Censorship

 

I subscribe to emails sent me by Chris Rufo, the conservative thinker and journalist. He sent me an email on 9/10/24, entitled, ‘What’s At Stake in the Censorship War—The fight for a free internet is raging globally.’

 

I will quote his entire email below, and comment on in paragraph by paragraph, or as I read something that invites comment, interpretation, or reaction.

 

 

 

Rufo: “The censorship war has hit a flashpoint. Late last month, Brazil banned Elon Musk’s social media site, X, after Musk refused a government order to suppress seven dissident accounts. Brazilian Supreme Court justice Alexandre de Moraes responded by restricting access to the platform across the country. This story has direct implications in Brazil and also reveals the hidden stakes of the global censorship war.

One way to measure the influence of a political regime is to trace the flow of money, goods, people, information, and force. These are the raw materials of politics, and the form that these materials take helps to shape the form of the political regime.

When the Cold War ended, many Western elites invested their hopes in the “open society”: a global system of democracies that ensured the free transmission of trade, capital, migration, and data, with limited use of force. But this system, which seemed to be consolidating through the world, was challenged by the rise of right-wing populist parties in Europe, Latin America, and elsewhere—including in the United States.”

 

My response: We need a world of individuating supercitizens, and that requires an internet, and all other media platforms, no matter if impartial, leftist or right-leaning, be unfettered utterly with no government interference ever in the name of curtailing or suppressing hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, or dissenting speech of any kind.

Individuators are radically independent thinkers, and free speech is vital to free thinking, and free thinking rewards individualist insight so beneficial to a free society.

Rufo: “Elites responded by cracking down on right-wing voices to prop up the progressive status quo. In Brazil, for example, the government wants to restrict the flow of right-wing opinion, which dominates on X, so that it can solidify support for its left-wing government. For opponents of right-wing populism, controlling the flow of information is critical because it influences the flow of all other goods. If you cannot freely transmit information, you cannot shape political life.

The Brazil conflict reveals that the crucial locus of resistance to the consolidation of the “open society”—in reality, a system of left-wing hegemony—is technology. Prior to Musk’s takeover of X, governments had developed a working relationship with the major social media platforms, which were, through incentives and aligned interests, restricting the speech of conservative journalists, activists, and political figures, including that of a sitting president, Donald Trump.

Musk, however, has disrupted this consensus not only by purchasing the most important social media platform but also by exposing the collusion between the government and the company’s previous leadership to censor political opinion. And he has refused to bow to foreign governments’ demands of further content moderation.”

 

My response: Citizens everywhere must make it crystal clear to their elites and governors that censoring political opinion will not be tolerated anywhere by any ruling tyrant or elite, and any effort to install such censorship and stifling of dissent is a legitimate reason to rise up and violently overthrow the government.

Rufo: “This battle is being fought around the world. In the United States, a heated conflict over censorship, disinformation, and free speech rages on. In England, the police are shutting down speech and arresting citizens who publish disfavored opinions online. The European Union has passed the Digital Services Act, which will further restrict the range of opinion under the guise of “fighting disinformation.” And like Brazil, other nations have blocked certain platforms entirely.

Suppressing dissent is the ultimate goal. Elite opinion around the world is remarkably consistent; the rise of populist ideologies, formulated and disseminated online, has become a major threat to these elites’ worldview and power.”

My response: Suppressing dissent is the ultimate goal. Elites everywhere do not want right-wing masses or the populace of populists to think, write and exchange views on the internet that may be antithetical to worldview and power of elites.

 

It is time for the masses everywhere to rise up and insist by force and arms, if necessary, that tyrants and elites will no longer be allowed to suppress free speech and free idea exchange anywhere.

 

 

Rufo: “What comes next? Conservatives in Brazil and elsewhere fear that pro-censorship institutions will move from soft to hard power—that they will “dismantle democracy to save democracy.” We can see this transition in real time, from soft versions of censorship, such as politically motivated fact-checking, to more aggressive means, such as restricting the accounts of dissidents, to the most extreme form: arrest and expropriation, which has already become a reality in countries such as England and Brazil.

The bottom line is that Elon Musk’s fight for a free and open Internet is our fight. It is critical to preserve at least one platform capable of resisting the transnational consolidation of power and the censorship of its ideological enemies. We must fight to win, not only in Brazil, but everywhere. This means supporting Musk’s X and resisting draconian censorship laws wherever they emerge. The coming months and years will be decisive.

Christopher Rufo is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This article was originally published in City Journal.”

My response: I agree.

Immigration

 

I subscribe to emails received from reporter Chris Rufo. He sent me his article on Immigration on 9/25/24. I quote all of his article and will comment where need be. The title of his article is: The Real Question of the Immigration Debate.

