The Law

 

If you’re conservative, you’re guilty – no matter what the facts and evidence say. If you’re progressive, you’re innocent – no matter what the facts and evidence say. Especially if the legal case you’re involved in has political implications. That’s pretty much the way things are in our post-2015 Woke Era.

America no longer lives under the rule of law. We no longer have one legal standard for everybody. We no longer enjoy liberty and justice for all.

If you’re a right-wing conservative then you’re guilty, no matter how cockamamie the charges. If you’re a left-wing progressive then you’re innocent, no matter how blatant and undeniable your culpability.

America’s legal system has now been taken over by the left. America’s justice system no longer cares about justice. Its openly Woke. The criminals rule.

Differentialism

 

Egalitarianism and Wokism dominate the West. These philosophies argue that all categories and tribes of mankind are essentially the same. The various races, nationalities, genders, and sexualities supposedly don’t differ in their natures, nurtures, and volitions – in their biologies, cultures, and moralities – in any important respect. Those who claim otherwise are bigots, if not monsters.

And their motivation for rejecting the wonderful, unquestionable philosophy of Egalitarianism, and the virtuous, enlightened philosophy of Wokism, is fundamental depravity. Anti-Egalitarians and anti-Wokesters are basically demons who seek to cause pain and suffering to the innocent and defenseless. These fascists and white supremacists support the KKK and worship Hitler. 

Or such is the received wisdom of Egalitarianism and Wokism.

But there’s a new philosophy in the world now. And Differentialism argues pretty much the diametric opposite. It claims that the various differing types of people in the world are, in fact, different. Differentialists argue that whites and blacks, Norwegians and Sicilians, men and women, and heterosexuals and homosexuals, all tend to have significant natural differences in their intelligence, morality, creativity, adaptability, sociability, athleticism, resilience, submissiveness, heroism, pulchritude, personality, psychology, spirituality, artistry, tolerance, apathy, promiscuity, criminality, violence, and more. Moreover, Differentialism claims that these notable, biological distinctions are often exacerbated by their nurture or culture. And each group makes personal choices in distinct social patterns which separates them even further from their fellow human beings.

Unlike Egalitarians and Wokesters, Differentialists concede and celebrate these obvious truths. They aren’t deniers of history and experience, nor of reason and science. They know that genetic inheritance is important to life forms. They understand that upbringing and education changes people. The philosophy of Differentialism isn’t at war with objective truth and manifest reality.

People who subscribe and adhere to the false and evil philosophies of Egalitarianism and Wokism tend to generate disharmony, antipathy, social pathology, and hatred, as they destroy the brotherhood of man and fight civil wars. People who subscribe and adhere to the true and virtuous philosophy of Differentialism tend to generate personal happiness, universal friendship, and socio-economic utopia.

Mankind

 

Everyone is a liar. Everyone is a scumbag. When reason was invented around 585 B.C., it only took about a century for the irreasonism of skepticism and religion to become solidly established. This was seen in the bizarre irrationality of Parmenides and Zeno the Paradoxist, as well as the alien mystery cults of Orpheus, Dionysus, and Demeter.

As for the strong reasonist thinkers of Anaxagoras, Socrates, and Aristotle who came afterwards, they only moderately resisted these false and evil epistemologies, metaphysics, and cosmologies. And they essentially never noted how much skepticism devastates human understanding and quality of life; nor did they note how clearly the gods have no impact upon life and give no evidence of their existence. Anaxagoras and Socrates were quizzical and ironic about this while Aristotle was abstract and obscure. But there was evidently no passion denunciation or call to arms against these two related and horrific philosophical evils.

Thus all three thinkers were liars. All three were scumbags. And so were their Greek and Roman offspring. Every one of them was a skeptic of reason, or monotheist, or both.

Modern philosophers are little better. From the religious philosophers of Bacon, Locke, Smith, and Reid, to the skeptical philosophers of Hume, Kant, Hegel, and Nietzsche, to advocates of both, like Descartes and Berkeley. The lone advocate of reasonism, who also opposed skepticism and religion, was the very recent Ayn Rand.

But Rand largely created a cult, not a full and robust philosophical school. She had an aggressive and riveting style of written argumentation and verbal public discussion. It promoted submissive deference to her authority and blind faith in her words. Ayn Rand’s unnatural, unhealthy, unhappy cult and community forbade serious discussion and debate. She vigorously and viciously excommunicated intellectual dissidents – even those who agreed with almost all of her radical ideas and who loved her personally. Now that’s she’s dead, most of her serious followers exhibit the same cult-type behavior, with ferocious moralizing and psychologizing directed toward any honest or competent questioner or critic of her philosophy. Thus Rand and the Randians are all liars and scumbags too.

What lowlifes and monsters human beings are! Or, at least, for the most part.

Humans deserve credit for being by far the smartest creatures on earth. They’re at the top of the food chain and are the apex predators on the planet. People also improve their culture and lifestyle over the generations and centuries. This is a vivid contrast with their rival wolves, whales, parakeets, and chimpanzees. And altho it’s true that Homo erectoids and Neanderthals also raised their level of civilization and culture over time, they’re long gone. Only humans are left to progress and ascend.

Still, what massive liars and scumbags people are today! Strong evidence indicates they always have been and always will be thus. Skepticism and religion are still with us after an inconceivable 2500 years. And while human beings have significantly improved their lifestyles and societies over the millennia, they seem to progress at only about 1/20th the speed they could and should. So humans are vermin.

I study people like the anthropologist I’ve been forced to become. And the objects of my observation and analysis seem to be remarkably strange, contemptible, and disgusting demons. If humans can think, say, or do something stupid or evil, they will. It’s the nature of mankind to always exhibit a high level of fatuosity and depravity.

