Intercultural Relationships and Gender Fairness

Everybody thinks that they know what is justice, but what they conceive of as justice is different from place to place. The just-world hypothesis of different people in different places and times conceive of completely different kinds of justice. And it is by flux between people and places that any meaningful concept of what is justice can be attained.

In Muslim and rural Indian cultures, it is seen as justice that man bludgeon the woman into being his dog and kill her if she disobeys in the slightest. In American feminist culture, it is seen as justice that a woman treat men like garbage, get a coworker fired for sexual harassment if he tells her she's good-looking, deal with all women who are nicer and prettier by abusing and sabotaging them and destroying their careers and relationships, abuse and emasculate any relationship partner, screw exes in court out of every cent they can get, claim that anyone who objects to such conduct is a misogynist or a bimbo, and aim to destroy as many men and beautiful women in one's life as one can and then claim oneself strong or smart or spiritual or a true servant of woman's cause. Both sets think that they are right and that what they are doing is justice. With such extremes in the world claiming themselves to be justice and righteousness, the way to arrive at any realistic notion of the preceding is for the real-world mechanism of people choosing each other based on how they are willing to treat each other to balance out whatever is believed in their respective homelands - and create a more informed conceptions of justice and a more balanced just-world hypothesis in every component part of the world.

It is ridiculous for Islamists in Middle East to claim to be speaking for justice; in Middle East, Islamists are the injustice. The same is true for the Dworkin-McKinnon types in the United States. The in-good-faith feminists have a real point about behavior of men in Middle East and many other parts of the world (and some in the West), and Islamists about behavior of the not-in-good-faith ones among American women. But they both have much less of a point at home. On their home turfs, they apply a grossly imbalanced conception of justice pursuant a grossly slanted just-world hypothesis to shape the country's concept of justice into gravely distorted forms that lead to grave mistreatment of people - women or men - who have done the least to deserve it.

A positive match is created between men and women whose just-world hypotheses are a positive-sum situation. A man from a feminist culture, whose just-world hypothesis would be seen at home as slanted toward patriarchy but in most of the rest of the world would be seen as fairly matriarchial, and a woman from a patriarchial culture, whose just-world hypothesis is seen in her own country as feminist but would be seen in a feminist culture as patriarchial or equalist, have just-world hypotheses that are better than complementary and that therefore can create among them a joyful appreciation of one another and a positive-sum relationship. Take a woman from the patriarchial culture, and put her together with a man from the feminist culture, and we see people who stand to treat one another better than they've ever been treated by other gender at home. As intercultural flux allows people to make matches based on what they see in each other and how they are willing to treat each other, is checked the wrong in each culture that caused the imbalance, and the graver wrong that is the mistreatment of either women or men in relationships in pursuit of that false concept of justice. And this creates a real-world mechanism toward creating social justice between men and women, as well as toward a goal that is just as important:

Creating relationships between men and women where both parties appreciate one another and treat each other in a manner that merits their vows of love.

The global social injustice will be solved at least in part by large-scale intercultural, interracial and international flux of people for love and marriage. Bringing together the men from cultures where the concept of justice is an extreme of feminism, with women from cultures where the concept of justice is an extreme of patriarchy - even people from cultures whose concepts of justice are not as extremely off-target but still noticeably apart - will bring together people who can appreciate one another, treat each other better than they are treated at home, and be seen by each other as positive influence and an improvement upon what they had to deal with. It will also create a real-world check-and-balance upon the tendency of societies - all societies - to go injust in one or another direction at the expense of one or another group. There were many people for a long time who believed that economic justice around the world would be achieved by Communism. In fact global capitalism did a much better and faster job by allowing billions of people in places like China and India to rise out of poverty using their own efforts with global market for their goods. And it is international flux for purpose of marriage that has real possibility of doing the same for social justice - while also creating many marriages along the way where people have genuine appreciation for one another and treat each other in commensurate way.

Global economy made it possible for international business to move across borders to find people who want to work and know how to work, and for people to move across the borders to find employers who constructively use and rightfully reward their endeavor. This resulted in over a billion of people rising out of poverty in less than three decades and businesses having better and more affordable products that benefited consumers and business itself. By similar mechanism, the men and women being free to move across borders to find people who would treat them better than they are treated at home results in tremendous improvement in people's relationships, as well as improvement in gender fairness.

But far more importantly, it creates a real-world incentive for people in all societies to treat their partners - men or women - in rightful manner, for knowing that there are other people around the world who would treat them well if they do not. And this breaks the stranglehold of local oppressors and thugs - both thugs of muscle and thugs of morality - who want to keep one or another group in their cultures in shackles so that they can be guiltlessly and without consequence mistreated.

Protectionism - attempt by rich countries to create walls against international products - has been described as bullying and
extortion. The consumer is being extorted, and the working people around the world are being bullied, by the rich country attempting to protect unearned priviledge of some of its workers at everybody else's expense. The communities that want to deny their citizens the right to make interracial, intercultural or international matches, are likewise using extortion and bullying to protect unearned privilege - such as the unearned privilege of Middle Eastern or rural Indian men to treat women like cattle, to throw vitriol in their faces, and to execute them in case they do not obey their every command. Like tariffs and quotas of the protectionists are used to maintain economic imbalance, so the violence, moral thuggery, and oppressive laws, are used to sustain social injustice. And just as in case of protectionism, where the greater the economic imbalance the higher the obstacles that are required to sustian it, so the greater the scale of violence, moral thuggery, and oppressive legislation, the greater the social injustice and the graver the system abuse.

There are many people who falsely claim that protectionism is more moral than global economy. It is not; it is bullying and extortion against one's citizens and against the world to protect unearned privilege. The same is also true of efforts by any local entity at any level to keep people from marrying people external to itself. If a country or a community constructs walls against intercultural, inter- ethnic or international marriage, then it is performing bullying and extortion against its own citizens and against the rest of the world, in order to keep its citizens chained to partners who want the unearned privilege of treating them like trash.

The greater the scale of economic imbalance, the greater the need for protective barriers. And the greater the scale of social imbalance, the more artificial barriers are required to keep it in place. Thus, the greatest amount of violence, threats, moral bludgeoning, character assassination, psychological abuse and oppressive legislation will be expected to be, and is, done by the communities that are the most gravely injust and abusive - and to the least extent by the communities that are the least abusive and least injust.

