservative seem like victimizers.

Leftists are filled with prejudice, anger and they lie all the time. They are cruel in the name of secular humanism, their faith that they would die for.

Loving Life

 

It is spring again and the cardinals and robins are chirping away, setting up and defending their territories, inviting the ladies to come and check them out.

 

Humans are so smart and able to rationalize that we often complicate things until they are so abstruse or disconnected from our natures, that we know not any longer how to live.

Perhaps, we should take a hint from the robins and cardinals that just love life and appreciate each day without fruitless conceiving.

Lost

 

Once a child is ruined, by their choice, or by tempters around them steering them awry, she will likely be lost for her entire life. She might even be alienated, lost from God and eternal goodness.

 

This is why each child, so precious and filled with potential, must be raised to be a good and holy person, and a maverizer as well. Most kids, if well-trained and loved, will grow up to be intellectual, kind, curious, hardworking, good, honest, lawful and self-realizing. They must initially and continually choose to be successful and good, but early, proper orientation is vital and key.

Power Assertion

 

We have a primal, powerful desire to live and thrive. We want to have our way, to expand our territory, increasing and augmenting the power that we start out life with.

 

What is vital if a child is to be become a good person is for her to enjoy inculcation in directing here egoist and altruist motives towards bring loving and healing to the world, and that effort expands and defends God established realm on earth.

 

Remember the natural drive to influence the world, and gain more say, power and wealth is natural personal ambition directed against others and the world itself., and that is what the individual ordinarily chases after. If however, the bad agent lacks the right egoist and altruist motives to love and heal, then she works to spread hatred, discord and suffering in the world. She aids the Evil Spirits.

 

You crave power, to gain more power, be it expressed as control, status, wealth, or hierarchical position. To be a good person is less about being unwilling or being unworthy to wield worldly power: rather it is more about wielding one’s “fair share of power” without amassing all power to oneself, or using the power one has to hate and to hurt.

 

You will lust after power, but make sure this drive is positively directed away from the power of powerlessness (group living and surrender to the herd, even if one leads it) towards the power of creativity, affection and liberty enjoyed and allowed for others.

 

Beware seeking after the power of powerlessness, that is, group power over other joiners and insiders, over rival groups, or over loners. Your dark ambition will taint and swamp you: you have allied yourself to the Dark Couple.

Awesome Endorsement

 

I am looking at an old Cavalier Chronicle newspaper from 2/15/2022, and I enjoy their weekly homilies about Jesus. This one was entitled, Awesome Endorsement. It refers to the fact that:  “Jesus is the summation of the Law and Prophets. He was atop the mountain with Moses and Elijah. In a dazzling display, God conveyed His approval of Jesus to His friends. Their reaction? Fear. Our reaction? Awe. Worship awesome Jesus this week in church. And He was transfigured before them Mathew 17:1-9.”

 

That is an awesome endorsement indeed.

 

Everlasting Life

 

Jesus died on the cross to open the way to heaven for all to enjoy everlasting life, but God the Father raised him from the dead.

 

If you believe, and live well and pray sincerely, likely you one day will experience everlasting life, or a very long life in Paradise.

Their Vulnerability

 

I subscribe to an online link to brilliant, articulate, young conservative thinker, Christopher F. Rufo. I feel the need to stay informed about the latest trends and development in the resurgent conservative political and philosophical movement fomenting in this country, and I believe Rufo is a great resource for keeping old thinkers like me abreast of latest trends.

 

He has been in Hungary as some sort of visiting intellectual and he gave a speech there on April 20, this year, and I will quote from the text of that speech, where I find it of special interest, and then comment on what he writes.  He is attending the Mathias Corvinus Collegium in Budapest, Hungary.

 

The title of his speech is Liberalism’s Achilles Heel: How the Left exploited the separation of church and state and installed a new bureaucratic morality.

 

My response: Rufo conflates Liberalism and Leftism—as do many conservatives—but Dennis Prager differentiates between them. Liberals are mildly progressive but reasonable, while Leftists are ideologues, hard-core postmodernist Marxists, and they have to be opposed fiercely, actively, unswervingly, loudly and consistently. Here Rufo refers to Liberals but I believe he intends to identify them as Leftists.