The Gaza-Israel War

The moment the sovereign country of Gaza declared war on Israel, on October 7th, 2023, and massacred 1400 innocents, Israel should have declared war back. They should have demanded Gaza immediately lay down its arms, release all hostages, and unconditionally surrender within 24 hours. Lacking that, Israel should have counter-attacked and bombed Gaza, from a safe distance, killing 10,000 soldiers and "innocent civilians" on Day 2; then 20,000 on Day 3; 40,000 on Day 4; 80,000 on Day 5, etc. until Gaza surrendered. Then the territory should have been annexed, all its wealth seized, and any survivors deported. Problem solved and justice done.

God

 

It’s reasonable to believe in god. Just barely. Maybe.

At the least, one can hope. The universe is big and mysterious. Who knows what’s out there?

Ont thing seems clear: Death is a moral abomination. A metaphysical monstrosity. A cosmic flaw and failure.

The inevitable termination of sentient life and consciousness shouldn’t exist. But it does. So maybe “god” can fix that. Maybe some supernatural entity can defeat death and grant good people an afterlife. Maybe even immortality.

But not killers. Not assailants and thieves. And not liars or betrayers either. No-one who significantly destroys life – their own or others – gets to live beyond the norm. This seems to be the divine standard and universal moral law.

Of course, “god” needs to be kept in a box. This creature or concept should be confined to a small space and never let out. It must be carefully restricted and controlled. God should never be allowed to harm real life or real people. These are sacred. God mustn’t touch them.

So a quiet belief and tiny hope that god might exist seems decent and reasonable. Possibly. But nothing beyond that.

Of course, there’s no evidence whatsoever that god exists. Virtually every part of reality we understand, and truth we know, indicates the exact opposite. God seems to exist in the same sense that ghosts, witches, and vampires exist.

And there’s no evidence that god has an impact upon events or people, or changes them in any manner at all. So belief in the power of god on real life and real people is entirely irrational. All the known facts and evidence reject it.

Still, a faint hope that god will emerge out of nowhere and nothing, and grant some of the good people of the Earth a certain amount of afterlife, seems plausible and reasonable. Perhaps.

John Locke's Welfare State

 

John Locke (1632-1704) was not a political pure liberal. He advocated a welfare state – not a free state. He wanted a government and socio-economic system based upon "moderate" coercion – a legal system and society of mild regulation and redistribution. According to Locke, "need" justifies elements of tyranny. Poor people have certain basic wants and thus they have a right to steal. He thinks the ideal political system should reflect this coercion, fascism, criminality, and tyranny.

According to Locke, "God hath not left one man so to the Mercy of another that he may starve him if he please."* If a person lacks food, or otherwise has needs, he has a right to acquire them by robbing his fellows. Government should facilitate this "redistribution" or thievery.

This is because no man may "justly make use of another’s necessity to force him to become his Vassal."* If a poor person is forced to take a job, merely to avoid starvation, Locke says this reduces him to the status of a slave, which is morally wrong. The state should prevent this via regulation, redistribution, coercion, and fascism.

According to Locke, every man has "a Title to so much of another’s Plenty as will keep him from extreme want where he has no means to subsist otherwise."* To deny him this subsistence is tantamount to murder.

The moral truth, says Locke, is every man has "a Right to the Surplusage of [another’s] Goods so that it cannot be justly denied him while his pressing Wants call for it."* Hence a welfare state based upon regulation and redistribution – based upon coercion, fascism, criminality, and tyranny – is superior to a free state.

----------------------------

* all quotes from Two Treatises of Civil Government, by John Locke, 1690, section 1.42

People of a Twisted Morality

 

A false, evil, self-hating, self-destroying, moral code harms and freezes you. It makes you unable to decently promote and defend yourself, and often leaves you paralyzed. It takes away your self-confidence and your natural inclinations towards self-defense. Adopting a self-hating, self-destroying moral code strips you of a necessary sword and shield, and leaves you helpless before your evil enemies.

Examples of this perversion and horror abound:

* The West today -- via trade and willing surrender -- gives vast wealth, physical technology, and intellectual property to the savage and loathsome Communist and Moslem nations which seek to enslave or destroy us. And the commies and muzzies are getting close to having such abilities.

* Americans and other Westerners let Third World barbarians and enemies invade and "immigrate" in massive and deadly numbers.

* American and Western White people let blacks freely hate them, and call them "systemically racist", even tho the blacks are thus, and not the whites.

* Westerners let the enemy Moslems and Third Worlders "nationalize" their discovered and paid-for oil and natural gas – a brazen and unprecedented theft of trillions.

* Europeans let the enemy Russians have energy domination and blackmail over them.

* Westerners let the Chinese steal practically all of their intellectual property. They do business in virulently anti-Western, pro-tyranny China and willingly transfer almost all of their priceless technological genius to their economic competitors, political enemies, and absolute monsters.

* The West lets evil China infect the whole world with Wu Flu, murdering millions, devastating liberty of activity for years, and destroying trillions in wealth. This is done virtually without condemnation and punishment.

* American Whites let blacks and Hispanics commit crime, go on welfare, pay little in taxes, practice bigotry of all types, degrade the quality of life, and vote for tyranny almost without criticism or deportation.

* American White people let blacks and Hispanics replace them at elite universities virtually without protest. They surrender many or most of the good jobs and promotions to them. They let blacks and Hispanics target them for crime and racist hatred with essentially no moral condemnation or social and political fighting back.

Such self-hatred. Such self-destruction. The brainwashed "good" guys of today seemingly have no honor, pride, self-respect, or self-love. No sense either.

So they deserve to suffer and die. Genuinely good people today positively root for the bad people to hurt the brainwashed and defenseless "good" ones. The proper philosophy and approach here should be: "Kill 'em all – until or unless they wake up to race and gender reality."

In life, self-esteem and proper morality aren't optional. All these self-haters and self-destroyers deserve to be crushed.

Innocent Civilians

 

The whole notion of "innocent civilians" during wartime is bizarre. Every nation on Earth – with the possible exceptions of North Korea and Cuba – allows their citizens to freely leave and emigrate. So if they decide to stay, and live in the country, it's because they want to and voluntarily choose to.