It takes more barriers to keep people from leaving a raw deal than it does to keep them from leaving a fair deal. From this follows that the greater the obstacles placed by the culture to women or men finding partners elsewhere, the greater the systemic injustice that they embody. The more abuse, violence, legal oppression and moral bludgeoning is directed against one or another group, the greater the injustice that is perpetuated against them. The greater the actual need for intercultural, interracial or international flux in order to rectify the imbalance.

The people are bullied into lives they would never have chosen if they were aware of the true range of options before them, and are kept there by oppressive laws that want to make a commitment based on inadequate knowledge and false advertising life-long. That state of affairs is falsely regarded as being moral. It is not moral state of affairs; it is a state of affairs based on systemic injustice. The disadvantaged are kept to inhuman treatment and denied relationships with people who would treat them better, and the people around the world are kept from partaking of what they have to offer, all in order to defend unearned privilege of the wrongly advantaged class to abuse and oppress the disadvantaged.

Thus, the people who are against intercultural matches in cultures such as the Muslim scream about tradition and morality. The real reason they are against such matches is that they want to abuse women as much as they want to abuse women, and for the women to have no other options but to put up with living hell that is life as a woman in Middle East. The people who attack intercultural matches in feminist cultures claim all kinds of silliness as well. The real reason is that they want to treat men like trash, and for the men to have no possibility but to take it. In both cases, the resistance to international relationships is a result of systemic wrong that leads to systemic imbalance. And it is this wrong that is checked and balanced by the real-world mechanism of people being meaningfully free to choose their partners in parts of the world that are not formulated by the same systemic imbalances and the wrongful mistreatment of one or another gender that these imbalances create.

The same of course is the case in relationships themselves. The greater the scale of the intended and later accomplished injustice, the greater the amount of physical violence, threats, psychological abuse, character assassination, reputation destruction and legal and social bullying that the perpetuator of the injustice needs to do in order to artificially protect and maintain the wrong. This is the case either when the imbalance is that of the perpetrator being with partner who is too good for them but not being willing to treat the partner at level accorded their merits, or of the desire of the perpetrator to grossly mistreat the partner, or of the desire by the perpetrator to take from the partner all that they have to offer and give poison and violence in return. Like barriers to trade being evidence of artifiically maintained economic imbalance, these actions are evidence of artificially maintained imbalance in the relationship.

The more we see done of all or any such things, the more the intended or the accomplished injustice, the more apparent is the injustice perpetuated by the partner who does these things.

Which means that abuse in relationships is more likely to be done not for the things that are wrong in the partner, but for things that are right in them. And the greater the amount of any such violence, the more we see the injustice that one commits or intends to commit. In the same way as global economy provides a way for workers around the world to rise out of poverty - and for entrepreneurs to have access to people who are willing and able to work effectively - so do international matches allow a way for women from cultures slanted against women and men from cultures slanted against men to create matches with people from whom they can expect better treatment that in home societies, and whom they likewise will treat in ways better than they are treated at home. The women from cultures where women treat men right but are mistreated by men in their own homeland - and men from cultures where men treat women right but women do not treat men right - find in each other better treatment than they could hope for in partners from their own communities. Not only are beautiful matches created, but social imbalances are rectified, and people in the communities are shown how truly loving, mutually appreciative and mutually respectful relationships can be made real. In this are created two positives, and rectified many negatives. The positive of mutually appreciative, mutually positive matches and positive influence that they exert on the disadvantaged group in society - and the negative of the wrong that creates social imbalances and the abusive ways that maintain them.

Thus international relationships therefore work for freedom, fairness, and good treatment by men and women of one another in relationships. And that is a valuable and meaningful good toward which it is worthy to aspire for men and women around the world.

Read more

Cultural Flux and Dynamic Integrity

When cultures come into flux, they reshape each other and battle each other.

The multilectic creates all kinds of creations, some that embody the best of component cultures; some that embody the worst of component cultures; and some that contain both benign and malignant features of all of the above. Each culture's belief on the Autonomy on Good (and the power it seeks to exercise over the minds and lives of the people) is undermined by existence of other mindsets in its vicinity. The culture's illusion of Integrity, as a function of adopting its precepts and following it unconditionally, is challenged by the fact that any intellectual honesty in a climate that contains other influences leads one to know better.

The flux fills minds with confusion; it also gives people a chance at much better Integrity that is a result of Integrating multiple influences and coming up with a higher synthesis that enriches every culture that comes into the picture, as well as increasing the wisdom and knowledge of individuals involved in the flux.

Through integration of the Good in different cultures it becomes possible to build on the Good in all of them and to improve all of the cultures involved (as well as the people in them) and to impart to them Greater Wisdom. The Dynamic Integrity that is arrived in the process is a Higher Form of Integrity than the Static Integrity of False Upbringing or False Paradigm, and one with Greater Knowledge - Knowledge that embodies Experience Across Multiple Context. It also requires the presence of mind to sustain, and thus makes the most of man Intellectually and the most of Man's Creations.

Through the mechanism of intercultural competition - akin to free-market competition among companies - the cultures involved are held accountable to the people for the quality of the cultural goods produced and are made to become the best they can be or else go out of business. 

In applying the concepts of free-market competition to cultures rather than only companies, and checks-and-balances to mindsets and societies rather than only entities in the government, the tendency toward totalitarianism in both entities is held in abeyance, and people have chance at greater liberty, greater wisdom, and experience of life.

Read more

Communitarian Totalitarianism

The business entities, from single proprietorships to giant corporations, are made accountable to the public through the mechanism of competition from other companies, as well as through scrutiny by media and law. The government entities are made accountable to the public through the mechanism of electoral system sustained by active and involved media and electorate. A corrupt corporation like Enron or WorldCom, like the corrupt officials in the government, are exposed and either lose their market, their status as legal entities, their electoral base, or their official position. But communal organs of power have no checks upon them and therefore have the potential to get away with far greater abuses than either of the preceding.

