I will quote a short, weekly homily presented on Page 7 of
the 7/10/24 newspaper, The Cavalier Chronicle. The title of the homily is In
God We Trust. Then I will comment on the homily.
My response: In God We Trust is how we should live if we are
doing the right thing, and if we have any sense at all. When we fail to believe
in or trust God, there is nowhere to go.
Newspaper: “Our money says that. We also know that God is
love.”
My response: God is love and goodness is love. The Devil is
hate, so evil is hatred. As a moral, metaphysical and spiritual egoist, I
assert that high self-esteem is love, first loving God, then loving the self,
and from a solid ethical foundation of loving the self, one is then able to
love others.
To suffer from low self-esteem is to hate the self, and when
one hates the self, one hates God and works against God law and will, and when
one hates the self, one hates others and tears them up after first tearing up
the self.
Newspaper: “We can count on that. It’s better than counting
our money. Let church count on you this Sunday. I trust in the steadfast love
of the world. Psalm 52.”
My response: You can count on God steadfast love and unwavering
commitment to you. Love the self as you love God and others, and usually things
will work out okay.
I will quote a short, weekly homily presented on Page 7 of
the 8/25/24 newspaper, The Cavalier Chronicle. The title of the homily is The
Log In Our Eye.
Newspaper: “We know we are better than those others.”
My response: We have a right and duty to judge ourselves and
others ethically in a this-worldly context, but not in terms of the final
resting place for their eternal souls, after death, after being judged by God
for that type of judging is beyond us.
We can judge others, but we are not to punish them, though
they should be prosecuted if they violate just laws.
We are no better than others and no worse than others. To
seek to obsess about others, to interfere in their lives, and to control them
by inserting ourselves into their plans—all of these groupist interferences are
deeply immoral.
We all primarily should be tending our own affairs, and to
work very hard, continuously to improve ourselves, and sin less.
Newspaper: “Anyone can see that. And when people see us? Maybe
we should back off and reserve judgment.”
My response: We should not back off when judging ourselves
or others, but we should mostly encourage ourselves and others to make
ourselves better through self-help.
The newspaper: “Jesus did that. He accepted everyone. This
week in church, see how Jesus sees you.
This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them. Luke
15:1-10.”
My response: Jesus accepted everyone, and we should too, but
he judges us and imposes Divine Law upon us in this world and in the next,
nonetheless.
As an egoist, I think we should primarily focus on
self-realizing more, loving more, becoming more creative, more holy, more virtuous,
and mostly leave others alone.
On Page 7 of the 10/2/24 The Cavalier Chronicle was the
weekly homily, entitled They Watch Us. Below I quote the homily and then
respond to it.
Here it is: “People want to know if we can live out what we
say we believe. They watch and take note. When belief matches words, there can
be conversions. A righteous life speaks loudly and convincingly. See yourself
in church this week. Do the work of an evangelist. 2 Timothy 3:14-4:5.”
My response: This little homily is quite rich with powerful
insights. We are social creatures, so we do watch each other, and influence
each other, so we are urged to serve as a powerful example to others in how we
speak, act and what we profess about God. We are frail, but should strive to be
consistent, and not hypocritical. Our beliefs should match our words.
We are to witness to the world and to others, that we live
in God and to work hard to promote God’s love and healing on earth.
On Page 7 of The Cavalier Chronicle is the weekly homily,
which I quote in full and will comment on. The article was printed on9/25/24
The Article was entitled Present-Able.
Here it is: “God looks for a life that is ‘God-approved.
There is true freedom for the person who lives as God likes. Do you want the
good life? So live it. And be in church this week. Present yourself to God as
one approved by Him. 2 Timothy 2:8-15.”
My response: It is a heartwarming homily: make yourself
presentable to God in order that De may approve of you and, thus you will find
true freedom. I like it. I will try to live that way.
On Page 7 of The Cavalier Chronicle is the weekly homily,
which I quote in full and will comment on. The article was printed on 10/9/24.
Here it is: “Trust in the Lord: How often are Believers
snatched from the jaws of disaster? Maybe that has happened to you. Miracles?
Someone watching over us? Guardian angels? God at work?”
My response: God is with us always, and we will know it if
we invite God into our lives, and we are protected as a miracle, by someone
watching over us, by guardian angels and God at work.
Homily: “When we draw close to God, we learn to trust God. Draw
closer to God this week in church. The Lord will rescue me. 2 Timothy 4:6-8,
16-18.”
My response: Draw closer to God and God will protect you.
On October 1, 2024, Townhall online allowed Dennis Prager to
write an editorial called, People Hate Those Who Fight Evil Far More Than Those
Who Are Evil.
Here is Prager’s editorial which I shall present and comment
on.
Prager: “I realized something very important about the human
condition when I was in high school. I realized that people tend to hate those
who fight evil more than they hate those engaged in doing evil.”
My response: I am amazed and astounded that a high-schooler
could be so wise, so early, when most people never become very wise, at any
age, though a good, developed and developing individuator serving a good deity,
would be infused with wisdom as a byproduct of good-living, good-doing and
self-perfecting.
I agree with Prager that people tend to hate those who fight
evil more than they hate those engaged in evil. I think that is the case, but
we must answer why that is so.