Those who freely elect to reside inside a terrible nation, and live under its tyrannical government, are responsible for the evil actions the government undertakes. Unless a local resident is some sort of social radical and political revolutionary who favors liberty and justice, that person is answerable for, and guilty of, whatever his loathsome, totalitarian government and military do.

If China, Russia, and Iran seek to conquer their neighbors, or enslave the world, then the people of China, Russia, and Iran are fundamentally responsible for these depraved acts. There are essentially no "innocent civilians". Virtually all the adult citizenry is to blame for the horrors of their government and military.

It's the residents and citizens who put the government in power in the first place, and it's the people inside who refuse to replace or overthrow the dictatorship. And if they occasionally, weakly seek to do so, but can't, that's their fault too. It's also the denizens inside who financially, socially, emotionally, and politically support the warring soldiers, as they act in the citizens' name, and perpetrate their monstrosities. Thus the civilians of the nation are responsible and guilty – not innocent. In wartime, it's not just the government officials and soldiers, but the empowering people who deserve to die.

Over the Cliff

 

America and the West are profoundly self-hating and self-destructive. We claim to be liberal in our philosophy and culture. And we even semi-sincerely believe it. But our illiberal enemies know the truth. And, deep down, so do we.

Thus America and the West refuse to decently defend ourselves or defeat our enemies. Even tho we easily can. But Americans and Westerners lack the intellectual, moral, and spiritual self-confidence to try. Absent a reasonable level of self-respect and personal honor, we think we lack the intellectual and moral right to do so.

America and the West say our societies possess and defend objective truth. But the reality is we possess and defend skepticism of reason and religion. We say we back individual rights, liberty, and capitalism. But the fact is we back regulation, coercion, and welfare statism. We say we advocate and practice justice and equality before the law. But the truth is we advocate social justice and affirmative action. We say we champion self-interest and the Holy Individual. Instead, we quietly champion self-sacrifice and suicide.

This is why America and the West refused to nuke, decapitate, conquer, and liberate the Soviet Union, China, Pakistan, and others when we had the chance. This is why since the 1930s, America and the West have allowed Third World animals, Moslem monsters, and communist devils to steal most of our oil, technology, and intellectual property. This is why since the 1960s, Western Civilization has flooded itself with Third World savages and evil foreign enemies. This is why since the 1960s, whites and males have been racist and sexist against themselves in society and government.

When will America and the West stop being so self-hating and self-destructive? When will we reject the moral ideals of sacrifice and suicide? Only when we convert to the philosophy of true liberalism. If we ever do.

Theoretical and Practical Philosophy

 

Life is better if you're a philosophical liberal. Your existence is more fun, pleasurable, interesting, exhilarating, heroic, and magnificent, if you adhere to liberal values. These basically seem to be: the epistemology of reason and science, the metaphysics of material reality and objective truth, the ethics of individualism and self-interest, the politics of liberty and justice, the esthetics of beauty and heroism, and the spirituality of transcendence and triumph.

But this is very theoretical. Practical philosophy is also important – and very different from the above. To be happy, you also evidently have to obtain some sizable amount of solid education, utilitarian knowledge, personal cunning, political freedom, social popularity, economic wealth, and private tranquility. I can't help you much with those!

Francis Bacon and the Skeptics

 

How powerful were the skeptics of human sensation and reason during the late Renaissance? How persuasive and influential were the sophists, paradoxists, deniers, and nihilists as civilization, culture, and quality-of-life were rising radically in Europe after the 1494 French invasion of Italy? Evidently, the skeptics were pretty strong.

Francis Bacon, in the Novum Organum (1620), was eager to speak out against them. He flatly opposed "The doctrine of those who have denied that certainty could be obtained at all" and who claim "that nothing can be known". His own doctrine of science, philosophy, and "the interpretation of nature and the kingdom of man" is "infinitely separated and opposed" to theirs. Bacon notes that these irrational enemies of man, knowledge, progress, and happiness "destroy the authority of the senses and understanding; whereas I proceed to devise and supply helps for the same."

Biological Necessity

 

Whenever I have sex with a girl, it’s like when a normal person has sex with a chimpanzee or farm animal. Whenever I talk to a man, it’s like when a normal person talks to a retard, criminal, or schizophrenic. But because I’ve been biologically engineered to be a social creature, these activities are better than nothing. However, I don’t entirely enjoy them.

Common Sense Hero

 

Thomas Reid (1710-96) is just about as great as they come. Altho virtually unknown today, this liberal philosopher, rebel, and paladin is a powerful enemy of the would-be philosophical destroyers of man: George Berkeley, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Friedrich Hegel. On the one hand, Reid only lived long enough to decently study and refute Berkeley and Hume. On the other hand, he was lightly pro-religion. But he still used basic reason and common sense to explicitly and fairly-effectively counter the nihilism and skepticism of Berkeley and Hume; and he used basic reason and common sense to implicitly and fairly-effectively counter the supernaturalism of "god".

Thomas Reid wrote three great books: An Inquiry into the Human Mind: On the Principles of Common Sense (1764), Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man (1785), and Essays on the Active Powers of the Human Mind (1788). He was the most formidable thinker of the late 1700s Scottish Enlightenment. And for a generation or two, he was pretty much the intellectual leader of the world. Reid was a champion of the philosophy of common sense realism. If anyone wonders about the intellectual strength and personal magnificence of the mostly-forgotten Thomas Reid, consider what he wrote in his weakest work, and in just the preface and introduction:

Reid begins by focusing squarely on the five most authoritative and important thinkers of his time: "Des Cartes, Malebranche, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume" who he calls "men of very great penetration and genius." Reid generously allows that "However contrary my notions are to the writers I have mentioned, their speculations have been of great use to me." He acknowledges that his rare dissent from their largely skeptical-of-reason philosophies will "be condemned by many" and yet he still hopes to appeal to "the candid and discerning Few."