 

Rufo: “We’re going to talk today about the ‘long march through the institutions.’ It’s a phrase that originates with the West German Marxist activist Rudi Dutschke, but in some ways takes its most impressive form in the United States. I’d like to explain why the United States was vulnerable to this kind of strategy and discuss the capture of state institutions from the 1960s to the present, the emergence of a new left-wing bureaucratic morality, and then suggest what can be done about it.”

 

My response: This long march through the institutions in America started early in the 20^th century, and this Fabian expansion of socialist and statist influence over our federal government, and increasingly through all kinds of institutions, demonstrates how dangerous and effective is their quiet, persistent, incremental Marxist revolutionary takeover of the US government. This gnawing away at the fabric of all things American started long before Rudi in the 1960s, but he doubtless made it worse. Rufo’s expression, a new left-wing bureaucratic morality that now is the federal culture, captures what we are up against, and what must be done about it.

 

Rufo: “I think the key question that provides the foundation for all of this is the United States’ longstanding commitment to the separation of church and state. That is part of our history, a very basic tenet of our government. And the idea at the time . . . was to have a strict separation of the church and state, or the civil society and the government. And the idea was that if you could delegate religious or theological questions to the private sphere—in the United States we have a pluralistic tradition of many different churches and religious faiths—and then have the government administer the state institutions in a more neutral way. You also had a common moral consensus that was able to downplay some of those doctrinal differences and depolarize what is called the ‘theological-political” problem.”

 

Dennis Prager and others do not accept that the doctrine of separation of church and state was ever laid down in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers, and that it was a contrivance fabricated by federal judges in the 1940s. That seems likely: still, some separation of church and state in American government has some positive effect, if that court-engendered invention helps us be legally secular enough so that there is no sanctioned state church. Prager argues fiercely that we need God and morality in affairs of the civil society, the church and the state.

 

My principle of moderation would help to keep the society pluralistic, religious tolerant and open, even if god was reintroduced into the public arena.

 

Rufo: “And for a long period of time, this worked quite brilliantly. But the problem is that this form of governing has three presuppositions. First, it presupposed a limited government, the idea that the government should be small and limit itself to only securing the basic liberties of the people. Second, it presupposed a robust civil society . . . Even observers such as Alexis de Tocqueville saw that Americans were born organizers and had these very strong networks of non-governmental institutions. An third,  it presupposed a basic consensus on Christian morality  or Christian ethics, in other words, that all of the people of the time had the same basic Christian ethical framework, even if they had debates about doctrinal issues, they could be delegated to private society.”

 

My response: I think his three presuppositions hold well. We were founded on the principle of small government, and that allows for a robust civil society, much personal liberty, and for free markets to grow and make almost all people prosperous. Yes, we have always had a robust civil society and Eric Hoffer and Mark Levin comment on and approve of. There is no doubt that Judeo-Christian morality. That shared theological/cultural/ethical worldview was the cement that held our society together.

 

Rufo goes on to lament that these three presuppositions are now eroded and eclipsed. The state has expanded and its functionaries with their secular, bureaucratic morality now replace what was: “Second, civil society in the United State has been in free fall for decades . . . who have documented the dissolution of America’s social fabric . . . these social institutions have been replaced by the state management of society—the state has taken over the function of family, the church, and the civil organization.”

 

My response: I agree totally but would add that public schools and colleges used to be state or local concerns, but, increasingly, the federal government and the woke culture of DEI and CRT now rule everywhere.

 

Rufo: “Third, the Left has moved in direct opposition to a generalized Christian moral consensus. The left-wing theories of race, sex and power have maintained that all existing social structures are forms of oppression. The theoreticians have, in some ways, inverted the Christian moral ethic and replaced a transcendent conception of justice with a materialist conception of social justice, and then concluded that, in order to realize this kind of society, they had to smash all of the institutions. Whether its heteronormativity, the two-parent family, or religion itself—all are seen as an impediment to social justice, and, therefore, must be abolished.”

 

My response: The Left’s Marxist, materialistic, atheistic morality and ideology of social justice is a ideology leading to unrest, revolution, war and clashing. Collectivism and tyranny are the predictable outcomes. The Christian and Western concept of justice is predicated on the sovereign individual, his liberty, his prosperity and his protection of his property and rights by a limited, constitutional government. All that will be wiped out unless we traditionalist fight back.