Communitarianism - the belief that community is more important than individual and deserves to have power in itself - may sound appealing until one runs into reality of what communitarianism means. Community organizations such as tribal separatists, the KKK, militias, gangs, mafias, Muslim terrorists, old-boy networks, and religious cults, are the real-world manifestation of communitarianism - and none of them are benign. In all cases these are entities that arrogate for themselves life-and-death power over the lives of others and commit horrible violations of human rights, both within the community and without. These entities are not accountable to the consumer through the market, and they are not accountable to the voter through the elections. And that means, they become tyrannical, seeing it their right to control everyone in the community and to commit horrible violations to that effect.

When communitarianism began developing, I foresaw the creation of effective totalitarianism. I recognized that the unofficial local organs of power are capable of at least as great abuses as are the official ones, and lacking the constitutional principles and accountability to the public that keep the official government from becoming despotic, they could, and would, perform greater abuses than the official democratic governments can under Constitutional law. And I recognized that those communities and organizations, lacking either the human rights and civil rights principles that these governments or the mechanisms of check and balance upon them, could, and would, do graver damage to people's life, liberty and existence than the governments that they were seeking to supplant.

I foresaw this in America; and now I am finding it in Australia. A rural small town in the Australian state of Victoria, that prides itself on being a model community, shows exactly what the term means. My wife’s older friend, a lady who has achieved great professional success and raised a family of highly effective people, married a self-made millionaire from this community. When her husband had a stroke, his family, that wielded significant influence in the town, repeatedly claimed that she was not competent to take care of him even though she was a registered nurse. Unable to take custody over him, they poisoned the entire town against her, until she had to beg even cabs to come to her home in order that she could go shopping. They finally had their way when she had to go to a hospital for an operation, and her husband was placed in the town nursing home for a week. He entered the nursing home alive; he came out in a vase. During that week, he was not properly fed or given medicine, and nurses gave conflicting accounts of his death. When the daughter of my wife’s friend asked for an autopsy, his body was cremated before it could be performed.

On the Internet, communities become so arrogant that they decide it’s rightful to commit real crimes. Forgery, harassment, slander and defamation are common; as are such actions as mailing someone a piece of manure; pursuing someone to career networks in order to damage their job prospects and reputation; sending viruses to people’s workplaces, web pages and home computers; and making credible threats of death. The community mindset takes over and deems itself more powerful than the law. And anything that is seen as threat by the communal mindset, is deemed to be exterminated by any means possible. This means illegal action and violation of human rights. And while the potential for abuses of power in government and business are checked by media, consumer, voter and other branches and levels of government, the abuse of power in communities - unofficial organs of power - goes on unchecked.

In America, my friend C. had an aunt that went into a nursing home in New Hampshire. She was administered wrong medication that destroyed her health, after which she had a hole ripped in her back with a bedpan. When the nursing home found out that C., who has an M.D., was on the way, the nursing home murdered her aunt. Her body was still warm when C. showed up. Tests showed a six times the lethal dose of morphine in her body. C. has the photographs and the medical chart readings of the matter. But when she tried to go to court to get justice for what took place, her lawyer betrayed her. He was found out to be a part of the town‘s old-boy network. He since then continued to lobby other lawyers that C. tried to hire, who all betrayed her as a result. The employee who told C. what had happened was fired, and when C. had tried to call her last summer she was told that she'd had a nearly-fatal accident at her next workplace. That's the reality of old-boy networks; the reality of communitarianism.

The same reality can be seen, to even greater wrongs, in the parts of the world where communitarianism has had a longer run of power. In Indian rural communities, the goal is to beat a young bride into submission, and it is a common practice to murder brides who are not completely obedient to the will of the family to whom she's been given. In rural Ethiopian communities, the most common way to get a bride is by raping a teenage girl - and as the family rejects her since they can no longer give her in marriage, and the rest of community rejects her since she is no longer a virgin, the only place she can go to is to the rapist. In both cases, the national law and the human rights law does not reach these communities; and the horrendous wrong goes unchecked by media, politics and law.

It is likewise the communities in Afghanistan and Pakistan that hide the terrorists, using community codes and loyalties to protect people whose goal is to murder and fear-monger their way into unearned power. It is communities and families that are the root of the Mafia, and the community organization that is the Mafia wields power given to it by the families and the communities to terrorize and enslave the families and communities for which it claims to work. The community-based KKK and inner city gangs; the Southern old boy networks and fraternities; the survivalist militias; all commit horrible crimes under the name of community. And for as long as this is the ideology, they continue to get away with it.

The co-founder of pioneering software giant Cisco, Sandy Lerner, found out the reality of communitarianism when she moved to rural Virginia and attempted to open a diner. "The problem with small towns," she said, "is that the mind takes the size of the town." She is a self-made multimillionaire with power and experience. Imagine what someone who's not a multi-millionaire, who's less experienced, and who is in a less powerful condition, will discover if she were to move to such a place.

It is communities in America that create the phenomenon known in psychology as conspiracy of silence against the victims of sexual abuse. In order to keep up the lie that the community represents tradition, family and happiness, those on whose backs this pretence falls are silenced, slandered, demonized, broken and destroyed. The police does not do its job; it is co-opted by the community to perpetuate the deception. Mental health and social services do the same. And then the community built on brutality, incest, deception, and corruption goes on claiming that it is moral and the rest of the world is not moral and has its representatives usurp the values platform to bludgeon the civilized world into perpetuation of the community's barbaric, deceptive, corrupt, poisonous ways.

In business, false advertising - presenting a product as something other than what it is, or failing to inform the customer about problems with it - is a crime that is punishable by law. But communities continually advertise falsely, claiming to have a wholesome way of life while in fact being places of extreme corruption and abuse. And at issue here is not simply a product; at issue here is people’s lives. How many are lost to false advertising by corrupt and brutal communities? How many find their lives taken by smilie-faced lie disguising a snakepit of brutality and corruption? How many cannot find their way out because the community is more powerful than the law, claims itself as the law, and is made that way by communitarian attitudes and beliefs?

The women who fall for the siren song of country community find themselves stuck in a horrible situation from which they either get out with greatest difficulty or not at all. Far from idyllic existence, they become the town's and the family's acquisition, scapegoat, whipping girl, object of control. Like the brides in rural India, these women experience extreme physical and psychological violence from the families into which they have married, whose goal is to make her their own in every way possible and to never relent until she submits completely - after which, if she does, violence still goes on because violence in the country is way of life. The police and the court system refuses to acknowledge abuse but instead seeks to silence its witnesses in order that the community's big lie and selling line do not get punctured by fact of what goes on in the community behind closed doors. And if the woman attempts to flee, the community seeks to break her down entirely and to use all its representatives to not only destroy her but also to take away her children.