Just as Immanuel Kant was famously "awakened from my dogmatic slumber" by David Hume, so was Reid, but to infinitely better effect. At age 29, the formerly pro-Berkeley scholar was shocked and galvanized by Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature (1739). Reid ominously observed that "the ingenious author of that treatise" has concocted "a system of skepticism which leaves no ground to believe any one thing rather than its contrary."

Altho Thomas Reid heavily condemns irrationalists, skeptics, and sophists like Berkeley, Hume, Kant, and Hegel in his Inquiry into the Human Mind, he takes a gentlemanly and magnanimous view of their persons: "I conceive the skeptical writers to be a set of men whose business it is to pick holes in the fabric of knowledge wherever it is weak and faulty; and when these places are properly repaired the whole building will become more firm and solid than it was formerly."

In all his works Reid rejects the ancient hypotheses which began with the Greek skeptics and sophists: "That nothing is perceived but what is in the mind that perceives it: That we do not really perceive things that are external but only certain images and pictures of them imprinted upon the mind, which are called [by Berkeley, Hume, and others] impressions and ideas." He damns that line of reasoning about impressions and ideas which claims people "cannot from their existence infer the existence of any other thing." As for the mental impressions and ideas themselves, Reid notes that "they are such fleeting and transitory beings that they can have no existence at all" under the skepticist intellectual theories. Reid further observes that "upon this hypothesis, the whole universe...vanish[es] at once."

Thomas Reid finds these philosophical claims to be false and evil. He correctly notes that such intellectual irrationality, skepticism, and sophistry "overturn all philosophy...and virtue and common sense." Ultimately, Reid is a ferocious advocate of "common sense and reason".

Reid has enormous respect for Isaac Newton and other scientists of the past century or two. After studying Newton closely he concludes that he "discovered the law of gravitation and the properties of light" using "the maxims of common sense". Alas, "this age [the 1700s]" has generated "a system of skepticism that seems to triumph over all science, and even more over the dictates of common sense."

Taking the high road, as always, Thomas Reid claims "It is genius, and not the want of it, that adulterates philosophy, and fills it with error and false theory." By implication he condemns the Plato-like philosophers of "creative imagination" that don’t deign to involve themselves in the "servile employments [of] the dredges of science." Reid notes that the wild inventions of these philosophers has "coloring and every befitting ornament. The work pleases the eye and wants nothing but solidity and good foundation."

Considering the irrationality, skepticism, and sophistry which dominates his era, Reid admits that "our philosophy concerning the mind and its faculties is but in a very low state." It compares very unfavorably to the hard sciences "of mechanics, astronomy, and optics." When studying enemies of reason like Berkeley and Hume "we are immediately involved in darkness and perplexity" and in danger of falling into "absolute skepticism".

In the opening passages of his Inquiry into the Human Mind, Reid mocks the self-doubt and skepticism-of-reason of Descartes. He notes that "A man that disbelieves his own existence is surely as unfit to be reasoned with as a man that believes he is made of glass." As for his famous "Cogito ergo sum," Reid rejoins "Is it not as good reasoning to say I am sleeping, therefore I am? or I am doing nothing, therefore I am?"

As for those who wonder if their consciousness deceives them, Reid isn’t sure whether "to laugh at or pity the man who doubts its testimony." He helpfully adds that any such philosophical doubter or skeptic should "hope for his cure from physic and good regimen, rather than from metaphysic and logic."

Reid laments that "our philosophy concerning the mind appears to be very fruitful in creating doubts, but very unhappy in resolving them." The relatively liberal, empiricist, materialist, good guys of "Des Cartes, Malebranche, and Locke have all employed their genius and skill to prove the existence of a material world; and with very bad success." Reluctantly, Reid is forced to conclude that "these three great men, with the best good will, had not been able, from all the treasuries of philosophy, to draw one argument that is fit to convince a man that can reason, of the existence of any one thing."

Reid mocks: "Admired philosophy! daughter of light! Parent of wisdom and knowledge." He observes that it's the job of these skepticist philosophers to "dispel the clouds and phantoms which thou hast discovered or created." If they can't or won't do it, then mankind has no choice but to say: "I despise philosophy and renounce its guidance: let my soul dwell with Common Sense."

Nothwithstanding their considerable failures, the gentleman Reid makes an "Apology for these philosophers". Despite "The defects and blemishes of their system we ought rather to honor their memories" and thank them for pointing us in the proper direction. Reid claims the skeptics at least helped us defeat the "scholastic sophistry" which did mankind so much damage prior to the Enlightenment.

And if philosophy (in the late 1700s) has earned "the contempt and ridicule of sensible men" this is because it has engaged in unwarranted fancy and fantasy and has "endeavored to extend [its] jurisdiction beyond its just limits." It needs the solid grounding and noble ideals of baseline reason and common sense.

Because "In the unequal contest betwixt Common Sense and Philosophy the later will always come off both with dishonor and loss...it dies and rots." Reid condemns the skeptical philosophers who have "waged open war with Common Sense and hope to make a complete conquest of it."

Almost the entirety of Thomas Reid’s 1764 book takes dead aim at "the Bishop of Cloyne" [Berkeley] and "the author of the Treatise of Human Nature" [Hume]. But despite Reid’s contempt for the irrationality and nonsensicality of their conclusions, he dolorously notes that "the opinions of the ablest judges [of mankind] seems to be that [Berkeley and Hume] neither have been, nor can be confuted; and that they have proved, by unanswerable arguments, what no man in his senses can believe." If so, what could be more destructive to mankind than this?

Hume especially "leaves nothing in nature but ideas and impressions without any subjects [such as humans] on which they may be impressed." Under the philosophy of Hume "there is neither human nature nor science in the world." Hume is "an author who neither believes in his own existence nor that of his readers."

But David Hume, like virtually all other nihilists and skeptics, does not practice what he preaches -- does not try to live by his explicit philosophy. Hume admits that "it was only in solitude and retirement that he could yield an assent to his own philosophy; Society, like daylight, dispelled the darkness and fogs of skepticism and made [it] yield to the dominion of Common Sense." Reid correctly notes that "Pyrrho the Elean [was] the father of this philosophy."