 

Rufo: “Political campaigns are symbolic ventures, designed to drive attention to certain issues and marshal facts, language, and emotion to deliver a material advantage. From Cicero’s campaign for the consulship to Kamala Harris and Donald Trump’s campaigns for the presidency, it has always been thus.”

 

My response: If the candidate is ethical, sensible, competent, honest, and not overly mendacious or manipulative, and she offers the public an explicit, tangible agenda which aims to see fulfilled, then her political campaign as a symbolic venture is acceptable, for rituals, symbols and narratives provide people with meaning and cultural order.

 

If the voters were individuating supercitizens, they will relay to politicians that the facts, language, and emotion marshaled to deliver an advantage to a campaign, had better be a clear plan that actually is good for the people and the country. No more lies, no more excuses, no more hidden agendas, no more going to Washington get rich as a supporter of the Swamp.

 

Rufo: “This is a useful lens through which to view the current immigration debate. For several weeks, two-migrant related stories have dominated national attention: Venezuelan gang members apparently seizing apartments in Aurora, Colorado, and tensions resulting from large-scale Haitian migration in Springfield, Ohio. Beneath the surface of their rhetorical heat, the controversies pint to three questions of immigration policy: who, how, and how much.”

 

My response: Immigration should be sparing, limited, legal and enforced with illegal aliens sent home, or, if some stay, they are never allowed to become citizens and vote. Americans need closed, walled, enforced borders; America is for Americans, and it is a privilege to live here, and a privilege to immigrate here. We want immigrants, few in number, but that are patriotic, willing to assimilate completely into American culture as it is, and to learn English and be self-support and living legally.

 

Rufo: “Let’s be clear away some misconceptions. Both Trump and Harris’s stated views on immigration—which may not, of course, reflect their actual views—are more nuanced than commonly portrayed. In 2021, Harris warned illegal immigrants that ‘if you come to our border, you will be turned back,’ acknowledging, at least rhetorically that Americans have the right to decide who enters the country. Likewise, Trump, despite his restrictionist reputation, often interleaves calls to ‘build the wall’ with appeals to build a ‘beautiful door.’ In other words, between the candidates, the questions of who, how and how much are ordinal, rather than categorical.

 

The first and most controversial of those questions is ‘who.’ Progressives believe that human beings are interchangeable, and that all differences are socially constructed and ultimately arbitrary. At first glance, this position seems grounded in the theory of natural right encapsulated in the Declaration of Independence’s famous phrase ‘all men are created equal.’

 

My response: Largely, under natural right theory, all men or humans are created equal, so in theory an immigrant could come from any foreign country. Yes, in theory all people are interchangeable, but context is everything. All humans, instinctually are embedded in or would default accept living under a dispensation which is socialist, altruistic, groupist, non-Western and usually accepting of authoritarian homeland rule. People do not like themselves, and usually elect to be abused slaves, no matter where they hail from.

 

We need to be hyper-picky about whom we let in: they can be anyone from anywhere, as long as they conform to and eagerly seek to conform with American mainline values, culture, and politico-economic wonder of free market constitutional republicanism.

 

This best country that the world has ever seen should not allow very many foreigners ever to immigrate, and only those that mesh with our way of life. If not, they are refused entry. If they cheated and came here illegally, they are sent home.

 

Rufo: “But this ignores a critical distinction. Yes, all men are born equal—that is, they are all born with the same human fundamentals—but this does not imply that all cultures, or civilizations are equal. Among the principles that cultures adopt and inculcate in their members, some are better, others are worse; some are compatible with America’s traditions, some are not. For American immigration policy, this means that the ‘who’ matters.”

 

My response: I agree with this entire paragraph. The solution to protect America by very selective, with actually restrictive immigration enforcement. We need to work with foreign governments so they can move towards constitutional republicanism, free market economics, and adopting American values and culture, to make things so opportunistic, free, and prosperous at home, that immigrants really have no desire to come to America, because America is coming to them, and they can blend Americanism with their native ways at home, as they see fit.

 

Rufo: “The question of ‘who’ has historically involved considering migrants’ national origin. A more refined approach would include other characteristics, such as educational attainment, employment history, language skills, and cultural values. The United States, which has an interest in admitting immigrants capable of integration and economic productivity, is well within its rights to prefer, say, an English-speaking software developer from Venezuela over a violent, uneducated gang member from the same country.

 

On the same principle, we must acknowledge that immigrants from some cultures are more capable than others of assimilating to America.”

 

My response: It is not that some are more able to assimilate to America than others; rather many recent immigrants feel their culture and values are distinct from, even superior to American values and culture, and some ever seek to replace the American value system with a foreign hostile set of values, say set up shariah law and a caliphate all across America. If immigrant applicants, refuse to assimilate, they should be sent home, or not allowed in in the first place.