People are born with low-esteem, which means they naturally
hate themselves. Since I roughly have identified evil as hatred, fanaticism and
collective, whereas goodness roughly is love, moderation and individualism, in
a world where most people are born as nonindividuators, live their lives as
nonindividuators, and die as low achievers, it is only natural that they will
be largely filled with self-hatred, rage, resentment and bitterness. To lie to
themselves and feel worthy in some fake, spurious way, they must praise evil
sinners, and condemn the virtuous and holy, though they may all live in a
bubble of group lies, under which what is evil, they define as good, and what
is good, they characterize as evil.
Most citizens in any society most of the time are morally
average, rather decent people. They are not militant, committed, industrious evildoers,
but nor do they much or often exert themselves against evildoers.
The children of light in that society in that generation do
exert themselves to thwart evildoers, and their efforts might influence society
for the good. The loving, principled children of light, be they joiners or
individualists, create stress and social uneasiness when they rock the boat.
Most people in the community, nonindividuating, groupist,
morally altruistic, collectivist and group-identifying, are modestly, mildly
evil, unlike the fringe element of hardcore evildoers tearing things up in their
community. But the passive, sleepy, willless masses will not rise up very often
to vanquish or toss out of decent society the worst offenders, the darkest
children of darkness in their midst. They just want to get by and
metaphorically stick their head in the sand. They go along to get along and do
not stand out in the crowd, so the minority of radicalized evildoers grow in
size and number, who will remain substantively unopposed by the decent majority
until the evildoers threaten to tear society apart by destructive, lawless,
criminal, disorderly chaotic means. and chaos.
And the majority, though moderately sinful, are naturally
and socially vested in enjoying or tolerating evil because it is their
tradition and custom.
When reforming children light burst onto the scene, they are
causing trouble and stirring things up, making the consciences of all uneasy, and
filling them with doubt, rousing them when all they want to be is to be told
how wonderful there are, how good things are and go back to sleep.
The majority can bury their consciousnesses and consciences
under lies and fake narratives as long as no reformer rips their veneers of
normalcy away from them leaving them naked, scared, uncertain and anxious.
The commotion stirred up by the reforms is causing the sleeping
masses to suffer so they hate those who fight evil more than those who do evil,
because the latter are fatalist and liars and groupists, to they seem normal,
the status quo.
For the majority it is easier to hate and silence the few
reformers than go hate and go against the few radical evildoers.
Prager: “What made me come to this conclusion was the way in
which many people reacted to communism and anti-communism.
To my amazement, a great many people—specifically, all
leftists and many, though not all, liberals—hated anti-communists far more than
they hated communism.
Because of my early preoccupation with good and evil,
already in high school, I hated communism. How could one not, I wondered. Along
with Nazism, it was the great evil of the 20th century. Needless to
say, as a Jew and as a human, I hate Nazism. But as I was born after Nazism was
vanquished, the great evil of my time was communism.
Communists murdered about 100 million people—all
noncombatants and all innocent. Stalin murdered about 30 million people,
including 5 million Ukrainians by starvation (in just 2 years: 1932-33). Mao
killed about 60 million people. Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge (Red Cambodians)
killed about 3 million, one in every four Cambodians, between 1975 and 1979.
The North Koran communist regime killed between 2 million and 3 million people,
not including another million killed in the Korean War started by the North
Korean communists.
For every one of the 100 million killed by the communists,
add at least a dozen more people—family and friends—who were terribly and
permanently affected by the death of their family member and friend. Then add
another billion whose lives were ruined by having to live in a communist
totalitarian state: their poverty, their loss of fundamental human rights, and
their loss of dignity.
You would think that anyone with a functioning conscience
and with any degree of compassion would hate communism. But that was not the
case. Indeed, there were many people throughout the non-communist world who
supported communism. And there was an even larger number of people who hated
anti-communists, dismissing them as ‘Cold Warriors,’ ‘warmongers,’ ‘red-baiters,’
etc.
At the present time, we are again witnessing this
phenomenon—hatred of those who oppose evil rather than of those who do
evil—with regard to Israel and its enemies. And on a far greater level. Israel
is hated by individuals and governments throughout the world. Israel is the
most reviled country at the United Nations as well as in Western media and, of
course, in universities.
Israel is a liberal democracy with an independent judiciary,
independent opposition press, and equal right for women, gays and its Arab
population (20% of the Israeli population). Its enemies—the Iranian regime,
Hamas and Hezbollah—allow no such freedoms to those under their control. More
relevantly, their primary goal—indeed, their stated reason for being—is to wipe
out Israel and its Jewish inhabitants. Hamas and Hezbollah have built nothing,
in Gaza and Lebanon, respectively. They exist solely to commit genocide against
Israel and its Jews.
Why do so many people hate anti-communists more than
communism? And why do even more people hate Israel more than Iran, Hamas and
Hezbollah?
The general reason is that it is emotionally and
psychologically difficult for most people to stare evil in the face. Evil is
widely described as ‘dark.’ But it is not dark; it is easy to look into the
dark. What is far harder to look at is blinding bright light. Perhaps that is
why Lucifer, the original name of the Christian devil, comes from the word
‘light.’ “
My response: People live in a world of lies, so it is
emotionally and psychologically easier to deny that evil exists by hating and
attacking those that call evil what it is, let alone inviting the silent majority
to rally and support reform to fight the evildoers.