Near the end of the introduction Reid asks if philosophy itself is as false and evil as the thinkers Berkeley, Hume, Kant, and Hegel make it out to be. He observes that "It is a bold philosophy that rejects, without ceremony, principles which irresistibly govern the belief and conduct of all mankind."

Reid’s position is that "If philosophy contradicts itself, befools her votaries, and deprives them of every object worthy to be pursued or enjoyed, let her be sent back to the infernal regions from which she must have had her original." But fortunately for all, Reid argues the problem entirely lies with the irrational and nihilistic philosophers like Berkeley, Hume, Kant, and Hegel. Reid finds philosophy itself to be "an agreeable companion, a faithful counselor, [and] a friend to Common Sense, and to the happiness of mankind."

Despite the false and evil claims of skeptical fundamentalists like Berkeley and Hume, Reid and other "sensible" thinkers are undeterred. They continue to use reason, science, and common sense correctly, and thus to understand that "snow is cold and honey sweet, whatever they [the nihilists] may say to the contrary. He must either be a fool, or want to make a fool of me, that would reason me out of my reason and sense."

Thomas Reid ends by opposing any philosophy that will "naturally and necessarily plunge a man into this abyss of skepticism." He rejects all theories of irrationality, senselessness, nihilism, and skepticism, affirming that "Such philosophy is justly ridiculous, even to those who cannot detect the fallacy of it. It can have no other tendency than to show the acuteness of the sophist, at the expense of disgracing reason and human nature, and making mankind Yahoos."

My Fellow Man

 

People are scum. Humans are a morally depraved species. They’re deliberately nonsensical and irrational in their thought and behavior. There seem to be three main types of these worms and demons: superior men, massmen, and lowlifes. But even the intellectual, moral, and spiritual elite are mostly dreadful creatures. And they’re made far worse by the current illiberal Dark Age. I truly hate living amongst these alien, deviant, insectoid monsters.

Anchored to Reality

 

Life is better if you have a solid, sound, sure grasp of reality. It’s even better if you know you do. Prior to the advent of reason and science around 600 B.C., humanity was generally considerably ignorant and superstitious. Mankind’s contact with physical and mental reality was somewhat nebulous.

But when reason, science, and philosophy were invented, everything changed. It was a mostly personal revolution. The Holy Individual used and trusted his mind much more. Men comprehended the natural world and the intellectual world far better. They dealt with their fellow man, solved problems, and guided their lives on a higher level.

Then along came nihilism. Some relatively persuasive intellectuals claimed the universe was unknowable, knowledge unobtainable, and certainty impossible. They argued the human mind was incompetent to comprehend reality.

The anti-reason skeptics and sophists then saw to it that pre-reason polytheism was converted to post-reason monotheism. Mythology became religion. "God" was born.

And so the pandemic of ignorance and superstition was reintroduced to mankind, but in a more profound and deadly way. The universe, society, and life became more confusing, uncertain, hostile, and malevolent than ever.

Still, science continued to improve and rise. So too rational philosophy. But along with these two benefactors of mankind, the monsters of nihilism and religion also continued to exist, advance, and do terrible damage. Society, culture, and lifestyle suffered – but the Noble Individual suffered worse.

Then along came Newton, Locke, and the Enlightenment. Reason surged. Science and rational philosophy ascended too. Knowledge grew as superstition and irrationality declined. People used their thinking minds more and better, as quality of life rose. Mankind experienced more meaning, purpose, satisfaction, achievement, greatness, pleasure, and happiness.

But the nihilists, and destroyers of reason and man, soon returned. The skeptics and sophists Berkeley, Hume, Kant, and Hegel devastated understanding, humanity, and life from the early 1700s to the early 1800s.

Of course, the men of reason fought back. Mainly the weak rational philosophers Reid, Beattie, Buchner, Moore, and Wittgenstein. Plus the quite strong reasonist Ayn Rand. The war between truth and falsity, good and evil, civilization and savagery, rages.

Reason and science need to be victorious. Nihilism and religion need to be defeated. Because life is better if you have a sound, solid, sure grasp of reality. And even better if you know you do.

Reality, Sensation, Reason, and Truth

 

The reality-sensation-reason-truth complex seems immensely sturdy and strong. It also seems wholly natural. Indeed, reality and truth are synonyms.

Objects and beings exist in nature and reality. These objects and beings naturally have various attributes and engage in various behaviors. Living beings have sensing nerves or organs which receive impressions from these things and their acts. The data which these sensing parts gather in is sent to the brain or mind of the living creature. The being then processes and organizes the information into a unitary and coherent perception or reflection of the object which generated the original sensations. This idea or mental reality is an attempt to closely represent, mirror, and copy the object or physical reality. An intelligent being can then exercise his free will and take this idea – located within his mind, and without external stimulus – and process and organize it with other ideas to form concepts or categories. He might then compare and contrast various ideas and concepts to form opinions, draw conclusions, solve problems, speculate, imagine, fantasize, innovate, or create. If he does this accurately, these coherent and integrated ideas and concepts will result in a certain amount of understanding, knowledge, facts, truth, wisdom, and goodness which he can use to achieve great things.

It’s all a matter of reality, sensation, reason, and truth. And it’s all so clear, clean, natural, and almost obvious. None of these four distinct things, or their relationships, seems difficult to identify or comprehend. None seems ambiguous, uncertain, confusing, or open to sincere, honest doubt. None clash with or contradict the others.

So despite the nonsensical, irrational, and malicious claims of Berkelely, Hume, Kant, and Hegel – and their evil attempts to separate, disconnect, isolate, alienate, ignore, or deny the existence of these four – the whole human thinking process and existential complex still seems extremely solid, sound, sure, reliable, trustworthy, undoubtable, and undeniable.

The Destroyer from Within

 

Ayn Rand turns everybody into a cultist. Unless you’re over 25 or so when you come across her, and your personality and character are already solidly formed, she converts essentially everyone into a type of religioso and cultist. It’s virtually impossible to resist her.