This is what happens when unofficial entities hold greater power than official entities, and corruption, venality, deceit, and brutality perpetrated by communities is not subjected to openness, scrutiny, accountability, check and balance.

Without such check and balance, the communities arrogate for themselves life-and-death power over the lives of people. I have heard from many people in Midwest that they kill people like me. Which means not only that they have adopted murder as way of life and must have killed many along the way, but further that they believe they have right to kill people by virtue of how they think. Which means that they create an effective totalitarianism and do not shy away even from murder to keep it going. And communitarianism, by sanctioning such a thing, is in effect sanctioning corruption, murder, and indeed every other crime, by way of creating de facto totalitarianism.

This is not coincidental; this is inevitable. An official organ of power is subject to its official precepts; but a community is an unofficial organ of power and is therefore not subject to any laws. As such it becomes lawless - indeed it becomes a law unto itself. A law that is unwritten; that is not subject to checks and balances; and that therefore becomes despotic. A law that claims for itself all the psychological weaponry that comes with being associated in public mind with family and morality, and in so doing can silence any criticism on moral grounds and get away with extreme abuse against the ever-diminished individual and ever-more-discredited official power organs. And people, rather than seeing a freedom from oppression they have mistakenly identified to be based in “statism,” are bound much deeper, much harder, and much more completely by an entity that is far inferior to capitalism, and far inferior to liberal democracy, in ethics, legality, principle, vision or human rights.

Another problem, and one that Sally Lerner has discovered, is one known in psychology as groupthink. Even when not deliberately intending wrong, people in closed systems prevail on each other to think the same way and control their thinking until it accords with the rest of the group. This problem has been responsible for Challenger disaster, when everyone knew of the problem but none had the courage to talk about it; and when even the people as smart as those at NASA are subject to this, then so is clearly any other closed system in the world. Besides the result seen in Challenger - the result of leading people to overlook crucial information, silence real perspectives, deny legitimate understanding, and thus make horrible and uninformed decisions - groupthink leads to this: Absolute similitude of mind that does not tolerate anything that differs from whatever lie it becomes. Which leads to extinction of freedom of thought, subversion of democratic process and due process, failure to honestly address and resolve endemic problems, and conspiracy of silence on matters that violate the community's pretence before the world.

But even worse that that it leads to this: The collective hubris of the community that would judge it acceptable to murder people and to destroy people's lives in the name of the community - to create corrupt, venal, oppressive and murderous cancers upon the face of the Western Civilization - and, as if that was not enough, go on and aggressively claim on political scene to speak for values, tradition, and family, while in fact representing murder, oppression, corruption and deceit.

As if that weren't enough, there is something here that is yet more sinister and far-reaching, and that bodes horribly for the future of democracy. And it is this: The moral and psychological power given to unofficial entities as vehicle for power-tripping as the supposed spokesperson therefor. As Stalin claimed to speak for the people and claimed that his enemies were the enemy of the people - and as the aggressive feminists claim that they speak for women and that their enemies are enemies of women - likewise those who claim to speak for communities portray their enemies as enemy of community and wield the power of the community to kill them or force them to submit. To speak for an unofficial authority is a power gambit that does not possess check and balance and therefore has the complete capacity for becoming tyrannical. There is no official code for a community, a society, a gender, a family, a tradition. Thus the people who claim to speak for these entities have nothing to check their words and actions against and can get away with any deception, any usurpation, any cruelty, any injury, any violence, any vileness, any violation, under the sun. All this of course has taken place at communitarian entities the world over and can only take place given the mechanism that underlies communitarianism.

That an entity is unofficial, does not make it not real. Instead the power that it wields is unaccountable, unbalanced and unchecked. As such it becomes insidious as well as tyrannical; and far from fostering good character as many communitarian types would claim, instead fosters the character of treachery, deception, venality, subterfuge and corruption. Which undermines and degrades the character of the people instead of improving it, and also undermines and degrades the character of the countries in which they live.

Communitarianism has been wrong from its inception. An unofficial organ of power, without constitution or checks and balances or accountability, can, and will, abuse power to a far greater extent than an official one that is by law forced to operate within official constraints or one that is accountable to the market or the law. If the communities are to be made organs of power, then it must be a power that is official, accountable, checked and balanced, and placed under the rule of law. Their rules and their ways must be codified and advertised precisely as they are, and then checked from both government entities from the outside and individuals from within in situations where either the rules or their enforcement violates human rights. Otherwise the result is absolute and unchecked criminality of whoever claims to speak for community; effective destruction of liberty and civil and human rights; effective destruction of honesty and transparency in the civilization; false advertising leading to lifelong ensnarement; degradation of character of the population toward venality and corruption; and mafia values, mafia tactics, mafia character, and creeping totalitarianism everywhere that such an ill-conceived ideology is given green light.

Read more

Who truly speaks for Australian fathers?

In September of 2007, I began writing on the Internet about the injustices committed in Australian family courts. The response from men on the boards was revealing. One responder said that Australian men have “figured out long ago that women are b*tches, and breed them out of that attitude.” Two justified wife-killing, one saying that a man who kills his wife “does not murder her, he corrects her existence” and another saying that some wives deserve to be killed. One respondent kept claiming that I was a Lesbian from Women’s Electoral Lobby while claiming my identity as someone I don’t know and undoubtedly violating that person’s privacy rights in the process. A representative of Fathers4Equality began posting injunctions for people to “have strength in numbers” and vote in the upcoming election for their candidates.

As I started exploring, I found laws and institutions designed to perpetuate violence. The people are forbidden to talk in the media about what goes on in the family court system, keeping the abuses in family system outside the scrutiny of free speech. Many women have lost their children because they had the courage to report in court the abuse that their children received from their exes. Women who flee from violence are being treated as criminals. Men who have put their children in hospitals with their brutality are still allowed equal access, while women reporting abuse are denied access to children because they have the integrity to puncture the lie that is the basis of the family court system - the lie that marriages and family life in Australia is everything other than what it is.