 

Rufo: “In much of the Muslim world, for example, majorities believe that honor killings are justified and that Sharia law ought to be enforced by the state. While many Muslim immigrants embrace Western values, some emphatically reject them, as demonstrated by the widespread pro-Hamas protests that have broken out in the aftermath of the October 7 massacre in Israel. Pluralism is valuable, but it has limits, and America ought to select newcomers who shared its core values.”

 

My response: If potential immigrants do not share core Western and American values, then they should not be admitted. Pluralism and multiculturalism are of limited value, and they can stay home and practice their cultural and value mores.

 

Rufo: “The next question is ‘how.’ The answer is not to be found at our southern border today, which has become an anarchic, free-for-all zone. While there will always be some degree of undocumented migration—the United States is, after all, still the land of opportunity—the numbers we have seen in recent years are unprecedented. Americans have the right to insist on a rational, orderly process of immigration, with clearly defined standards and a carefully crafted selection process.

 

The final question is ‘how much.’ To answer this, one must consider not only the sheer number of immigrants but also the amount of migration-driven demographic change occurring over time. Both the absolute size and pace of recent immigration give America to be more cautious in the recent moment, despite our unique ability to assimilate newcomers. Both that scale and speed of recent immigration—some 8 million new arrivals since Joe Biden’s presidency began—is putting enormous pressure on each level of government. Localities have struggled to meet surging demand for housing, medical care, and education, particularly given the proportion of migrants with limited earning potential and English language proficiency.

 

The debate in Springfield, Ohio is relevant here. There is a material difference between assimilating 150 Haitian migrants and 15,000 Haitian migrants into the fabric of a small town. The former is easily done; the second represents a transformative challenge. And progressive ideology, which discourages integration into the national culture and claims that assimilation is a form of racism, colonialism, and xenophobia. As the left reorients our institutions away from assimilation and toward multiculturalism, our capacity to immigrate newcomers will continue to degrade.”

 

My response: If an American was to immigrate to China, Japan, or a Muslim country, would be those countries of intake be tolerant of Western ways being retained by the migrant? Not likely: Americans are the least racist, colonialist, or xenophobic people in the world, so love it or you will not enter it—America, that is. Assimilate or stay home—Progressives, American-haters and often traitors to this greatest nation, be damned.

 

Rufo: “Across the developed world, mass migration is undermining native-born citizens’ quality of life and sparking a global anti-immigration backlash. Instead of insisting that these concerns are racist conspiracy theories, defenders of mass migration would do well to take them seriously.”

 

My response: You never solve a problem by relocating it, say mass forced exodus of the population from a bad neighborhood, or ghetto neighborhood, say, by taking 75,000 out of the 82,000 residents living in the blighted communities (say north Minneapolis and Philips neighborhoods in Minneapolis), and bussing them in 3 days, without notice and them unceremoniously depositing them in affluent, peaceful Woodbury (population: 80, 891 residents), and then ordering that city to absorb them painlessly.

 

I am not being racist, but people in blighted neighborhoods—yes, mostly nonwhite—if they moved enmasse to Woodbury, would destroy Woodbury. You have spread and metastasized the problem not solved it.

 

The cure is to take those 75,000 in north Minneapolis and in Philips neighborhood and introduce them to Mavellonialist values and culture. As individuating supercitzens, they would be model citizens, and in 15 years those inner-city neighborhoods would be as livable, desirable, prosperous and crime-free as they were in 1912 when the Norwegian and Jewish immigrants lived in those neighborhoods.

 

Similarly, to solve the problems of the underdeveloped and Third World nations, mass migration will not solve their problems at home, and will sink the developed nations as predictably as transplanting north Minneapolis and Philips neighborhood in neighborhoods along Interstate 94 in Woodbury.

 

We must limit our immigration to 300,000 people per year for the next ten years, until we are able to stabilize America, and undo the terrible damage intentionally done to America by the vicious Left.

 

The people of Third World countries desperately need democracy, republicanism, capitalism, freedom, law and order, and anti-corruption campaigns and God in their lives. With mass retraining on how to live, if they were interested in reforging themselves, this mass training for the peoples of Third World countries would work wonders for them at home.

 

If they are willing to learn from us, they would go far. For without the right values, the right economics and free, small, limited government, these countries remain hopeless hellholes that have to keep sending or allowing their unfortunate masses to migrate to the developed world, eventually tanking those countries that are functioning and desirable.

 

You do not cure a diseased population by exporting the infected members of the sick society to healthy societies with little of that sickness for spreading sickness will turn all societies into sick societies.

 

Rufo: “The best outcome for the United States, in the closing stretch of a presidential campaign, would be to engage in a real discussion about these questions, which the Left is intent on avoiding. For them, mass migration is a potential source of patronage and votes, best cultivated surreptitiously. But the country at large must grapple with immigration, in all its complexity. The nation’s future depends on it.”