 

Rufo: “ And so, what did this do? It created a moral void, in which you have this very unstable social structure. You have a large state bureaucracy, a weak civil society, and a collapsed moral consensus. And because of the separation of church and state—a prohibition that was increased in its level of restrictiveness over time—the state slowly eliminated Christian morality from the public square altogether, to the point that , even if you run a private company in the United States, you can’t put a Bible verse on your paycheck, because that is supposedly a violation of your employees’ civil rights.

 

The Left saw this development as a great opportunity. Their moral ideology and their revolution are explicitly secular, and therefore not restricted in any way by the separation of church and state. And they’re not opposed to a large state bureaucracy, or running a large state bureaucracy, which is also amenable to their politics. They had one problem, however: their ideology was not popular in United States, so they had to develop a plan to achieve cultural power without popular consent.”

 

My response: We need to push our traditional narrative: small, limited government, Christian ethics, individualism, the right to bear arms, constitutional republicanism, free markets, natural rights as given to us by God. We need ethics and God in the state affairs but with tolerance, coexistence and respect for religious differences accepted peacefully, a national set of values shared and lived by all citizens. We want to reintroduce God values into the public square without a return to religious wars which tore up Europe in the late medieval era.

 

We do not like what the globalists and educated experts in government are inflicting upon us, but they are unelected rulers over the masses, so we must take back the country. Individuator-anarchist supercitizens are the best antidotes to the tyranny practiced by the elites in government and corporations that now speak with one voice.

 

Rufo: “ . . . The strategy was fairly simple: in the 1960s, American left-wing activists realized that the route to power was not through democratic participation . . . So they said to themselves: ‘What we should do is bypass the democratic process, capture the state bureaucracy, and push our ideology through the public universities, K-12 education, and the administrative state.’

 

Unfortunately, conservatives were totally unequipped for resisting this maneuver. The Reagan conservative line was that government was the problem and therefore, conservatives should work to reduce the size of government—which, in effect, ceded all state activity to the Left. It naturalized secular leftist ideology as the defacto ideology of the state and then created a taboo for most conservatives that using power of the state to achieve conservative ends was forbidden.”

 

My response: Rufo is correct that we need to drastically but smartly need to reduce the size of government, but we have to fight to run the government still in place once it is reduced, devolved and right-sized. The indivduator-anarchist supercitizen is very politically astute and directly involved in running things from the bottom-up with a consensus formed by other supercitizen neighbors that have united with him to reinstate the American Way. No longer must Leftist revolutionaries be allowed to run things as a tyrannical élites from the top-down. Rufo is insightful in pushing that conservatives must participate and run the government to reverse the damage done in the last 100 years.

 

Rufo: “And then over the last three years, we saw the transformation of this ideology. Again, this is an evolution from the 1960s radical tradition, which was explicitly Marxist-Leninist, explicitly revolutionary, and explicitly violent, openly calling for the full-scale overturning of American society. You’re not going to see that kind of rhetoric when it’s coming from the Treasury Department or Lockheed Martin or your child’s elementary school, Instead, they translated those revolutionary principles into bureaucratic language. And so, we see the emergence of a bureaucratic morality that has animated all of America’s public institutions in the absence of any countervailing measure. We see a rationalization of revolutionary ideology. We see its absorption into the institutions, first in the state institutions, then laterally in private institutions.”

 

My response: Steven R. Hicks warned that Marxists from the Critical Theory revolutionaries from the 1930s on down through the postmodernists of the last 30 years, to all the intellectuals in all of the public and private institutions, today that preach soft revolution, still seek to overthrow and remake American society in their own image. Mark Levin warns in Ameritopia that soft tyranny is now here, and it will morph or be revealed as what it was always meant to be, a hard Leninist, totalitarian regime to rule America forever. Rufo is astute in uncovering these soft tyrants, these fanatics pedaling their cause, their mass movement, and it is consistent with what earlier and other thinkers have sounded the alarm about: the enemy is within the gates of the city.

 

Rufo goes on to describe this new cohort as the new elite, an all-knowing clas of administrators ruling society for its own benefit.