Before all else, let’s start with the wrongs that are the most blatant. The Australian family court system employs a racket known as Parental Alienation Syndrome. The concept was invented in 1980s by Richard Gardner, an American conman who also condoned pedophilia, and was quickly discredited in United States as a result of studies that showed explicitly that out of children’s abuse allegations against their fathers, only 2% were found to be false. In Australia however it is used by the family court system. The racket claims that a woman who speaks up about her ex-partner abusing the children is mentally ill and fabricating the accusations, and if the children make accusations as well then she has manipulated them into doing so. Out of that consideration Australian courts make a policy of taking away the children from any woman who has the courage to leave an abusive relationship and whose children have courage to tell the truth to the court about what happened behind closed doors.

The recent changes in legislation, passed in 2005, aimed at giving both parents the chance to have meaningful role in the lives of the children. But the Parental Alienation Syndrome racket aims to eliminate the mother from children’s lives when the abuse is being brought to the court. Not only is abuse not dealt with, but the abuser is rewarded with a full custody while the person confronting it loses the children. I doubt I am the only man who believes this is an outrage.

The rights that these men take away are, most of all, those of their daughters. They seek advantage in court over wives they brutalize, break, beat down and degrade; but in enshrining them in the law they are doing the same to their daughters. And a man who would sacrifice his daughter’s rights, in order that he have court privileges that he does not deserve, is not worthy to be a father. Any more than a man who would sacrifice the rights of 50% of the population is not worthy of having rights himself.

The attitude of claiming women to be “b*tches” who are to be “bred out” of that attitude is very revealing. It reveals a mechanism identified by Eric Berne as racket anger, in which a person invents false reasons to be angry at someone in order to justify wanting to mistreat them, and then treats them in such a manner as to bring forth the reaction that appears to justify the abuse. The men running anger racket come into relationships expecting to be somehow betrayed and mistreated - and injure, wear down, beat and abuse the women until she either suffers so much that she does something (in which case the man claims he was right from the beginning), or is completely destroyed and accepts the abuse as a way of life. At which point many of the abused, either believing this to be the natural lot of women or feeling that no woman is allowed to have better than they have, go on and abuse, destroy and entrap other women in their communities into lives of brutality and degradation. In either case, the racket continues, and the lie gets bigger and bigger and breaks and strangles more people into a world of self-perpetuating injustice, atrocity and deceit.

Which then becomes the true character of the arrangement and the formative core of all its claimed values, attitudes and ways.
Which then markets itself as tradition, common sense, sanity, reality or religion and thus profanes all these concepts by using them for perpetuation of ways whose true character is one of atrocity and deceit.

The Father’s Lobby is stating statistics that claim that one in seven Australian men commit suicide. As is to be expected from men who would not take responsibility for their actions, they blame it on the women, precisely upon feminism. Let me get this straight. A woman who’s isolated, disempowered, beaten down, and subject to ongoing brutality and destruction that ruins her health, lives in hell, but goes on to take care of her children, while irresponsible men opt for suicide when they do not get what they want. And these people want to speak for men? For fathers? For family? For Australia?

They don’t. They speak for the lowest in men, the lowest in fathers, and the lowest in humankind.

The same men claim that a “genocide” is being committed against Australian men by “feminist terror.” This is extremely revealing. The people who intend to commit a large-scale atrocity, frequently start it by claiming that the group they intend to wipe out or to subjugate is committing the atrocity against them. Thus, Nazis claimed that Jews wanted to do to Germans what Nazis wanted to do to the Jews. And what we are seeing now, being prepared and in many cases caried out, is terror against Australian women that in many cases is worse than genocide.

It is a terror intended to subjugate not only their wives, but also the women of future generations.

And no man and no woman worth being a parent, would participate in such a thing or allow it to be committed.

They also site statistics that claim that 60% of marriages in Australia end in divorce. Given the attitudes these people have shown, it is no wonder that women leave them at first opportunity. And I don’t blame them. What woman worth knowing would accept her daughter being seen as a “b*tch” and “bred out” of that “attitude”? What woman worth knowing would allow her children to stay in a home run by someone who thinks wife-killing is justified and have that same person role-model marriage and family life for them? What woman worth knowing would allow for perpetuation of racket anger upon her and then on through her children and into the following generations? The women who have courage to leave abusive husbands in order that their children have chance to grow up free of violence and degradation, does her sacred duty as a mother and as a citizen.

And it is only when the Australian men stop abusing their wives and children that they will have earned the right to have their wives and children stay with them.

The same people likewise claim that children have need for a father. And yet they want to take children away from the mother, who bore them for 9 months in her body, weaned them, and has been their primary source of nourishment, love and comfort. Need for a father? Need for a mother first. And a man who would deny the children their rights to a mother - who would sacrifice that basic necessity of their children in order that he have control over the children - does not deserve to be a father himself, having put his interest in control over their children over their children’s most primary psychological and personal need. When two women came to Solomon claiming the child to be theirs, he figured out which was the real mother by threatening to kill the child. The real mother was willing to let the child go to the other woman in order that the child can live. The same applies for men who have valid prerogative for fatherhood. A real father cares about the child more than he cares about his own interests over the child. And a father who would take away the child’s right to a mother, cannot be trusted to do anything right by or for the child.

Especially if the child is his daughter.

As for fathers, children have need for a father or stepfather who’s not abusive. Children have need for a father or stepfather who’s good to their mother and to them. Children have need for a father or stepfather who models for them a real, genuine, loving, respectful relationship. And while many people I know whose mothers have left their fathers at first hated them for that decision, many of them have realized that their mothers have made the correct decision when they figured out what their fathers were like.

The Father’s Lobby claims to be speaking for family. In fact they are speaking for this and this only: Abuse, control and deceit. The person who truly is worthy father and truly has values treats the partner in such a manner that she does not want to leave him, not create laws and social institutions that make it difficult for her to leave. And a man who truly cares about his family, cares about his daughter’s rights, as well as about the children’s rights to be with their mothers. The only person who wants the protection of such institution, is the person who wants to abuse the partner and for the partner to have no recourse.

It is the person who wants to brutalize, degrade, undermine and mistreat the partner - and have the institution of marriage, or institution of family, or institution of community, to keep the partner from leaving.