Prager: “Why this is so—why people will not call evil
‘evil’—is probably related to a lack of courage. Once one declares something
evil, one is morally bound to resist it, and people fear resisting evil. The
fools who mock Christianity—whether through a work of ‘art’ like ‘Piss Christ’
(a crucifix in a jar of urine), or the Paris Olympics opening with a ceremony
that mocked the Last Supper, or the Los Angeles Dodgers honoring ‘Sisters of
Perpetual Indulgence’ (men in drag dressed as nuns)—would never mock Islam.
They fear Muslim wrath; they do not fear Christian wrath. Yet Islamic wrath has
done and is doing far more evil in our time than Christian wrath.”
My response: People fear evil, so they do not condemn it or
call it what it is, because they do not want to have to oppose it. The human
race is a twisted, perverse race in many ways.
Prager: “And there is one additional reason for hating
Israel—one that is specific to Israel—rather than those who seek to exterminate
Israel: Jew-hatred, better known as antisemitism. The people who introduced a
judging God and gave the world the Ten Commandments have been hated for
thousands of years. Not those who systematically violate those commandments.”
My response: Nothing will change as long as
altruist-collectivist morality is the morality of humankind. It is hard to hate
evil when one is evil and likes evil, and selfless morality promotes
self-hatred, and that forces people to love evil even while sickening and dying
form ingesting this poison.
The children of light that fight evil are people of
self-esteem, and they are the enemy of the selfless masses because the former
seek to defeat evil, and that is the cherished way of life, the tradition
savored by the majority, the selfless children of darkness.
On 10/2/24, Breitbart News carried at article entitled:
Dennis Prager Confronts Candace Owens On Antisemitism In 15-Page Letter. I will
quote the entire article and then
comment on it. Joel B. Pollack wrote the article.
Pollack: “Conservative radio host and author Dennis Prager
has published a 15-page letter that he wrote to former colleague, Candace
Owens, confronting her about her recent antisemitic statements and her crusade
against Jews and Israel.
The letter, according to Prager, was made public with Owen’s
consent after she failed to respond for several weeks. It is dated September 3,
2024. In it Prager debunks many of Owen’s outlandish claims, including medieval
blood libels about Jews murdering Christian children, and the idea that Israel
exists to protect pedophiles.”
My response: I have always liked and respected Candace
Owens, but it seems that she has fallen off the deep end. People that believe
slanderous lies and repeat them about certain individuals or ethnic groups do
so sometimes because they believe such lies, or, cynically to gain power and
popularity from certain fringe groups. She may resent Ben Shapiro.
I know not what is the situation with Candace, but, we need
to emphasize the need for each citizen to live as an individuator, fair and
rational; it is groupists, especially true believers that are capable of
believing anything and accusing anyone of anything, but they are to be opposed
fiercely and early so their lies do not become public, accepted “truth” in
society.
Why antisemitism or racism of any kind is so dangerous is
that when you say outrageous, false, and outlandish things about groups long
enough, many people come to accept such lies, as truth. When a hatred of a
group becomes entrenched, popular, and widely accepted, then these accusations—if
unopposed—could lead to pogroms or the liquidation of minorities. If what
haters say is wild enough, repeated long enough, and goes unchallenged, then
the haters will eventually do to the innocent minorities any cruel thing imaginable.
This does not mean we should censor hate speech or putative
misinformation—that leads to totalitarian evil as government curbs free speech.
But other citizens need to speak up to refute and counter actual hate speech
and misinformation—that is how to curb fringe haters spewing their mendacious
filth in the public space and online.
Pollack: “Prager concludes: ‘You may not consciously intend
to engender hatred of Jews and Israel. But that doesn’t really matter. I cannot
think of anyone in public life engendering as much suspicion of Jews, Zionism,
and Israel as are you.
All of my life, I have tried to teach people that motives
rarely matter. Actions matter. Communist killed one hundred million people and
enslaved and ruined the lives of more than a billion. Yet, many communists and
their supporters have good motives. It turns out that the amount of evil done
by people with good motives is far greater than the amount of evil done by
people with evil motives. I suspect that few people wake up in the morning planning
to do what they consider evil.”
My response: What Prager is identifying here is the
Communists and others true believer pushing their cause upon others are true
believer and ideologues using totalitarian government to force the public to
adopt their murderous ideology. The motives of the true believers may be noble,
but their violent, coercive means of spreading their message bring about
horrific outcomes. When motives, good or evil, are held totalistically, they
operationally become evil motives. The actions of the prevaricating haters are
evil actions leading to evil consequences.
Most perpetrators with evil motives are individuals, but the
isolated individual cannot cause near as much damage as millions of mass-movementized
ideologues controlling a nation of captive citizens, brutalized by the
ideologues serving or ruling the totalitarian government.
Pollack: ‘So, I don’t impugn your motives. I don’t even
judge them. But, to my shock--and that of every Christian and Jew in my
life—our once-adored Candace has done great harm to the Jews., whether
intentionally or not.