 

Rufo suggests that conservatives get back in the game, and not seek some Libertarian stateless utopia, but to take over and downsize but also run the existing government.

 

He is such a clear, competent thinker, concisely and articulately defining the problem and bringing a clear workable solution. He is a joy to read or listen to.

 

 

Freedom

 

 Minnesota Gun Rights quoted Benjamin Franklin that those that give up freedom for a little, temporary safety, soon are deprived of both.

 

Liberty is precious and must be fought for, not just defensively, but we must restore our constitutional republic , defended and  operated, by the people from the bottom up,  a well-armed citizen’s militia of millions of feisty, trained warriors, lawful and orderly, but fearless, willing to die before accepting tyranny.

 

These anarchist-individuator supercitizens will restore limited government and our constitutional republic. They will fulfill Trump’s promise to make America great again.

Is Jesus An Individualist?

 

Is Jesus an individualist? If you asked me to quote Biblical verse to back up my assertion that Jesus is an individualist, I could not think of any, at least off hand.

 

Just remember, that I assume that individualism in the individual, is being self-centered and other-centered in a kind way, and that collectivist or altruist existing for the agent, is being self-centered and other-centered in a cruel, harmful way.

 

Jesus is so wise, powerful and kind that His altruistic motivations are good, and His egoistic motivations are also good.

 

When He died on the cross to take all human sin onto Himself, thus opening the way to heaven for all fallen humans, that level of self-sacrificing is to momentous and extraordinary that this most special kind of altruism blurs over into requiring a very good, loving, strong Ego to come up with such a plan, let alone live and die by it.

 

It is this Christ-like self-sacrifice that is why I think he is an individualist, but he is an altruist too.

 

2000 years ago, Jesus talked altruism, collectivism, and self-denial to the groupist-oriented people whom he shared His Truth with, because that was the little that they knew, and it took many centuries or them to get to where individualism soon will not no longer be regarded as linked to pure evil instantiated as extreme selfishness.

 

Once religious peoples understand and accept the Ayn Rand view that egoism is virtue, and altruism is vice, then we can make moral progress at last.

Dignity & Respect

 

Everyone, or most everyone, sincerely or hypocritically claims to want to treat others with dignity and respect. Okay, so why is there so much needless suffering and cruelty ( hurt caused by human malice, not natural loss) in the world.?

 

First, we all have some free will that we exercise. We have at least an implicit sense of right and wrong, so to varying degrees, depending how awake we are, we are responsible for our choices. If we choose freely then, at least to some minimal degree, then when we hurt others sadistically without cause, or more damaging, is our willingness to tolerate and endure, masochistically, being hurt, without cause, by cruel others, we will to bring suffering upon wretched humanity.

 

Second, without God and the Golden Rule in our lives, we do not want so much to treat others with dignity and respect—And we lie to hide our malevolent intentions out of fear of being punished legally and socially; we also lie so the we can in secret scheme to hurt our victims before they are alert to being attacked so they are unable to withstand our ambushing them.

 

We do not esteem ourselves so we group-live and expect and look forward to being hurt and knocked around by others since we think that being mistreated is our destiny and our just deserts.

 

Third, we group-live, run in packs, join, and do not self-realize. As groupists, we hate ourselves and others, and with our collectivist culture and value system reinforcing this sick way of living, we easily justify treating none with dignity and respect, and then refuse to fight back when we are treated with dignity and respect.

 

The Mother, the Father, Jesus, and the Good Spirits are all individualists. Being loving divine figures, they treat people with dignity and respect, and that is an individual-to-individual dynamic.

 

My conclusion: if we self-realize, individual live, love ourselves, others and these benevolent divine beings, then we will be inclined and well-positioned to treat others with dignity and respect and fight back every time someone tries to treat us without dignity and respect.

 

Diferent Analysis

 

If you are tired of Progressive, shopworn solutions for solving social and personal problems, it could because they did not define the problems correctly, so therefore their solutions do not work.

 

They characterize problems from a social, collective viewpoint, so their similar solutions will make things worse, not better so it is predictable that their solutions will fail.

 

Here is an alternative analysis: people are born fallen and wicked, but are innately good enough that, if each agent as an individual wills so better herself, she can improve her situation and make the world a better place.