It is the person who wants to commit crimes in the privacy of the household, and let the social institution of househod to keep these crimes from getting redressed.

It is the person who wants to appeal to a borrowed virtue to cover for his own lack of virtue.

And this - appeal to borrowed virtue to cover for own lack of virtue - is the essence of Australian father’s lobby.

The people who want the protection of tradition to keep their relationships, are ones who do not want to do what it takes to keep a relationship going. What they want, is license to commit disgusting crimes against their partner and children behind closed doors and under the guise of tradition and family. As such, they use appeal to ethics to hide ethically damnable behavior. Which profanes the ethics they appeal to as much as it profanes themselves, but far more importantly the fathers, the men, the family, for which they claim to speak.

As man and father I tell the Australian father’s lobby explicitly: YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME.

Appealing to fallacious ethical arguments, the men involved are blaming everything on women. At Current Affair, there was a story about a woman who has six children by six different men. Even though the woman is working hard and keeping her children well-fed and well-cared for, she has been singled out as an example of women’s immorality. An obvious question to ask is, What about the men? Where are their ethics? Where is their responsibility? It takes two to have a child, and if the woman is prosecuted - but man is not - then one group has an immoral free ride at the expense of the other. Which ruins whatever claims of ethics or responsibility or morality that they may assert. I once ran into a man who called himself “a producer” because he “produced” eight children by eight different women and did not take care of any of them. Immorality to be blamed on women? What about their partners who impregnate them and then leave them or batter them and the kids?

What about you, Australian father’s lobby? Where is your responsibility?

So, some among men would say, how can I as a man be going against my own gender. My response to that is, if you see life in terms of battle of men against women, then you have no chance of being good to anyone you’re with and should not be getting married or having children at all. Others would say, how can I be so stupid as to deny having privileges as a man against my wife. My response to that is that I do not need such privileges; I seek to treat her in such a manner as to make these unnecessary. My far greater concern is with the rights of my daughter, who will have to live in the world created by these movements. And if you do not want your daughters to have rights in the world in order that you can have short-term advantage against your wives in the court of law, then you are too selfish and too short-sighted to be adequate material for parenting and do not deserve to have that privilege.

The people who would employ a concept, like Parental Alienation Syndrome, that has been soundly discredited in the place it originated have no regard for the truth. And that 98% of the children are forced to be with the people who have abused them, and denied a right to be with their mothers, is an outrage. Not only does this prevent children a right to be with their mothers - it does that. Not only does it give children to abusers - it does that. But worse than all that, it tells people they can’t be honest; they can’t be forthright; they can’t reveal crimes committed behind closed doors, in order that pretense of family and tradition not be violated by the scrutiny of the fact of what actually goes on behind the facade.

To teach people that they can’t tell the truth in court without facing disaster, is to teach them dishonesty as way of life. And that bodes horribly for the future society for Australia. It seeks to turn it into a society of abuse and brutality, but far worse a society of systemic venality and corruption. Which not only is abominable in itself, but becomes more abominable by using the concepts of family and tradition and morality to cloak itself. If people can’t tell the truth without losing their children, then the only thing they can do is lie and backstab each other. Go down this road, and you’ll find your country turn as venal and corrupt as Iran or former Soviet Union, where people likewise were not allowed to tell the truth without losing their freedoms or their lives. And which society turned into a snakepit of snitches, tattle-talers, crooks, black marketeers, and hypocrites screwing each other over for portions of ever-diminishing pie.

A facade of tradition and family values sustained by silencing those who tell the facts of what goes on behind the facade of tradition and family values leads to that exact set of conditions. The people become social onanists wearing a facade of decency in public while being monsters to people over whose lives they have the most power. The separation between fact and facade creates a schizophrenic civilization in which people lie, abuse and control as way of life, and where they quickly learn dishonesty at deepest levels as habit of mind and heart. Deception, venality, corruption, hypocrisy, become instilled in people since earliest ages and then perpetuate through the society to every level, turning it into an extrapolation upon the theme of deception - a growing, all-subsiming Big Lie. The ever greater dishonesty and insincerity of the society requires ever greater oppression, ever greater deception, ever greater system abuse and violence and personal destruction, to perpetuate the lie at its core, with the worst violence and gravest conmanship directed against the most naturally sincere. And then not only does honesty vanish from the civilization, but so do freedom and human rights, and what is created is the only thing that can be created based on a Big Lie: an effective totaltiarianism that requires extinction of all meaningful forms of honesty, freedom, and human rights.

The people who would do that to their country, are unworthy citizens. And the people who would inflict such a cesspool upon their children are also unworthy parents. To take away the rights of their children to be with their mothers - to take away the rights of their daughters to a country in which they have a chance - to take away from their children the right to a free and honest society - to inflict upon them a Big Lie at long last leading to effective totalitarianism - is a crime against one’s children and any generation that may come.

Make no mistake about it. Systemic dishonesty can only lead to effective totaltitarianism. And those who would inflict systemic dishonesty on Australia, have nothing less than effective totalitarianism in mind. And that makes them far worse than any supposed danger the Right conceives as coming from anywhere, either externally to Australia or within.

I believe that Australia is too good a country to have to go down this road. And I know I will not accept for my daughter to have to live in a snakepit. My concern is not only with the present; it is with the future as well. Which incidentally is the meaning of what it is to be a father.

The people who would employ a concept that has been soundly discredited where it has originated have no regard for the truth. And the people who would seek legal privileges that they do not merit, while in the process sacrificing their country, their daughters, and their children, are ones who are least worthy of them. Show me someone involved in Australia’s father’s lobby, and I’ll show you an abuser, a liar and a tyrant.

And that makes dirt-poor material for having the parenting rights that they seek.

Read more

Intrinsic Conflaggrations

Project the mind - it resonates with thunder;
Reject the mind - around you it burns.
Intrepid joy - impassioned restless wonder -
The heart-suffused and life-rich way to learn -

Intrinsic conflaggrations, hard to pity
Or to respect, or even yet to see -
The nature's splendor reaching into city
To render its inhabitants half-free

Until joy drops, and out appears concept
And meaning - this, if only for some!
And from beneath the axioms, a rocket
Ballasts into the space, explodes and is gone

And then - another time, another meaning,
The meaning is constructed from all sides
And forms the structure that informs the seeming
Which then becomes the vision of mankind -

And then come other meanings and perceivings
Constructed like dynamic SQL…
The culture deepens, thickens as it's dreaming
And builds to levels more removed from hell.