Candace, this is one of the most difficult letters I have
ever written. After you read this, I am open to dialoguing with you privately
or publicly.’
Prager was one of many conservatives who embraced and worked
with Owens after she emerged as a prominent black conservative voice. She had a
podcast on his education platform, Prager U. He defended her as she became the
focus of criticism for controversial statements on a variety of issues.
Owens emerged as a full-throated antisemite in the months
since October 7, making a number of false assertions about Jews. This author
debated her in May on X (formerly Twitter) about her false claim that Jews were
responsible for the Soviet gulag.”
My response: Prager the wise is reminding us that motives
are irrelevant (I think that is an overreaction on his part: moral motives are
better than immoral motives, but he is spot on that consequences of choices and
actions are what counts, not one’s motive.).
Because people are group creatures that run in packs, and
are morally guided by altruistic morality, if their actions are benevolent and
not coercive, then the general consequences are a win for society.
The rub comes in when altruistic fanatics, embedded in an activated,
awakened, ambitious mass movement, or cynically operating as members of an army,
terrorist organization or authoritarian regime, use force and violence to
inflict their values involuntarily upon reluctant, resistant members of the
public. The consequences then ripple out, and they can be very unjust and even
bloody.
In the collectivist, totalitarian arena, the consequences of
altruistic but noble intentions lead to murder and hell on earth.
When fanatics are 100% against a cause, an individual, or a
race or group of people (like Candace is demonstrating in blaming the Jews for
everything that happens in the world), these racist and discriminatory haters
can whip the masses into a frenzy of rage and desire to hurt the minority
blamed for everything, though they are guilt of near nothing, but pogroms and gas
chambers, and firing squads can follow.
The bigoted mindset is the fanatical mind of a liar, and she
who is filled with mendacity, passion, radical positions, and excess emotion is
the mindset generally of a joiner that has gone drastic.
They are too pro-friends and insider joiners, and too hating
of enemies or rival groups, or independent individuals.
The individuator, rational, temperate, moderate, and truth-loving,
will not likely be to for friends and to against enemies. They try to see
groups and individuals as they are and to speak about them accurately,
truthfully, and fairly—and this is not how Candace is talking about modern
Jewry.
We must inform the public not to love one’s favorites too
much, or to loathe and rage against one’s rivals so much, because both these
extremes are groupist, altruistic, hateful, and hating.
We do not love ourselves or anyone else if we are too for or
too against ourselves and others, especially when their views, character and
actions do not cohere with our stereotyped description of such persons.
Kennedy survivor and social justice activist, Ethel Kennedy
passed away on October 10, 2024, at the ripe old age of 96.
The article about her death online pointed out that she gave
much back to society, and she took justified pride in regarding it as her duty—diligently
practiced by her—that when one is rich,
powerful, elite, and privileged, then one in such a status is obligated to give
back to society, and that seems right. The reporter noted that she had stated
her mission as something like : “. . . To whom much is given, much will be
required.”
By now the reader should realize that serendipity and
flashes of new ideas come to me when I read chance statements like this. It
occurred to me that each human adult is meant to self-realize as a living angel
in service to good deities, that each human is someone to who much is given, so
much of them will be required.
We average people cannot and should not wait around for
guidance and largesse from privileged activists like Ethical Kennedy was.
The law of moderation, as a first principle to guide human
behavior and decision-making, does require a political arrangement in society,
under which every citizen, an individuating supercitizen, is a hybrid creature,
part self-actualizer of elite talent developed, a most focused, non-distractable,
willful inserter of personal preference and
policy stances into the public arena to guide the government operation, while
living as a common person, a farmer, a housewife, a teacher, a chemist, a
lawyer, a professor.
An upper middle-class phalanx of 160 million individuating
supercitizens would make irrelevant or insignificant the financial and
intellectual lobbying required or invited from elite activists of any stripe.
God requires the little people to run things from the bottom up, because the
gift of life and the power to reason is the property of each existent, granted
them at birth from God, so God requires them to run things and give back a lot,
a whole bunch. God imposes the highest standards upon each agent as an individuator-in-the-self-constructing
process of becoming an original brilliant performer—simultaneously—as a parent,
a worker, an artist, an intellectual, as a moral person, and as a citizen
running the country.
In the ethical realm, as a moral requirement for each adult,
Jordan Peterson seems to anticipate something like this divine requirement from
God for each person to be as truthfully and ethically good as one can be, and
to push hard, real hard, to make a difference in the world.
I agree with Peterson, but extend this ethical and religious
obligation imposed on each human by God to each person self-realizing, to be
personally achieved in one’s life to a reasonable but near maximum extent of
personal accomplishment, and to be hyper-involved in running the government and
all standing institutions to keep all of these institutions humane, freedom,
tolerant, ruled, regulated and kept limited and ruled by the masses.
Peterson in effect believes people should self-realize
ethically. That is right. Peterson can be snobbish, and has stated emphatically
that only the few elite people of genius level intelligence are capable of high
end performance, excellence, creativity and intellectual profundity; only these
elite few are capable of existing and performing as singular individualists of brilliant
talent.