 

People are born depraved. Then the society from which they emerge offers them a poor set of moral values to live by. Altruistic ethics promote sin, selfishness, and low self-esteem.

 

Western societies teach people to live as joiners, nonindividuators that group-live. These are sinful, demonic practices masked as virtue and socially desirable.

 

Then there is the natural, human tendency to organize millions of people into various classes along the socioeconomic ladder: that reinforces and contributes to en masse low self-esteem and collectivist priorities, for in  a hierarchical arrangement,  the majority are oppressed, enslaved, exploited and tyrannized, so they learn not to like themselves. The elite, the few at the top, that abuse and rule them are selfish and a bit more rational and individualistic than are the huddled, emotional masses at the bottom rungs of society, but the elite do not self-realize but spend their lives in ease, wealth and concentrated power, directing the affairs of everyone else, so they do not learn to develop themselves and mind their own business as individuals making something of their lives with the liberty that is their natural right and a gift from God.

 

Then the grouped peoples exist in institutions and hierarchies of many kinds: corporate, governmental, military, academic, educational, ecclesiastical, health services and so forth. The more institutions there are and the more powerful and colossal they become, the smaller is each individual in society, and the commensurately increased is his self-oathing and anger against reality, so he will hurt himself and all around him, and this increases evil considerably.

 

Finally, the collectivized masses and their rulers, without realizing it, by living in a sick, chaotic, cruel society that maximizing human suffering and loss, are serving the Evil Spirits. When people serve the Evil Spirits, they have renounced, or pay lip service or surface allegiance to the Father and Mother, to Jesus and the Good Spirits.

 

The Dark Couple teach people that virtue is a ruse, and that goodness does not exist. God does not exist or is just another self-justifying deity out to gain power at the expense of humans. Satan and Lera are completely cynical and untrustworthy—serial liars and betrayers: they trust none because they are not to e trusted, ever.

 

They teach that the underlying reality is one of endless strife and striving to gain power, wealth, and position at the expense of others. No one is important outside of his group associations, and the world is an endless battle between rival warring groups. That will never change and that is fundamental to our understanding of how life works.

 

Now that I have laid out the moral and spiritual problems that are inflicted upon the sad world and suffering humankind, I would like to briefly offer solutions to this sorry mess.

 

First, though we are born fallen, part of our natures are naturally benevolent: if we are brought up with the right set of egoistic values, so that we love the Good Spirits, others and ourselves, and act in ways by making choices and selecting actions that express that love in the world, then most people, most of the time, would be adults of good will and virtuous character, and the world then will be a fairly pleasant place to live.

 

Second, with the right set of moral values: moderate, rational-emotional egoism-altruism, the individuals and all of society will benefit.

 

Third, people must be taught to individual-live most of the time, with a deemphasis on group-living. People need to be encouraged that the Father and Mother and Jesus exist, and they command humans to take up the cross, and carry one’s worldly burden, to maverize and individuate.

 

Fourth, people naturally arrange themselves in stratified classes. As a society of individuators, we need to move towards a classless society, which, more or less, would be constituted by the majority of the citizens being of one class, an upper-middles class of maverizers working and doing their thing is happy liberty. There will still be a few rich and a few poor, but the power and wealth will reside with that broad deep middle class. This is the only way to end the class system that wrecks human lives.

 

Fifth, I long have argued that those upper middle-class citizens, the vast majority, should maverize as anarchist-individuator supercitizens in a capitalist society, a strong but limited constitutional republic.

 

In such a polity, institutions will be fewer, limited in size and scope, and kept limited in size and scope, with devolution and deinstitutionalization as culling tools to keep the sprawl from occurring.

 

As hierarchies and institutional blossom grow and spread, group oriented and collectivist economics, political structures and group-living all break out and infect the entire community.

 

Sixth, should a society of Mavellonialist supercitizens come about, there will be the spiritually good harvest that will accompany and grow out of virtuous living and moral excellence.

 

There, the Divine Couple, the benevolent deities, especially Jesus, and the Good Spirits will rule this world. There, peace, love, plenty, happiness, and liberty will abound.