 

My response: The only cure is to declare the American Way is the set of values and culture that are the best in the world, and, when Mavellonialist values and culture are added to, this superior civilization will enable any country, anywhere, and its people of any color or religion, to flourish, be rich, happy, and free.

 

That is the truth, and we must not be shy about stating it openly. Accept us and grow, or reject us and die on the vine, but we will no longer be letting in your millions of suffering, desperate immigrants because the elites running these nations badly cannot, or will not embrace tangible reforms.

Nathaniel Branden

 

On Page 37 of Ayn Rand’s book, The Virtue of Selfishness, her follower and collaborator, Nathaniel Branden writes that mental health or self-esteem are identical, the same, synonymous: “Neither mysticism nor the creed of self-sacrifice is compatible with mental health or self-esteem. These doctrines are destructive existentially and psychologically.”

 

Branden like Rand is a secular humanist and believes God and the spiritual world are nonexistent, so he equates mystical faith in God or spirits necessarily leads to low self-esteem, mental illness, and the immoral ethical creed of self-sacrifice which Branden denounces as evil and destructive to human happiness and well-being.

 

Jordan Peterson would go ballistic to have Branden, a psychotherapist and Ph.D. holder, equate mental health is the same as high self-esteem, a view I largely agree with; Peterson would also reject his egoist ethics.

 

Branden continues writes about pride on Pages 39 and 40: “. . . His life and self-esteem require that make take pride in his power to think, pride in his power to live, pride in his power to live—but morality, men are taught, holds pride, and specifically intellectual pride, as the gravest of sins. Virtue begins, men are taught, with humility: with the recognition of helplessness, the smallness, the impotence of one’s mind.”

 

My response: It seems quite evident that Rand and Branden, like I do, regard intellectual pride as man’s cardinal virtue, whereas Peterson dismisses intellectual pride as humanity’s cardinal sin or vice.

 

Branden: “Is man omniscient? –demand the mystics. Is he infallible? Then how dare he challenge the word of God, or of God’s representatives, and set himself up as judge of—anything?”

 

My response: No human is not omniscient and never will be (even if he could be omniscient, he could not stay sane with that kind of thankless responsibility and power for everything; becoming omniscient for humans is an impossibility, and that impossibility is a blessing, for we would be destroyed by such awesome need to rule the world.). Still, we can know a lot and learn a lot as individuators, worshiping good deities, and obedient to these employers. We are not infallible, and the good deities expect, even demand that we question the existing word of God and God’s representatives, so that we can grow in truth and benevolent consciousness in this world and retire to heaven in the next world—as long as we are respectful and courteous while questioning and challenging the existing theological order.

 

We are to judge, but we are not to brag. Final, eternal judgement of people’s souls is not our bailiwick, and is reserved for the good deities to pass judgement and sentence upon all of us at heaven’s gate.

 

Branden: “Intellectual pride is not—as the mystics preposterously imply it to be—a pretense at omniscience or infallibility.”

 

My response: Branden and Rand are humbler than are transhumanists that deny the deities exist, or, if they do, the arrogant transhumanists anticipate humans with their new-found and arriving deity-level personal powers and intelligence, will push old deities aside, or even kill them (an impossibility). Transhumanist can regard themselves as omniscient, infallible, immortal, all-powerful and all-hating; if that self-appraisal is accurate and actual, then these despicable devils are guilty of vicious intellectual prid; they will be overthrown, defeated, and cast into the pits of hell by the angels defending and serving the good deities.

 

 Branden: “On the contrary, because man must struggle for knowledge, precisely because the pursuit of knowledge requires an effort, the men who assume this responsibility properly feel pride.”

 

My response: I agree with Branden that humans intellectually struggle to gain knowledge, and do make some modest progress in each generation, so having worked so hard, they can feel proud of what they have learned, deduced or discovered.

 

Branden: “Sometimes, colloquially, pride is taken to mean a pretense at accomplishments one has not in fact achieved. But the braggart, the boaster, the man who affects virtues he does not possess, is not proud; he has merely chosen the most humiliating way to reveal his humility.”

 

My response: The boaster flaunting his unearned pride is not proud but boasting to mask and suppress his profound personal insecurity, his self-doubt to deny his immense, intense sense of self-loathing.

 

Branden: “Pride is one response to one’s power to achieve values, the pleasure one takes in one’s own efficacy. And it is this that the mystics hold as evil.”

 

My response: One has a right to feel proud if one has good values, and one actually lives them and achieves then efficaciously, and if one is modest in one’s pride in thought, in worship and in public comportment and statement.