Ayn Rand simply has too much truth and virtue on her side. Too much intelligence and education. Too much speaking and writing skill. On top of which she's immensely, intellectually charismatic and seductive.

Ayn Rand attacks your current belief-system, and promotes her own, both high and low, hard and soft, quickly and slowly, overtly and covertly, directly and indirectly, obviously and subtlety, right away and over time. No matter how long, hard, and well you try to escape her entrapment and seduction, she virtually always gets you. And so, to a lesser or greater degree, you end up a mindless cyborg and pathetic loser cult follower.

Ayn Rand intellectually and personally bullies, hectors, manipulates, tricks, moralizes, and psychologizes. And very soon – so do you. You get turned into a soulless zombie. Some malicious, weird, fanatical jerk. A "second-hander" and "social metaphysician" to adopt her language. Not servilely dependent upon conventional society to determine truth and morality but – even worse – dependent upon her society and her dismal collection of fellow cultists. And compared to conventional folk, the Ayndroids are far more powerful and destructive.

Ayn Rand devastates your relationship with your family, friends, and society – not significantly improves it. She causes you to zealously, hatefully, morally condemn your fellow man – not find fun friends and hot chicks. She makes you "save the world" – not yourself.

And no prominent, current, Objectivist organization – such as The Ayn Rand Institute, The Atlas Society, or The Objectivist Standard – warns you against this terrible evil. Indeed, they silently lead you directly into it. Theirs is a policy of strict intellectual dishonesty and cowardice. When it comes to the seminal truth of Objectivist cultism, their evasions and lies never end.

Objectivism is great as a philosophy. But not as a religion. Ayn Rand is great as an intellectual teacher. But as a cult leader she's the worst ever.

Statue of Liberty

 

The world needs a new Statue of Liberty -- probably a new human figure of defiant and heroic liberty. A statue which is animated, dynamic, powerful, and vibrant. We need a figure which is a triumphant conqueror over slavery, barbarism, and evil.

The current, 1886, New York City statue is out of date and no longer up to standard. It's well past its prime and no longer gets the symbol-of-freedom job done. At this point, it's fairly close to an empty, meaningless cliché. And it certainly has a dreadful and entirely unacceptable poem closely associated with it. ("Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses... The wretched refuge...") The statue is going to need a new one of these too.

The current Statue features a modestly-clad woman, rather timidly holding aloft a torch or beacon, while clutching an ambiguous book. The new statue should maybe come from the world of comic-book heroics and feature a flashily-dressed male paladin boldly brandishing a sword or gun or his fists (to attack the bad guys), while also possibly holding a shield (to ward off evil). He might also be holding some formidable book/books such as from Aristotle, Cicero, Jefferson, or Rand.

Perhaps there should be 3 to 5 versions of it -- all outstanding works of art, if possible. This will likely help keep the idea and ideal of liberty fresh and new. 

Maybe one Greco-Roman, one Revolutionary Warish, one modern, one very stylized, and one cartoonish. Possibly holding the severed heads of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao in the left hand, and a Roman, Renaissance, or Samuri heavy sword in the right. Could also hold heads of Roosevelt, Johnson, and Biden -- or somewhat generalized and universalized versions of them.  

Probably it should be clear that this indomitable champion of freedom is ferociously fighting, and about to crush, a hated super-villain or horrific tyrant -- but not committing any sort of crime or act of aggression. The posture and attitude of the new Statue/Statues of Liberty should be vivacious, dynamic, defiant, and heroic.

Idealism

 

Almost everyone in the West today surrenders their idealism by age 13 or 14 – just after puberty hits. Most give it up around 5 or 10, altho many good people fight on. A few lose theirs even before 5, such as those with bad, cruel parents who live in a crime-infested ghetto. But I don’t know of a single other person on Earth who maintained their idealism to age 16. And I was able to decently observe at least 4000.

Idealism means the pursuit of high ideals and noble goals. It means thinking, thinking, speaking, and acting in search of perfection, or the elevated and exalted.

Idealism allows you to seek truth and discover reality at a profound level. It allows you to hope to live by such truth and actually do so. It even allows you to desire to publicize this truth and then do it.

Of course, lots of people hate your guts for holding on to your idealism. Everyone, really. And virulently, no less.

Still, idealism lets you think lofty thoughts, feel lofty feelings, dream lofty dreams, and achieve lofty goals. And if you play your cards right, and deftly negotiate the overwhelming evil of your unidealistic world, idealism lets you live a quite lofty life.

Cops

 

Cops are scum. Almost all police officers on earth are monsters. Their job, under Natural Law, is to defend and protect people and property. But they mostly attack and harm them.

A large part of what today's police do is enforce drug, prostitution, and gambling "laws". But these victimless "crime" statutes aren’t proper, legitimate, or truly legal. All such supposed laws are criminal and tyrannical.

Another large part of what today's police do is enforce car and quality-of-life "laws" on our communist streets which have no right to exist. These laws include parking and moving violations, along with rules against public disorder, drunkenness, noise, urination, begging, and loitering. But these social-order laws are fascist and dictatorial.

In a free society none of them would exist, or at least not in their current form. "Vices" aren’t crimes under Natural Law; and the "public" streets should be capitalist, and thus privately owned and controlled.

Unfortunately, no government on earth today is properly capitalist, libertarian, and free. And virtually no person on earth is aware that human "laws" which establish any type of criminality and tyranny are fundamentally illegitimate, invalid, void, and unenforceable.

Cops especially don't understand Natural Law – the universal and inalienable law of liberty and justice for all. But this law controls all of us. There’s no escape from it. You're never allowed to attack the innocent or violate their individual rights. As such, this law takes absolute precedence over any poor, incompetent, temporary, or destructive human laws. Sadly, most police today haven’t even heard of Natural Law; and if you do explain it to them, they almost always dismiss it immediately and without a thought.