 

There endless law-of-the-jungle striving need not be any longer the social norm. Groups versus group warfare will disappear as the new emphasis is upon each individual cooperating with his neighbor while doing his own thing.

 

Axioms--Politics

 

Axiom--Politics

 

Here are some political presuppostions to live by to be an effective supercitizen:

 

A.   Any politician will do: no matter how RINOish, swamp-dwelling, or how much of a Progressive ideologue she may be, she will 90% of the time vote as ordered to by her constituents, if they are united, and command her what to legislate or not, and how to vote. If she refuses, they vote her out. These mediocre, slimy politicians just want to get reelected, so they will do as told if they fear being voted out of office.

B.    There are politicians that are saints, heroes, honest and statesman, but they are likely about 10% of politicians. What is required is 85% of American voters to live, vote and participate fully in the political process as anarchist-individuator supercitizens. Such intentional, willful, engaged, stellar voters are by definition, principled statesman: when 60 % of the voters are such, and they have a common agenda, the politicians will quickly see this and agree to vote and legislate as expected.

C.    Supercitizens are hyper-informed and knowledgeable on the needs of and for government, at all levels. They are to run the country: it is to be federal, strong, lean, limited and allowing huge areas of state self-rule and supercitizenry liberty to run their own lives in a free market economy.

D.   Supercitizens cannot be distracted or manipulated by threats, cajolery, bribes of federal subsidies, police intimidation, lies or false promises. They know what is need for the country to survive and thrive, and they will allow their leaders never to forget the agenda. Supercitizens do not waver, do not give up, do not accept defeat, nor take no for an answer. They have their political platform and they are bound and determined to see it legislated into the law of the land. They are unstoppable.

E.    No lasting reform, no genuine insurrection, no gentle revolution lasts unless the people from the bottom up initiate the change. As individuators, they will have reformed themselves internally first, and then they work together as a huge, daunting political force to effect needed changes, and then to make them permanent against those seeking to bring back collectivist madness.

Hope

 

Though I am a fighter, and an individuator, I am not at all immune to losing hope at times, being exhausted, lonely, and feeling defeated, about ready to chuck it all. Nixon said one time that when the going gets tough, the tough get going, and that is a motto worth applying to one’s life. To despair at times is about being human, but one must always get up, dust oneself off, and go again, until one passes away. That is our moral obligation.

 

To help keep oneself motivated to keep going, it helps to have a sense of optimism about the future. Even if all turns to dust in this world, despite one’s best efforts, if one has followed, while alive and functioning, the wills of the Divine Couple, their Son Jesus, and the Good Spirits, then there is a strong chance that one will enter heaven after death, and that is the most hopeful prospect that one can consider.

 

Things may or may not so rosy in the short run, but when one has a durable faith in and an abiding trust in the aegis of the good divinities, for all of one’s time here and in the next world, then there is real, lasting hope, and that is metaphysical and emotional reassurance to build one;s life upon.

Stirner And Freedom

 

Paul Strathern, in his book (from Pages 57 to 60) on Soren Kierkegaard, Kierkegaard In 90 Minutes, writes about Angst and how important it is to Kierkegaard: “Kierkegaard wrote an entire book about The Concept of Dread. This concept is often translated as ‘anxiety’ or ‘anguish’ but is best conveyed by the German word angst. (I use the word that usually appears in the English title of Kierkegaard’s book.)

 

The Concept of Dread is one of the most profound pre-Freudian works of psychology. In it Kierkegaard distinguishes between two different types of dread. First is the dread we experience when we are threatened by an external object (such as a roaring lion). The second type of dread results from an inner experience—our confrontation with the limitless possibilities of our own freedom. When we become aware of this freedom we understand its enormity and its irrationality. (As Kierkegaard points out, it is impossible to prove that we have freedom, because this proof would involve logical necessity, which is the opposite of freedom.)”

 

My response: Stirner studies emotional states to learn about the existent and his role when confronted by Being, and he must decide how to proceed. Both he and Max Stirner (who studies emotional states of the concrete person very little) assert that the existent’s subjective adventures as an individual living his life within his perspective, this adaption to his stimuli, when creatively, spontaneously engaged in, offer the existent such a wide range of possibilities that he is overwhelmed by endless choice, and feels dread—as well he should. Both thinkers see this personal encounter as the potential to enjoy and enjoy tremendous freedom and creative self-application.