 

Branden: “But if doubt, not confidence, is man’s  proper moral state; if self-distrust, not self-reliance, is the proof of his virtue; if fear, not self-esteem, is the mark of perfection; if guilt not pride, is his goal—then mental illness is a moral ideal, the neurotics and psychotics are the highest exponents of morality, and the thinkers, the achievers, are the sinners, those who are too corrupt and too arrogant to seek virtue, and psychological well-being through the belief that they are unfit to exist.”

 

My response: Rand and Branden have a point to make, that doubt, beyond a certain amount, is a lack of self-confidence, conducive with self-hatred and a propensity to sin. The good deities want humans to be confident and proud and accomplished, but never to forget where they come from, who sponsored them, and to whom they owe a bottomless debt of gratitude, devotion, stated appreciation and public acknowledgment of dependency.

 

Branden: “Humility, is, of necessity, the basic virtue of a mystical morality: it is the only virtue possible to men who have renounced the mind.

 

Pride has to be earned; it is the reward of effort and achievement; but to gain the virtue of humility, one has only to abstain from thinking—nothing else is demanded—and one will feel humble quickly enough.”

 

My response: Humility more than not is a vice under godly and secular egoist morality, and pride more than not is a virtue under godly and secular egoist morality.

 

Humility is a virtue under mystic and secular proponents and exponents of altruist morality, and pride is the cardinal vice to these altruists.

 

One is required by the good deities to feel positive or individual pride and to exhibit and practice positive individual humility, while one is to think, use one’s mind, talents, imagination and effort to make oneself self-realized, and, if one has served the good deities and fought the good fight, one can feel justly proud of one’s accomplishments, while ever humble or realistic enough to accept one’s modest improved status and position in the great chain of being among the living angels in league with the departed angels (the Good Spirits), and all are subordinate in rank and power and just pride felt by the individuated and individuating good deities.

 

The Latest

 

Yesterday, briefly, I had a few minutes to listen to Dennis Prager on the radio while eating lunch, and it is a privilege which has been rare for me lately. He is very wise and super-smart. His ethical system is still altruist-egoist, the standard traditional Judeo-Christian and secular humanist morality, pervasive throughout the West, but Prager is leaning towards my morality of egoism-altruism, though he is not aware of the trend, and would likely deny so leaning if I pointed it out to him.

 

Here are some points that he made that show his thinking is progressing from altruist morality, more towards egoist morality.

 

First, he repeated his often-stated case that the bigger the government, the more corrupt it is. This seems like classical conservative philosophy, and it is because centralized power corrupts, and totalitarian government (wholly, purely centralized power over the people economically, politically, legally, and socially) is absolutely corrupt.

 

What interests me is his emphasis on large, centralized government and its intimate, proportionate link to corruptibility increasing as public and private institutions become huge monopolies controlling every aspect of society and the lives of its citizen/victims.

 

If one accepts that individualism and egoism are morally good, and groupism and altruism are evil and morally vicious, then as hierarchies become taller, extending everywhere through society in all institutions, there the helpless, captured masses are stratified and locked into a set of ascending classes with most at the bottom ruled by a few at the top. In a hierarchical society, where personal freedom and equality per capita are denied the masses who also fail to fight for freedom and equality, there depraved human nature that is selfless, group-oriented and altruistic, is further sickened as personal and communal self-hatred is ramped up to new heights.

 

When a wicked people are infected with hatred of self and others, embedded in personal low self-esteem, their country will be a society, this centralized, bureaucratized, hierarchical social order, especially prone to massive corrupt practices and enormous even genocidal human rights abuses because pure, near universal private and public hatred and hating are pure evil, and corruption is evil by another name.

 

 

Second, insightful Prager mourned the ontological fact the liberty is not an instinct but is a value. People by nature are fatalistic and crave to be enslaved, oppressed, and exploited (as a member of the victimizing class, or the majority in the victimized classes); they do not like themselves or others, so being enslaved is how they prefer to live. If big government promises to feed them, pay them, provide for them, and do their thinking for them—if the citizens will agree to forfeit personal liberty to the government, as the exchange paid to authoritarian control by governmental functionaries—that is a bargain the masses are most willing to accept, and even beg for.

 

Only a society of individuating supercitizens, living in something like an America with its free market constitutional republic of limited government, and massive amounts of each supercitizen wielding power, liberty and influence, can have trained a group of upper-middle class citizens (the majority of the country’s population), will insist and demand that their culture and social order be a society where personal liberty, freedom of speech and intellectual independence are pervasive and unlimited. There will the masses possess the self-awareness, the Mavellonialist training and right value system on how to act and how to run a country;  their intact and achieved self-discipline lead them to shout out and demand fulfillment of their preference for liberty to slavery as the red line for no acquisitive politician to cross over.