I refute that. All people, the common people, are blessed
with high-end potential and are ordered by God to develop these gifts and share
them with the world. God orders these people to pursue this self-interest so
beneficial to the common good. The high standard of assigned by God to everyone
is doable: existing and developing as extremely talented, singular
individualists and individuators.
When these exceptional common people assume the role of
self-actualizing their natural gifts and assume the role of ethical genius
prescribed to each person by Peterson, I add the third role to for each adult
to assume, that of being a talented, engaged supercitizen, commoner, activist,
and rule--all rolled into one.
All people are blessed with astounding gifts, so in exchange
God and the good deities and the Good Spirits expect very much from them in
return.
I have long suspected (But I now poignantly grasp this
truth.) that I cannot save anyone but myself. It seems intuitively correct that
I cannot help others, but I could hurt them—if I lived as a cruel altruist
(which I refuse to do) hurting fellow joiners. As a cruel altruist, either
overtly or subconsciously, the victims of my cruel malice would detect my hostile
intentions, but they would allow me to get away with it because they “enjoy”
allowing my hurting them to damage their lives and shape their destiny.
This conclusion seems bleak and pessimistic. It is but there
is promise and hope, ultimately.
The good deities and Good Spirits are individualists and
individuators more than they are joiners and nonindividuators, though they are
both.
The evil deities and Evil Spirits are mostly joiners and
nonindividuators, though some of them are individualists and individuators.
Humans are born basically evil. What is evil? Well, in one
simple and somewhat simplistic answer, evil is hatred of the self or others,
while good or goodness is love of the self or others.
I believe people are born depraved, which indicates they genetically
are born with low self-esteem, so they hate themselves, and when the self is
filled with hate, the resentment, bitterness and unhappiness that fill one with
rage and despair do inspire the sick and suffering self to lash out at the self
and at others, and thus malevolence or needless, unnatural suffering is
introduced into and propagated in the world.
People do not like themselves. The evil deities ruling the
world, and the people under the spell and sway of these evil deities, the
majority of the common people that are nonindividuating and running in packs—the
evil deities and their children of darkness all conspire to amplify this
individual self-hatred.
When a young adults thus hates herself, this is what unfolds
in her life: she, with whatever level of consciousness and free will she is
able to self-determine, enjoys or at least be self-compelled to abuse herself,
and welcome and to be receptive to parents, adults, authority figures and peers
attacking her, hurting her andnudging her to hurt herself and conduct her
life based in poor choices, enough of which will destroy her life.
She chooses to wield collectivist power of powerlessness, so
she only responds favorably to suggestions from fellow self-hating, groupists--sadists
and masochists that drag her down further, and further damage her life.
Groupists can help and hurt others, but individualists like me cannot help anyone,
because to love the self and to love others requires that each agent freely
choose to be individualistic to love herself, and to grow her healthy self-esteem
and to pursue her enlightened self intertest as a living angel in line with
what the good deities want and expect.
As a cruel groupist, I can hurt others, and have influence
over them, and they willingly will receive such input because they believe
suffering needlessly is their destiny and what they deserve.
As a kind individualist, I cannot help others except by
example and limited if unwelcome advice; only the alone, lonely individual can
save the individual of her own free will if she elects to live well.
The only way to help anyone effectively is to provide the
next generation with a moral system of egoism-altruist and living life of
living angel self-realization and supecitizenship so, over time, enough of the
young 40 years from now may wake up and come to love themselves. As they come
to unnaturally esteem themselves and learn to use this Mavellonialist ethical
and religious reform to make something of themselves, more of the young will be
willing to receive outside help to save themselves for only the self can save
the self, but the village of groupists can damage the self of low self-esteem
children in the community.
Jordan Peterson famously and repeatedly on camera has exclaimed
that he noticed in his clinical practice that no one gets away with anything,
ever. When one twists the fabric of reality, by lying, hating, and doing
unjust, wicked things, one’s karma will bring what one has done back onto one,
and every time for every slip up, reality correspondingly slaps one back and down for each offensive act of foolishness
and willful misbehavior.
Is Peterson correct? Yes and No, I respond. In the sense
that we have free will and are paid back in full every time for whatever we
decide and however we act, I agree with Peterson. If we do not pay in this
world, we will pay in the next world.
No, he seems to be incorrect because evildoers seem to go on
unpunished for the evil they do in this world, decade after decade without ever
being toppled. Both monstrous mass murderers, Stalin and Mao, stayed at the
pinnacle of power for decades before dying, presumably of natural causes,
though some insist that Stalin was poisoned.
I react with some skepticism, in part, against Peterson’s
notion that the evildoers and liars suffer for what they have done, at least in
this world. They long stay in power and prominence, and often they are not
dislodged from their places of power, popularity, and control, though they are
very wicked and unrepentant. They seem victorious and rewarded for their
evildoing and mendacity, that they have gotten away with bending the fabric of
reality.
Good does not always triumph, and the just are not always
victorious in this world, but of course the liars and wicked children of
darkness appearing not to suffer here for their evil ways, are protected by the
Evil Spirits, at least in this world, for their selling their souls to the
Devil, and doing his dirty deeds in their generation.