 

As an objective egoist, I would add that the predominant approach to endless personal possibilities is to know the self, have a set of values and a narrative to seek self-fulfillment through, and there is the primary origin of almost limitless freedom and creative potential.

 

Another blind spot that both thinkers suffer from alike is their over-emphasis on the subjective, irrational perspective as the mode of interaction with the world allowing the existent maximum freedom and originative outlet, This mode is productive, but an even more powerful and liberating and innovative mode of interacting with the world is for the individuator to use his abstractions, his cause, his logic and reason to stay free and in charge of the self.

 

Logical necessity can be blind determinism if a mob, or a divinity or a dictator rules the existent, but in ordered liberty, the logical maverizer can enjoy his greatest potential for freedom< I believe I am more correct about this prioritization that are these two thinkers, but they still offer a useful mode too.

 

Strathern continues: “Freedom has nothing to do with philosophy. It is a psychological matter,  dependent on our state of mind or attitude. Our state of mind makes us understand our freedom. And we realize our freedom to its fullest extent when we experience the state of mind called dread. In this sense the individual doesn’t exist as ‘being’ at all, he exists only in a state of constant ‘becoming.’ The dread which this induces is the terror that lies at the heart of all normality. To realize this fully plunges us into madness. According to Kierkegaard, the only way out of this is to take the equally irrational leap of faith. The individual is thus ‘saved’ from this madness and disintegration by his subjective inwardness being related to God. (Others may prefer to evade this situation by ‘belief’ in the illusion of everyday reality, where such deranging freedom is cunningly disguised by the demands of normality.)

 

My response: Both Kierkegaard and Stirner are irrational, subjective epistemologist, skeptical and nominalistic. For these reasons they would agree that freedom can only be understood, enjoyed and applied to meeting one’s ends as a psychological reaction to open-ended possibilities. I disagree, obviously as a mostly objective epistemologist and realist. Not only does the scientific, philosophical, and logical application of our reason to stimuli give us great probably certain knowledge, but our reasoning is creative, not just unimaginative, robotic or deterministic—it is these two for operational efficiency. Our powers of reason make us recognize what will set us free, and how we should apply it, but our reasoning also has its rationally intuitional aspect that connects us to moral and spiritual goodness, where positive freedom of the maverizer doing his thing within a social framework of ordered liberty.

 

We all have feelings and existing is a challenge each day for us, born depraved and born of very low self-esteem, and inclined to run in packs and non-individuate. It is no wonder that sudden, abrupt and direct meeting endless possibilities, or infinity, pushed us over into panic, dread and madness.

 

If we refuse to lose our self-control, not bolting or fleeing, then we can use this dreadful interaction to apply our plan of personal maverization so that we can create meaning out of meaninglessness, nothingness and chaos. B studying and choosing solutions by apply both our feelings or hunches and our reason or cognitive apprehension skills, we can make sense of the senseless, even if we create the metaphysical castle to house our unique world view.

 

Strathern continues: “But is this awareness of our essential freedom really enough to waken in us such an awful feeling of dread? Or are only geniuses like Kierkegaard or Kafka capable of walking around in a constant state of dread at the possibilities of their own existence? Perhaps, but we mediocrities—the sane majority—can also experience this dread. Walking along a cliff path we experience the fear of falling and the vertigo of the abyss. But part of this feeling is also due to a curious impulse that seems at the same time both to attract us toward, and repel us from, the edge. According to Kierkegaard, this comes from our awareness that we could throw ourselves over the edge—the fear of this freedom which lies within our grasp. Here to we experience dread: the madness and terror that lie beneath our normality.”

 

My response: Kierkegaard and Kafka are geniuses who are perhaps a bit smarter and a bit more sensitive to realizing how intimidating freedom can be. But if the average person maverizes, then her self-actualizing makes her so smart and wise, near genius level, that she can face near pure freedom of possibility, eagerly embraced with relish, not dread.

 

It is true that terror and madness lie beneath normality, but the self-developing and self-becoming a living angel is a way of existing transmutes that terror and madness into the material with which the developed egoist can develop and introduce new schemas and approaches to the world.