 

Prager wants limited, small, strong government run by a population of strong, assertive individualist citizens, and this anticipates my concept of the egoist, individuating supercitizen.

 

Third, the Left preaches hate. Nothing is your problem. Your faults, problems and failure are always problems owned by an outsider, or society. Your failure is their fault, not your own. This grows and magnifies citizen envy, anger, resentment and a desire for revenge, retaliation and usurping power for other groups, growing division and hatred and conflict in America: blacks, Muslims, women, LGTBQ, people of color (the “oppressed” noble groups and tribes) set against whites, males, heterosexuals, conservatives, individualists, and Christians (the “evil oppressor groups).

 

Prager does not say it, but I believe that altruism-collectivism as an ethical system deprives everyone of the opportunity, the power and the blessing to be responsible and take control of her own life on her terms and make something of herself, blaming no one else and accepting blame against her from no one else (unless it is corrective, fair criticism to be addressed). If she is a successful individuators, she is not obliged too, nor should be willing to ascribe her astonishing success to others only marginally responsible for her victories.

 

Leftism is a mass movement, and its zealous true-believing adherents are filled with self-hatred and hatred of all other rival groups and unaffiliated individuals, so they wish to inflict maximum harm upon themselves and others, to gain absolute power over them, or even exterminate others from the face of the earth. This is where cultural Marxism is headed to, and they will make Stalin and Hitler look like trial-run choir boys by comparison.

 

When the individuators loves herself and God first, and then, others secondarily, then she blames only herself, and corrects her deficiencies, thus much improving her lot, and then she can be proud of what she has accomplished, and no one gets the credit but herself. Being blamed or praised are both earned by her so there is no need to hate or blame or fight with the neighbors. A society of individualists should be largely peaceful and cooperative with their neighbors because there is little group rivalry, destructive completing or even warring to lead to civil war or unrest.

Highest Value

 

The dear reader will recognize that this entry is a minor follow-up piece or addition to my 8/26/24 blog piece on pride in reaction to Jordan Peterson’s controversial remarks about pride as the cardinal sin.

 

This entry is a quotation from Ayn Rand’s book, The New Intellectual, a paragraph from Pages 130 and 131, which I will quote in full and then comment on.

 

Rand: “Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be earned—that of any achievements open to you, the one that makes all others possible is the creation of your own character—that your character, your actions, your desires, your emotions are the products of the premises held by your mind—that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining—that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul—and to live requires a sense of self-value, but man who has no automatic values, has no automatic sense of self-esteem and must earn it by shaping his soul in the image of his moral ideal, in the image of Man, the rational being he is born able to create, but must create by choice—that the first precondition of self-esteem is that radiant selfishness of soul which desires the best in all things, in values of matter and spirit, a soul that seeks above all else to achieve its own moral perfection, valuing nothing higher than itself—and the proof of an achieved self-esteem is your soul’s shudder of contempt and rebellion against the role of a sacrificial animal, against the vile impertinence of any creed that proposes to immolate the irreplaceable values which is your consciousness and the incomparable glory which your existence to the blind evasions and the stagnant decay of others.”

 

My response: I am an individualist and want people to be proud of themselves if they are making a living, are ethical, modest, and effectively individuating. I would not, even then, claim that any human, however brilliant and individuated, is her own highest value. She can rate herself plenty high, and that fine and deserved, but the good deities should be her highest value/values, and so represented by her in her own cogitations, as well as so publicly announced.

 

Rand is not for mindless hedonism, or whimsical selfishness: it is implied that she want each person to maverize, and Howard Roark seems to me to be the avatar of the great soul in action. Thus her standard of rational selfishness (I prefer self-interest, a term and concept, which is not loaded with so much notorious baggage as the adjective selfishness.) insists and demands of each maverizer that she is to set up high-quality values for herself, that she is to live up to and according to, and then she will have earned her self-pride, but it must be earned, and, if she later falls backward, she can no longer be proud of how she is living.

 

I repeat, none of this has to do with slighting the good deities or boasting.

 

Rand is correct that acquired fine personal character is built upon a self-conscious, life-long effort and journey, to accrue by one’s own hard work, self-made wealth, and a creative, noble self-made soul.

 

The articulate Rand, above, notes that ‘ . . . automatic values, has no automatic sense of self-esteem and must earn it by shaping his soul in the image of his moral ideal, in the image of Man, the rational being he is born able to create, but must create by choice . . .’ each person is morally obligated and responsible for self-development as a self-actualizer, that she must construct, adopt, and put into action a superior set of values (not instinctively embedded in her consciousness) to live by, and, then, only then will she feel self-esteem and pride in whom she has evolved into being. As such, she deserves praise.