Because most of what police officers do on the job today is break the Law, and violate the rights of man, almost all cops grow to be petty, hateful autocrats and mindless, tinpot dictators. They learn to harass and bully innocent citizens in a fascist, criminal, tyrannical manner.

However idealistic they may have been before they took the job, this changes them morally, psychologically, and spiritually. Police officers become corrupt and depraved almost to the center of their beings.

But quietly and secretly, the police know the evil that they do. They know that they're usually harming people and property, rather than protecting them. They implicitly realize that they're attacking individual rights and trespassing Natural Law, which it's their sacred duty to defend and uphold. Quietly and secretly, the police know that they're criminally guilty and wicked.

This is the reason they hate it whenever anyone challenges or questions them or their authority. Their whole being seems to be vulnerable and under attack. It painfully reminds them of their personal failure.

Cops crave respect above all else from the general public and criminals. It's a desperate need. But respect is something you earn; it isn’t given freely. And you can't earn it in a welfare state with communist streets and fascist social-behavior laws. The police are forced to engage in a never-ending parade of criminal and tyrannical activities. This isn't conducive to obtaining respect.

Thus they naturally go wild whenever anyone refuses to obey, and bow down, before them. They strike out violently and viciously, as if their life depended upon it. Because, morally, psychologically, and spiritually, it does.

This is why cops are scum. This is why almost all police officers on earth are monsters. They and the general public implicitly understand that the job of the police, under Natural Law, is to defend and protect people and property. But cops mostly attack and harm them.

Liberal Allies

 

Everyone is a liberal. Or at least everyone good. And it’s been this way for 2600 years now. Liberalism is a philosophy of simple reason and common sense. Its truth and goodness are obvious and undeniable.

All conservatives at least partially believe in and practice liberalism. So do all progressives. The better a person is – the more intellectually honest, brave, educated, and astute – the more likely he subscribes and adheres to large elements of liberalism.

In epistemology, conservatives believe in faith, dogma, and religion. Progressives believe in relativism, subjectivism, and nihilism. Liberals believe in reason, science, and reality. But, ultimately, nobody entirely rejects reason, science, and reality. They don’t dare. And the more clear-thinking and high-character you are, the more you generally follow the liberal epistemological line.

Pure illiberalism doesn’t exist. A belief in pure irrationality and untruth simply isn’t possible. Utter nonsense is never a thought-system of man. Pure evil destroys itself and makes itself non-existent. Hence there’s always a fair amount of doubt and disloyalty when it comes to believing in and practicing the wretched epistemologies of conservatism and progressivism. Even if they don’t know or admit it, everyone substantially thinks and acts in accord with liberal epistemology.

In ethics, conservatives believe in living for and serving god, progressives believe in living for and serving the collective, and liberals believe in living for and serving the Sacred Self. But belief in god and the collective is so false and evil that that virtually nobody fully does so. Pretty much everyone believes in the immense value of themselves and their own life. Hence everybody – partially or mostly – follows along with liberal ethics too.

It's the same with metaphysics, politics, esthetics, and spirituality. No-one in existence is fully opposed to natural reality and objective truth, liberty and justice, beauty and heroism, transcendence and triumph. Conservatives and progressives might find these values and ideals to be limited, naive, and overly simplistic. They might consider them to be shallow concepts, lacking in sufficient subtlety and nuance. They might think their sophisticated and complex philosophies go above and beyond all this. But nobody disbelieves in these liberal concepts entirely. And the higher quality a person and thinker they are, the less they deviate away from them.

So liberals can always appeal to the better nature of their conservative and progressive counterparts and intellectual opponents. The quiet fact is that all persons are at least somewhat liberal in their thought-system. Even the monsters of religious or political fanaticism. Hence, liberals can at least partially win any debate. Nobody opposes them completely.

So as much as the Dark Age world of today seems horrific and dismal – with about 99% of all Westerners solidly believing in the philosophies of conservatism or progressivism – the reality is: liberals can find partial allies and decent hope everywhere they turn.

Differences

Why do American blacks, Hispanics, whites, yellows, and Jews today have such widely divergent social and economic statuses? Because they're widely divergent in their natures, nurtures, and free wills. Because they're widely divergent in their genetics, upbringings, and moral choices. However universally and fanatically virtually all "good" people today evade and deny these obvious truths, this is the cause of virtually all of today’s group disparities.

It is not due to "hidden", "secret", "institutional", "cultural", or "systemic" racism. Not unless you want to consider the past 60 years of mindless, soulless, social demonization and legal persecution fo whites, yellows, and Jews – which no-one does. But such abuse of truly good people, along with absurd Hispanic and black supremacism, directly and indirectly harms everyone.

Right-wing conservatives and left-wing progressives are both drop-dead convinced that they can advance the brotherhood of man and social harmony by lying thru their teeth. They've assiduously brainwashed themselves into this cockamamie theory. Conservatives and progressives see explicit and clear statements about human nature, nurture, and volition as the high road to societal disaster. They're terrorized by even tiny amounts of open discussion and honest debate about group differences, lest a bit of truth seep out, and society experience a new Firebombing of Dresden. Thus conservatives and progressives are militant advocates of cover-up and fraud on almost all aspects of race and ethnicity, especially the progressives.

Meanwhile, today's helpless, impotent, and pathetic Objectivists and libertarians virtually all claim that any discussion or debate of the relevant issues constitutes "collectivism", "tribalism", and "racism". Their intellectual cowardice and dishonesty are marvels to behold. Their stupidity and depravity defy description.

America today needs truth. But who has any to offer?

 

People

 

People are pathetic. Such liars and cowards. Such failures and losers. Such monsters and insects. Such absolute vermin.

Even mankind at its best isn't very impressive. Think of the Greeks.

Anaxagoras never admitted the obvious and crucial truth – that there's no such thing as "god". Socrates didn’t either. Nor did Aristotle.