It may be that they are unhappy while living lives of
despair, though they have worldly power and success, though they sin and lie
until they die, and their worldly prominence and cruel, unjust ways are never
visibly, patently punished in this world. This does not seem to square with
Peterson’s moral and truthful assertion that no one ever gets away with
anything.
It seems if the evildoers quit often remain exalted in this
world, and the humbled good-doers are
persecuted, abused, murdered and suffer grievously at the hands of the children
of darkness that run things everywhere. Evildoers remain exalted, and the
good-doers remain held down, and malevolence is the law of the land.
It seems as if divine justice meted out in this world, when
it is meted out overtly and is inflicted by the good deities upon the worst evildoers
visibly while they are alive, the wicked individual may be toppled and brought
low, but the rule of this world by the forces of darkness continues unabated as
the new monster replacing the vanquished monster is as bad or worse. They seem
to get away with plenty, while twisting the fabric of reality by their willful
sinning and lying.
This is why I am an ethical reformer. I hope that
Mavellonialist theology and ethics, being introduced and eventually adopted in
some form by millions of people, will result in liars and evildoers in this
world being humbled and brought down a bit, in this world and while alive here,
as the children of life assert temporal and worldly dominance as truthful
good-doers that love the good deities, themselves and others, and make the
world here and now a little nicer place to live.
Elites and hierarchies are naturally occurring, incredibly
complex social occurrences, as Jordan Peterson has scientifically, rightly pinpointed,
and he also correctly advocates that the Pareto distribution naturally governs
and drives the near-inevitable pattern of a few in any society ending up with
the wealth and power, while the many are below them in both suffer much and
possess little.
Peterson is also on video as declaring that he does not
approve of this naturally occurring state of universal human injustice.
The only real cure is to not fight the human appetite for
excellence, superiority, elite status, a hierarchical arrangement of values and
living conditions, driven somehow by the worldly expression of the Pareto
distribution at work.
We need two hundred million upper middle class American
supercitizens, individuating and living in freedom with free market economics
around them; that is how we fight do not the natural tendency to set up social
arrangements driven and determined by biological but inherently unjust Pareto distribution,
but we sublimate these natural drives by maverizing.
Individuators, motivated and living their best lives as
wielders of reason and the power of personal powerfulness, can bring about and
keep a just society of classless excellence, a universal class of upper-middle
class individuators.
Jordan Peterson, the genius, and wise man, misses the boat
sometimes, or perhaps the idea that I am about to introduce is likely one that
he never conceived of, in fairness to him.
I know next to nothing about Jungian psychology and evolutionary/biological
psychology, both of which Peterson is an expert about. How he envisions human
existence, our natures and his understanding of the general human condition,
and the ethical conclusions which he draws out of all of this—all these
premises seem sound to me, but I would like to steer him toward egoist-altruist
ethics which I advocate.
To that end, it occurred to me in a flash of insight, recently
while at the cabin for the weekend, that Peterson is missing awareness of and
acceptance of the existence an archetypal, complex pattern of human
interaction, played out in every community of the world, in every generation
going back hundreds of thousands of years.
This universal, complex, social, and interactive setting of
role-playing is so powerful, unconscious, pervasive, understated and
unrecognized, that its deleterious impact of not getting it right about how to
live, how to act and how to elevate human consciousness, is the source of human
tragedy and suffering in the world.
This primordial, archetypal social struggle unfolds in each
generation when a great soul appears in any social scene, and the cliques or
groups of which he is invading or that he is born into, morph into a mob so their
united ego is powerful enough to clash with his large ego, with the united,
collectivized insiders hoping thus to be able to dominate, thwart and defeat
him.
Were we to adopt egoist-altruist morality under which
engendered by training in each child is the willed determination for most children
as they mature, to individuate and live as an individual within whatever group
connections enjoyed by each person, then each child could become a great soul
in-the-making. No longer would the masses be inverted into living as mobs of
nonindividuators. The masses as living angels will no longer be intimidated by,
hate or seek to destroy the naturally occurring great-souled among them.
With the new morality instantiated and voluntarily
self-enforced by young adults, in communities across the world, finally humans
can advance and become happy, free, godly, prosperous, and fulfilled.
I subscribe to online emails sent to me by Chris Rufo, and I
pasted it below in its entirety, and will comment where pertinent to do so.
Rufo and reporter Christina Buttons wrote this article.
Charleroi, Pennsylvania, is a deeply
troubled place. The former steel town, built along a stretch of the
Monongahela River, south of Pittsburgh, has experienced the typical Rust
Belt rise and fall. The industrial economy, which had turned it into something
resembling a company town, hollowed out after the Second World War. Some
residents fled; others succumbed to vices. The steel mills disappeared. Two
drug-abuse treatment centers have since opened their doors.
The town’s population had steadily declined since the middle
of the twentieth century, with the most recent Census reporting slightly more than
4,000 residents. Then, suddenly, things changed. Local officials estimate
that approximately 2,000 predominantly Haitian
migrants have moved in. The town’s Belgium Club and Slovak Club are mostly
quiet nowadays, while the Haitians and other recent immigrants have quickly established their
presence, even dominance, in a dilapidated corridor downtown.”
My response: Why would the federal government push 2,000 Haitian
residents into a very troubled community of 4,000 people? That makes a bad
situation much worse.