 

 If she continued along the popular, unremarkable lifestyle of the nonindividuated second-hander, living inside of and running with the pack, she is a sinner and rebel against God (my addition, not Rand’s), and is to be rebuked as the sinful, altruistic, selfless slacker that she was born to be, and refuses to grow out of.

 

I would argue that the good deities agree with Rand more than they do not (they want to be worshiped, treated reverently and politely—and given credit for how wonderful they are), want each human to fail to shaper her soul in the image of her moral ideal as life as individuating, rational human, approved of by the individuating self, and approved of by the good deities and their Good Spirits, who also are individuated and individuating, and expect humans to maverize also.

 

Jordan Peterson, in one of his many video clips on Ayn Rand, referred to her as not a first-rate mind. Because he is a considerable, natural genius and a man of high ethical standards, there seems at times, to be an elitist snobbishness oozing out of him. That this little, Russian Jewish woman, an immigrant from Russia, put together from scratch all that she did, seems miraculously brilliant and astonishing to me. No second-rate mind gave us the Randian support for love of liberty, egoist-individualist morality, the pride of place attributed to reasoning over feeling and instincts, capitalism, the need to return to Objectivist ontology and epistemology, her adoration for the American constitutional republic, the accentuation of individualism as the sovereign Western axiom. She is a genius, and being Jewish likely helps: Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, Dennis Prager, Eric Hoffer were all or likely were all Jewish Americans, and their influence upon me is profound.

 

Peterson needs to understand that individual’s possession of personal goodness and wisdom and self-realized creativity is not necessarily caused by being a genius; being brilliant helps, but, as all humans of differing talent and intelligence maverize, we cannot predict—only God can—who will be the wisest, the more insightful, or the best predictor of how humankind should proceed. We must be humble about not listening to others; God works through them too, and if they maverize, God’s truth comes pouring out in their thoughts and shared words, and Truth comes from mysterious places in unexpected ways.

 

The professional philosophers, so smart and specially educated and credentialed, denounce and revile Rand, the amateur philosopher, but she—not they--gave us Objectivism, rationalism, individualism and capitalism and democracy as the most moral economic and humane political arrangement required for people to thrive.

 

Rand, in the paragraph quoted above, seems to me to offer a vision for individual self-realizing, that is secular humanism at its apex. She and her followers likely and excessively verge over into transhumanism, under which humans seeks to become living, mortal gods, that run their world with no place for devotion to, service towards and bended-knew obedience to the guidance of the ruling good deities.

 

As transhumanists, humans would be guilty of Luciferian intellectual pride which Peterson rightly is railing against. When the good deities have been slighted, ignored, and insulted sufficiently, when they have had enough, they will burn the godless, secular, human civilization to the ground, should it come about.

 

Rand gave us a renewed emphasis on Objectivism, capitalism, love of personal liberty, egoist morality, and a championing of reason, and these are attributes inherent in and intricately intertwined with the actions, character and worldview of the good deities.

 

Of course I do not know, but I do not think Rand is in hell for her transhumanist leanings: she alone, by herself, came up with godly philosophical attributes to emulate and prioritize—though she was an ardent materialist and atheist—and that brings humankind closer to introducing Mavellonialism to the world, and that allows the good deities to be reintroduced to humankind, and for the Good Spirits to take over and rule here on earth.

 

For her services well-rendered, I like to assume that Rand served some time in Purgatory, and then perhaps is existing in some level of heaven.

 

Let me repeat the rest of that quote and then respond to what she wrote: “that the first precondition of self-esteem is that radiant selfishness of soul which desires the best in all things, in values of matter and spirit, a soul that seeks above all else to achieve its own moral perfection, valuing nothing higher than itself—and the proof of an achieved self-esteem is your soul’s shudder of contempt and rebellion against the role of a sacrificial animal, against the vile impertinence of any creed that proposes to immolate the irreplaceable values which is your consciousness and the incomparable glory which your existence to the blind evasions and the stagnant decay of others.”

 

My response: Jordan Peterson would be angered and aghast that I agree with Rand that the first precondition of feeling positively proud and esteeming the self is to express and live that radiant selfishness of soul which desires the best in all things. I would replace the word selfishness with enlightened self-interest, that desires the best in all things for the body and soul, but would value the self highly, but would value the good deities even higher.

 

 

Each individuator that chooses to maverize will be able and empowered to develop a talented, original-thinking consciousness that is self-interest at its finest, and, then, only then, can the self esteem the self.

 

No longer must the human individual sacrifice herself for the sake of the pack, for society, for the ism favored by her tribe, clan, or nation. That historical role of the joined, selfless nonindividuator was to live a life of sin, being in league with and in service to the Dark Couple. No more.