Read more

The Biggest Mud in History

About Rush Limbaugh

A finger and a pudgy head
On billboard on the road -
It says on it, "Reality Check"
And on the radio

Insults, abuse and poison
And malice of all kinds:
Hideousness, lies and noise and
Attack on people's minds.

He said that we were mindless,
He said that we were fools,
And with his own blindness
He went and made his rules:

To bully and to bludgeon all
And blame it all on us:
This big and strong Republican
This man of strength and class.

The planet's overheating,
The hurricanes erupt,
And there he sits, conceited
And utterly corrupt:

Once many things could have been done -
They said it was not real!
And now it's coming all undone
While they are standing still -

Saying it's man, saying it's God
But truth is harder won:
They caused it - hurricanes and floods -
Man? Yes, but only some.

You speak now for morality?
The debt still grows and grows.
You speak now for reality?
It clearly does not show:

You said that nothing people do
Can change environment -
How many storms till it gets through
Your thick and pudgy head -

This way is unsustainable!
The harm keeps getting worse!
This life is not maintainable
And neither is the Earth -

The hottest in a thousand years
And hotter every year!
It's catching with you, unawares
Reality - you hear?

The commonsense you deified
Is nothing but a lie:
The prejudices reified
In single space and time:

Are ways of one society
To truth a valid guide?
Indeed to its entirety -
Indeed to all mankind?

Are lies you spin reality?
Or are they merely webs?
Whose essence - whose totality -
Are only perhaps

The beam within one set of eyes -
The shortage of one view -
And from it, spins a web of lies
To make it seem so true -

Till actual reality
Hits you from the left field -
And then your view's totality
Is shattered and then killed?

Tell me how it is rightful now
To heed no sound or word
The seas to poison, debt to grow,
And to destroy the world!

Tell me how it is good and fine
To bloat and to subsume
To have no thought for ones to come
And poison to exhume

Tell me, Mr. Reality,
How people can't affect
The world's and nature's quality
As rainforests retract!

The planet's overheating,
The debt still grows and grows,
The groupthink is defeated,
And here you say you know

The true way for America?
The true way for the Earth?
Come on and show some character:
You caused it, now come forth!

Say to the thousands dead in storms
That their loss is not real,
Say to the millions killed and torn
That you know how they feel,

Say to mankind's entirety
As it fights all these ills
That you speak for reality
And that you're moral still!

The planet's overheating,
The debt still grows and grows,
Women are killed and beaten,
The harm gets worse and worse,

And it is not a mystery
Who caused this frightful state:
The biggest mud in history -
Rush Limbaugh and his mates!

Read more

Fighting Domestic Violence: Tips to Australian Women

As the Australian women and the better Australian men proceed on a much-needed fight against violence in relationships, it may be valuable to share insight that can be gained from experience of women's movements in other parts of the world.

In few parts of the First World is this fight more necessary or more rightful than it is in Australia. Australia has been singled out by international human rights watchdog organizations as a place where violence against women is a serious problem. Australia is the butt of such jokes as, "American man turns to his wife and says, 'Pass the sugar, sugar.' Englishman turns to his wife and says, ' Pass the honey, honey.' Australian man turns to his wife and says, 'Pass the tea, bag.'" While posting on Australian Internet forums, I have consistently encountered attitudes supporting domestic violence up to and including murder of wives. And the news stories reported that the Australian men, even the football stars, felt embarrassed about donning white ribbons in fight against domestic violence, when the actions of men who stand up to abuse in relationships should be seen in no way as embarrassing but instead as heroic.

As an American expatriate married to an Australian woman, I know for certain that Australian women are anything other than bags. Australian women have amazing qualities to recommend themselves as people and as marital partners, and it is indeed unappreciative people who, instead of reciprocating these qualities with affection and passion and caring, would instead reciprocate them with violence and abuse. The heart, the beauty, the warmth, the strength, the genuineness and the generosity that Australian women have, deserve better treatment than what is afforded to them by "traditional" Australian attitudes. And it is a matter of fairness, a matter of virtue, as well as a matter of international image that Australia moves away from such attitudes and "traditions."

So as Australian women embark on solving this hideous problem, I hope that they do not lose what they are in the process. I hope that they keep their amazing qualities while pushing for and attaining the good treatment that they deserve. And I also hope that they do not repeat the errors of the errors made by American feminists in 1990s.

American feminism made this critical error: Of equating equality with similitude. Attempting to be equal to men, they lost what they were as women, including many wonderful qualities that women possess naturally but men do not. And just as many American women came under abuse from American feminists for having or wanting to keep the beautiful qualities that set them apart from men, likewise many women in America (and many more in the world) have developed enough distaste for American feminism to aggressively reject it. This, to the point that we see many educated Indian women willingly choose the obedient-wife role, many educated American women aggressively challenging feminism, many Western European women say that American women are stupid, and many successful and educated women from Eastern Europe state that American feminists have no idea what being a woman is all about.

The Swedish women did not make the same error. Sweden has significantly higher representation of women in politics than does either America or Australia, and it also has laws that are designed to protect women from everything from violence to emotional abuse. The Swedish women decided rightly that it's not one or the other but both. It's not be feminine or be powerful; it's be feminine and be powerful. It's not brains or beauty, it's brains and beauty at the same time. It's not be themselves or be equal; it's be equal and be themselves. And then, with the social power they gained, it became possible for these women to make the feminine count meaningfully in the world.

The result being, they have better lives; they are both who they are and equal to men in power; and they can apply the power to manifest the good that they have in them.

It benefits one little - and it benefits the world less - if the price of one's success is losing one's best qualities. That results only in trading one prison for another, or creating another prison into which to put others. Success is cheap if one loses oneself in the process of getting it. And as many women in America and around the world become enough disenchanted with American feminist social role to move away from it, Australian women deserve to know enough not to repeat the American women's self-proclaimed leaders' mistakes.