And what did these powerful and wide-ranging intellectuals get for their likely efforts to give humanity hope? How did their cowardly evasions and slimy lies profit them? Anaxagoras was driven into exile. Socrates was executed. Aristotle fled into exile, lest he be executed too.

And how did this enormous fraud benefit the world? It didn’t. It made pretty much everyone smaller and weaker. It slowed progress and detoured the ascent of man.

Even at the end of their lives, when they had almost nothing left to lose, Anaxagoras, Socrates, and Aristotle evidently still didn't tell the truth. They didn't speak it aloud, nor put it in writing, nor arrange for it to be publicized after their deaths.

And think of the geniuses and heroes of the Enlightenment, two millennia later.

Bacon, Locke, and Smith were similar liars and cowards. So too Johnson, Burke, Voltaire, Diderot, Jefferson, and Madison. Even Darwin and Einstein.

But what of the Objectivists, the leading liberal philosophers of today?

Peikoff, Binswanger, Schwartz, and Brook are all cultists – advocates and practitioners of religiosity. As for their rivals – Kelley, Hicks, Salsman, and Tracinski – they militantly refuse to damn or fight these demons and destroyers. Rather than defeating the illiberals, they claim to "have better things to do."

People are pathetic. Such liars and cowards. Such failures and losers. Such monsters and insects. Such absolute vermin.

Beyond Good and Evil

 

In carefully reading the opening passages of Friedrich Nietzsche's signature book of ethics, Beyond Good and Evil (1886), I'm struck by how much it's rambling and incoherent. Nietzsche seems to be a poor thinker and writer. He wanders and stumbles all over the place, expressing himself in a kind of almost-random, childish babble. Or, at the least, he engages in a lot of deliberately opaque, self-indulgent abuse of the reader. Anyone who extensively reads his loose, confused, contradictory, foolish speculation possibly gets what he deserves.

The book starts off with: "The Will to Truth, which is to tempt us to many a hazardous enterprise, the famous Truthfulness of which all philosophers have hitherto spoken with respect, what questions has this Will to Truth not laid before us!" This ungrammatically takes us in at least four dubious directions at once. And the next sentences and paragraphs don't get any better.

Still, Nietzsche seems justified in showing contempt for almost all philosophers who came before him. He disdainfully refers to them as "metaphysicians" [sections 2 and 6] and says they insincerely, vainly pursue "a cold, pure, divinely indifferent dialectic". [5]  Nietzsche says "philosophers are insufficiently skeptical" [2], and are more engaged in "autobiography" [6] than a disinterested pursuit of the truth – even tho he sees truth-seeking as itself a dubious activity. [1]

Nietzsche seems to especially despise Immanuel Kant and Georg Hegel – the two most illiberal philosophers ever. He impugns the "Tartuffery" of Kant, the possibly nonexistent "antitheses" of Hegel, and even the "hocus-pocus" of Baruch Spinoza [5] – which all seems deserved. Nietzsche calls Kant’s categorical imperative "mislead[ing]" and says his "synthetic judgments a priori" are "the falsest opinions" of all. [4] He says Hegel is "worse than a fool". [2]

So Nietzsche does take down some bad guys! But does he replace their many false and evil ideas with some solidly true and good ones? Not really.

Nietzsche never even gets close to the philosophy of liberalism. His respect for and adherence to the basic concepts and ideals of reason, science, naturalism, objectivism, individualism, and self-interest are medium and inconsistent at best. To begin with, Nietzsche confidently and unthinkingly damns "selfishness" and "cupidity" repeatedly. [2]

Nietzsche says "I do not believe that an 'impulse to truth' is the father of philosophy". [6] Moreover, he claims no philosopher really has a "Will to Truth" and seeks it without prejudice. [5] He says most philosophy is based upon "instincts" and "physiological demands". [3] Nietzsche displays his own lack of "Will to Truth" by almost bragging that "The falseness of an opinion is not for [me] any objection to it," because far more important is whether that "opinion is life-furthering, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps species-rearing". [4] But this opposition of truth-seeking and flourishment-seeking is a serious philosophical error leading to pain and misery for individuals and society. People can't skip over the truth-seeking part of life, as Nietzsche claims, and substitute for it ignorance, uncertainty, and lies. [1]

When it comes to metaphysical reality, Nietzsche rejects "the purely IMAGINED world of the absolute and immutable" [4], which is his rather poor description of the whole universe. He calls reality "transitory, seductive, illusory, paltry." [2] Nietzsche wildly claims that "without a constant counterfeiting of the world...man could not live." [4] He admits that "Granted that we want the truth: [but] WHY NOT RATHER untruth? Uncertainty? Even ignorance?" [1] He even argues that "the renunciation of false opinion would be a renunciation of life, a negation of life." [4] Horrifyingly, Nietzsche wants us "TO RECOGNIZE UNTRUTH AS A CONDITION OF LIFE." [4]

Early on Nietzsche compliments himself on his intellectual bravery and admits that his philosophy rejects "the traditional ideas of value" and that any such "philosophy which ventures to do" this is "beyond good and evil." [4] But, in fact, any such irrational belief-system is merely false and evil – not above and beyond these concepts.

Nietzsche condemns philosophers in general, arguing "there is not enough honest dealing in them" [5] and notes "How malicious philosophers can be!" [7] and says their ideas really constitute the "masquerade of a sickly recluse". [5] But all of these descriptions apply to Nietzsche most of all.

It’s especially sad to read Nietzsche condemn the liberal philosopher Epicurus in favor of the illiberal Plato. [7] Epicurus evidently called Plato and the Platonists, "flatterers of Dionysius", which strikes me as quite insightful. But Nietzsche says Epicurus wrote his anti-Platonic material "perhaps out of rage and ambitious envy of Plato." [7] Nietzsche even insults Epicurus by calling him a "garden-god". [7]

In the end, Nietzsche seems way off in most of what he claims at the beginning of his book of ethics. He’s clearly massively illiberal. Still, Nietzsche and his book are famous and well-regarded, so they're possibly still worth reading; thus, I plan to check him out a bit more.