Stifled

 

Altruism as an ethics of immorality is evinced most concretely as mobs of joiners, nearby a neighbor that is a great soul, execute an intentional, permanent campaign of obviation against the great soul, the victim of their abuse, their hostile conspiracy, their implemented plot to suppress the great soul, to squelch all his dreams which he intends to manifest in reality.

 

These enemies of the great soul gain an immense feeling of satisfaction and pleasure in thwarting his plans, his attempt to share his views with the world. If they can defeat him or kill him, that is final victory, they assume. If they poison his name with the public, telling lies, slandering, and defaming him, they can turn public opinion against him. If they can keep him silenced, deplatformed, unknown, without supporters, kept on the fringes of society, in anonymous obscurity, this collective campaign of malice and opposition fills them with great glee.

 

These living devils, this pack of mediocrities and nonindividuators, have denied themselves, their children and society, the benefits of the great soul’s creative works, of his new ideas, of his moral excellence. The next generation is deprived of the new that is true, good, and beautiful. The wicked opposition to the great soul, engineered by these joiners, is a tangible expression of their nihilism and hatred. They have power but their triumph is intruding the life of lies upon humanity, and their wasteful scheme makes the world a much poorer place.

 

They have extended and prolonged the reign of the Evil Spirits on earth. They, in their willful blindness, their ignorance, and their clear comprehension of what they have devised, refer to each other as normal, virtuous, righteous people that serve God, though they serve only Satan.

 

The great soul is inferior, evil, and stupid: he is the current Jew to be pogrommed.

 

This is rationalized, Luficerian pride, collective, false, and vicious, nakedly, openly paraded about and celebrated in society.

 

This is victorious altruism at work in society (victorious for a while only); this is the raw display and assertion of brutal tyranny, the mob power of powerlessness, where the selfless minions of the demons shout with joy that they have a power and narrative say on earth, as the great soul has been successfully defeated, demonized, marginalized and silenced.

 

They can for a few years, hold the great spirit, the godly goodness and new ideas which he exemplifies and artistically fabricates as works of art which he presents to the world for its edification, but the day of reckoning will descend. God will bring justice to earth, and the great soul, who has been crying out to God for assistance, will be heard, and divine justice in this world and in the next will be visited upon the altruistic evildoers, the children of darkness currently holding sway on earth.

Uncondtional Love

 

Dennis Prager is one of the wisest Americans alive today. There is no doubt that this pious Jew gains some of his wisdom from his Jewish culture, a mixture of otherworldliness and common-sense worldly enjoyment and involvement, that more extreme Christians should adopt.

 

One of his profound insights concern the concept of unconditional love. He is against it. Now, let me hasten to say where someone gives or receives unconditional love, great, enjoy giving it or receiving it.

 

Young people today are not having children, because these young adults are seeking unconditional love, which children often do not reciprocate; Prager notes these young people are getting dogs who give unconditional love. He argues that this is a regrettable mistake being made by young people.

 

Yes, kids give conditional love and sometimes no love, but having kids is the greatest blessing in the world, a most rich, meaningful, personal adventure. I agree.

 

I wonder if love is a feeling or a rational orientation towards another human being? I think mature love is perhaps more a rational orientation towards another, more than it is a sentimental or passionate orientation to another, though it is both, and these two loving orientations towards another human are inseparable from one another. They need not clash when one loves another: one can think about one that one loves rationally, as well as feelingly.

 

This is where Prager’s concept of conditional love fits in. It is better to love God, others, and oneself rationally or conditionally, more than passionately or unconditionally. And it is better to love God, others, or oneself more than to hate or be indifferent when loving.

 

We are complex creatures, for whomever is the target of our love, is also a target of our hate or ill will. Such conflicting orientations likely are universal, real, and predictable. Feelings of unconditional love are often too melodramatic, reversible and temporary.

 

Thus, it is prudent to love or hate conditionally rather than to love or hate another or oneself unconditionally. It can be evil to love anyone or to hate anyone unconditionally for it is immoderate. To love and hate unconditionally is, in the long run, generally to be hating more than loving.

 

To love and hate anyone conditionally often is more loving in the long run, because extreme orientation towards God, others and oneself is unhealthy and induces much needless pain and suffering in the relationship.

 

Thus, having children will be rewarding for those that love the child for who he is, whether he freely, unconditionally loves his parents back or not. It might be better that the youngster become a good person, well-trained and civilized by his parents, rather than parents worrying about being popular, being the unconditionally liked or loved parents, though being liked, or loved is always nice to receive. Conditional love is more mature, more steadfast, more substantial. It is more lasting.

 

To expect unconditional love from a child is an unrealistic expectation for a parent to assume. They are separate people, and one must find validation for happiness by one’ own individuating as a lived gift sent back to one’s creators.

 

To expect unconditional love from a child or anyone is an unfair imposition extended from the parent to the child.