R & B: “This change—the replacement of the old ethnics
with the new ethnics—is an archetypal American story. And, as in the past,
it has caused anxieties and, at times, conflict.
The municipal government has felt the strain. The town,
already struggling with high rates of poverty and unemployment, has been forced to
assimilate thousands of new arrivals. The schools now crowd with new
Haitian pupils, and have had to hire translators
and English teachers. Some of the old pipes downtown have started releasing
the smell of sewage. And, according to a town
councilman, there is a growing sense of trepidation about the alarming number of car crashes, with some vehicles
reportedly slamming into buildings.
Among the city’s old guard, frustrations are starting to
boil over. Instead of being used to revitalize these communities, these
residents argue, resources get redirected to the new arrivals, who undercut
wages, drive rents up, and, so far, have failed to assimilate. Worst of
all, these residents say, they had no choice—there was never a vote on the
question of migration; it simply materialized.”
My response: Too many immigrants without the right cultural and
value orientation tear up a community and a country, and these residents
had no say in what the government did to their community.
R & B: “Former president Donald Trump, echoing the
sentiments of some of Charleroi’s native citizens, has cast the change in a
sinister light. As he told the crowd at a recent rally in
Indiana, Pennsylvania, “it takes centuries to build the unique character of
each state. . . . But reckless migration policy can change it quickly and
permanently.” Progressives, as expected, countered with the usual arguments,
claiming that Trump was stoking fear, inciting nativist resentment, and
even putting the Haitian migrants in danger.”
My response: American rejection of the millions of
immigrants and their often-bad values is not racism, fearful overreaction
or nativist resentment; the objection is reasonable, but no violence should
be shown towards any immigrants either.
R & B: “Neither side, however, seems to have grappled
with the mechanics of Charleroi’s abrupt transformation. How did thousands
of Haitians end up in a tiny borough in Western Pennsylvania? What are they
doing there? And cui
bono—who benefits?
The answers to these questions have ramifications not only
for Charleroi, but for the general trajectory of mass migration under the
Biden administration, which has allowed more than 7 million migrants to enter the
United States, either illegally, or, as with some 309,000 Haitians, under ad hoc asylum
rules.
The basic pattern in Charleroi has been replicated in
thousands of cities and towns across America: the federal government has
opened the borders to all comers; a web of publicly funded NGOs has
facilitated the flow of migrants within the country; local industries have
welcomed the arrival of cheap, pliant labor. And, under these enormous
pressures, places like Charleroi often revert to an older form: that of the
company town, in which an open conspiracy of government, charity, and
industry reshapes the society to its advantage—whether the citizens want it
or not.
The best way to understand the migrant crisis is to follow
the flow of people, money, and power—in other words, to trace the supply
chain of human migration. In Charleroi, we have mapped the web of
institutions that have facilitated the flow of migrants from
Port-au-Prince. Some of these institutions are public and, as such, must
make their records available; others, to avoid scrutiny, keep a low
profile.
The initial, and most powerful, institution is the federal
government. Over the past four years, Customs and Border
Patrol has reported hundreds of thousands of encounters with Haitian
nationals. In addition, the White House has admitted 210,000 Haitiansthrough its controversial
Humanitarian Parole Program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and
Venezuelans (CHNV), which it paused in early August and has since
relaunched. The program is presented as a “lawful pathway,” but critics,
such as vice presidential candidate J. D. Vance, have called it an “abuse of asylum laws”
and warned of its destabilizing effects on communities across the country.
The next link in the web is the network of publicly funded
NGOs that provide migrants with resources to assist in travel, housing,
income, and work. These groups are called “national resettlement agencies,” and serve
as the key middleman in the flow of migration. The scale of this effort is
astounding. These agencies are affiliated with more
than 340 local offices nationwide and have
received some $5.5 billion in new awards since 2021. And, because they are
technically non-governmental institutions, they are not required to
disclose detailed information about their operations.
In Charleroi, one of the most active resettlement agencies
is Jewish Family and Community Services Pittsburgh. According to a September Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
report, JFCS staff have been traveling to Charleroi weekly for the past
year and a half to resettle many of the migrants. The organization has offered to help migrants sign up for
welfare programs, including SNAP, Medicaid, and direct
financial assistance. While JFCS Pittsburgh offers “employment services“ to migrants, it
denies any involvement with the employer and staffing agencies that were
the focus of our investigation.
And yet, business is brisk. In 2023, JFCS Pittsburgh reported $12.5 million in revenue, of
which $6.15 million came directly from government grants. Much of the
remaining funding came from other nonprofits that also get federal
funds, such as a $2.8 million grant from its parent organization, HIAS. And JFCS’s executives enjoy generous salaries: the CEO earned $215,590, the CFO
$148,601, and the COO $125,218—all subsidized by the taxpayer.
What is next in the chain? Business. In Charleroi, the
Haitians are, above all, a new supply of inexpensive labor. A network of
staffing agencies and private companies has recruited the migrants to the
city’s factories and assembly lines. While some recruitment happens through
word-of-mouth, many staffing agencies partner with local nonprofits that
specialize in refugee resettlement to find immigrants who need work.
At the center of this system in Charleroi is Fourth Street
Foods, a frozen-food supplier with approximately 1,000 employees, most
of whom work on the assembly line. In an exclusive interview, Chris Scott,
the CEO and COO of Fourth Street Barbeque
(the legal name of the firm that does business as Fourth Street Foods)
explained that his company, like many factory businesses, has long relied
on immigrant labor, which, he estimates, makes up about 70 percent of its
workforce. The firm employs many temporary workers, and, with the arrival
of the Haitians, has found a new group of laborers willing to work long
days in an industrial freezer, starting at about $12 an hour.
Many of these workers are not directly employed by Fourth
Street Foods. Instead, according to Scott, they are hired through staffing
agencies, which pay workers about $12 an hour for entry-level
food-processing roles and bill Fourth Street Foods over $16 per hour to
cover their costs, including transportation and overhead. (The average wage for an entry-level food
processor in Washington County was $16.42 per hour in 2023.)
According to a Haitian migrant who worked at Fourth Street
and a review of video footage, three staffing agencies—Wellington Staffing Agency, Celebes Staffing Services, and Advantage Staffing Agency—are key conduits
for labor in the city. None have websites, advertise their services, or
appear in job listings. According to Scott, Fourth Street Foods relies on
agencies to staff its contract workforce, but he declined to specify which
agencies, citing nondisclosure agreements.
The final link is housing. And here, too, Fourth Street
Foods has an organized interest. During the Covid-19 pandemic, Scott said,
Fourth Street Foods was “scrambling” to find additional workers. The owner
of the company, David Barbe, stepped in, acquiring and renovating a
“significant number of homes” to provide housing for his workforce. A property search for David Barbe and
his other business, DB Rentals LLC, shows records of more than
50 properties, many of which are concentrated on the same streets.
After the initial purchases, Barbe required some of the
existing residents to vacate to make room for newcomers. A single father,
who spoke on condition of anonymity, was forced to leave his home after it
was sold to DB Rentals LLC in 2021. “[W]e had to move out [on] very short
notice after five years of living there and being great tenants,” he
explained. Afterward, a neighbor informed him that a dozen people of Asian
descent had been crammed into the two-bedroom home. They were “getting
picked up and dropped off in vans.”
“My kids were super upset because that was the house they
grew up in since they were little,” the man said. “It was just all a huge
nightmare.”
In recent years, a debate has raged about “replacement
migration,” which some left-wing critics have dubbed a racist conspiracy
theory. But in Charleroi, “replacement” is a plain reality. While the
demographic statistics have shifted dramatically in recent years,
replacement happens in more prosaic ways, too: a resident moves away.
Another arrives. The keys to a rental apartment change hands.”
My response: The Leftist and Democratic plot to keep borders
open through a policy of replacement migration is not disinformation, a
racist and right-wing racialist conspiracy, but is a Progressive plot to
bring in millions or tens of millions of non-Americans to vote Democrat
into perpetuity so Democrats can rule America as a UniParty, and millions
of new voters turn America into California writ large.
R & B: “In one sense, this is unremarkable. Since the
beginning, America has been the land of migration, replacement, and change.
The original Belgian settlers of Charleroi were replaced by the
later-arriving Slavic populations, who are now, in turn,
being replaced by men and women from Port-au-Prince. The economy changed
along the same lines. The steel plants shut down years ago. The glass
factory, the last remaining symbol of the Belgian glass-makers, might
suspend operations soon. The largest employer now produces frozen
meals.
In another sense, however, legitimate criticisms can be made
of what is happening in Charleroi. First, the benefits of mass migration
seem to accrue to the organized interests, while citizens and taxpayers
absorb the costs. No doubt, the situation is advantageous to David Barbe of
Fourth Street Foods, who can pay $16 an hour to the agencies that employ
his contract labor force, then recapture some of those wages in rent—just
like the company towns from a century ago.
But for the old residents of Charleroi, who cherish their
distinct heritage and fear that their quality of life is being compromised,
it’s mostly downside. The evictions, the undercut wages, the car crashes,
the cramped quarters, the unfamiliar culture: these are not trivialities,
nor are they racist conspiracy theories. They are the signs of a
disconcerting reality: Charleroi is a dying town that could not revitalize
itself on its own, which made it the perfect target for “revitalization” by
elite powers—the federal government, the NGOs, and their local satraps.
The key question in Charleroi is the fundamental question of
politics: Who decides? The citizens of the United States, and of Charleroi,
have been assured since birth that they are the ultimate sovereign. The
government, they were told, must earn the consent of the governed. But the
people of Charleroi were never asked if they wanted to submit their borough
to an experiment in mass migration. Others chose for them—and slandered
them when they objected.
The decisive factor, which many on the institutional Left
would rather conceal, is one of power. Martha’s Vineyard, when faced with a
single planeload of migrants, can evict them in a flash. But Charleroi—the
broken man of the Rust Belt—cannot. This is the reality of replacement: the
strong do what they can, and the weak endure what they must.”
My response: The strong, the Leftist ruling elite, are
sheltered from the consequences of too much immigration, but the weak or
commoners, must deal with it directly in their neighborhoods, and are told
to endure it while shutting up about it.
R & B: “Christopher
Rufo is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my
work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