To do that, it becomes necessary to renege on false dualistic thinking, which American feminists have sheepishly followed men to embrace. The male logic is by design dualistic and made for conquest. The feminine logic, at its best, is integrative. While traditionally patriarchial beliefs want to separate thinking from feeling, civilization from nature, spirit from physicality, and use one to conquer the other, the traditionally feminine beliefs know enough to combine the components. A flower is not roots or stalk or petals; it's all of these things working together. And a human being is not one or the other component; it's all of them working together. A spirit without body is dead; a mind without feeling is a computer; a civilization without nature cannot exist. But it's when those components exist together and work together, that is found life in all its richness and splendor, and all the magnificent outcomes are created and can coexist with one another.

To have this basic understanding - that life is not one component driving the other into extinction, but all components working in synergy - is the logic of life and its ongoing perpetuation, as well as a logic of genuine peace. And it is that logic to which women, as givers of life, are most naturally attuned. Which means that when they are disconnected from that basic nature, they become incomplete, inferior to their possibility, and in most cases thoroughly unhappy. In the world of perpetuation of life it's not one component of life or the other; it's all the components of life at the same time. It's not feminine vs. equal, beautiful vs. smart, or loving vs. powerful; it's feminine AND equal, smart AND beautiful, powerful AND loving. And then the power and the status one gains, can actually be a mechanism for making the qualities one has count in the world meaningfully, instead of destroying them in the process of trying to be equal by being similar and thus becoming a two-X-chromosome vehicle for manifestation of masculine values and ways.

The people who think in terms of conquest keep having to find new things to conquer, and approach the world consistently as though it were field of war. But the person who combines instead of divides the components of life, results in new and splendid creations and outcomes. To use the intelligence to synergize rather than separate, is to strive for and achieve not only myriad splendid creations, but also achieve actual peace and completeness. Which is a more path not only to ongoing creation and perpetuation of life, but also to sustainable existence and happiness.

It have been American women that have been most hurt by the errors of American feminism of 1990s. The feminist war against beauty, love, romance, feminine physicality and the life-giving role have robbed American women not only of the wonderful qualities that are natural to women that are not to men, but also of much of their chance at happiness. One of the saddest statements I'd heard came from a highly educated American woman who described her female body as "useless." As many of the women educated in such modes of thought become parents, they will begin to move away from such destructive conceptions and strive for genuine power as women, which also means allowing themselves to be many of the things that women can be and that men cannot.

Now, I've been hearing feminist college students say that their leaders had got it all wrong; that traditional women actually had more power than do American urban corporate women, because the traditional women were in charge of reproduction while the American urban women are totally under control of male-dominated business. Whether or not that is true, it can't be denied that many legitimate aspects and needs of women were short-changed by American feminists. And there is a growing consensus by both men and women that these were denied wrongly.

And I am far from the only person who believes that there is a better way.

I have no intention at all of discouraging Australian women from achieving in business, science, politics, or any other worldly pursuits. That is their human right and part of fulfilment of their potential as it relates in those aspects. But having lived in America from 1988 to 2006, I seek to counsel Australian women against believing that this empowerment is incompatible with empowerment in other aspects. It's possible to have meaningful professional life and meaningful love relationships; it's possible to have both power and femininity; it's possible to have professional life and a home life; it's possible to be smart and beautiful; it's possible to have both a mind and a body at once. And a valid direction by both men and women, would be to encourage that integrative type of thinking; to teach men to respect women for being capable of all the preceding; and to show clearly the superiority of what they have for far too long regarded to be inferior to themselves.

There is now in America a popular sticker that says, "The women who want to be equal to men lack ambition." I've always been under impression that the women who are capable of genuine womanhood are superior, not inferior, to men, and my experience in Australia has borne me out. Australian women deserve respect and love for what they are. And they have a chance of obtaining it without making the errors that the American feminists made.

Australian men need to see that women can do all the things that men can do, and then some. But what they really need to see is the accomplishment of what women can be. They do not need to see women trying to be men - a race in which they can only come second - while destroying the womanhood in themselves and aggressively stomping on it in the women around them. They need to see women who can be what women can be and men cannot; who can also achieve significant things at what men think only they are good at; and who are enough as such to inspire both their love and their respect.

And then they need to learn appreciation for what they have for so long taken for granted, brutalized, referred to as their "bags" or their "kitchen b*tches." and whose value it sometimes takes an external perspective to bring them to see.

International competition will always make losers of the men who mistreat women and of the women who mistreat men. And people who fail to appreciate what they have, fail to gain from it and are wrongfully unhappy. While men's groups blame Australian men's high suicide rates on Australian feminism, I for one do not sympathize at all. Australian men have it better than men anywhere else on the planet. With a big, open continent, a working economy, a democratic government, and some of the world's most amazing women, Australian men should be the happiest men anywhere on the planet. Unhappiness here comes not from any reality but from failure to appreciate what one has. The problem in this case is not corrected by further oppression of Australian women by Australian men, but from change of attitude to value instead of degrading what one has here.

It is entirely for the benefit of Australian men to learn to appreciate and be good to Australian women. It will improve their international standing, their reputation, and their experience of life. The Australian men who campaign for good treatment of women, do so both in the interest of Australian men and in Australia's national interest. Which means that they are true heroes of Australia.

As for Australian women, they are wonderful as they are. What they need is to make it apparent that they would no longer accept mistreatment. Putting themselves in a position of power through work, business and politics can and should part of the solution for many; but another and greater part of the solution is making the feminine appreciated, respected and valued in Australia. And in striving for this life-supporting, integrative, state of affairs, Australian women stand not only to achieve social empowerment, but do so while remaining the many wonderful things that they are - that men aren't - that American feminists have destroyed in themselves and those who believed them - and that the Australian women, by keeping these virtues alive while pushing for both legitimate social power and legitimate good treatment in marriage, would be able to use their power to make count in the world, while gaining both love and respect that they richly deserve.

Read more

Integrative Conception of Man

The problem with the traditional forms of such religions as Buddhism and Christianity is that the spirituality is seen as divorced from physicality, which leads to similar separation in social reality. The people with spiritual inclinations go into monasteries or into ministry; the women have to share their lives with people who men believe that women are evil and that their duty is to control their every action and every thought. The world, being seen as one of illusion or one of Satan, becomes that way more convincingly by being shorn of the attention of those who have it within themselves to want to improve things. And the concept behind these convictions becomes self-fulfilling and then becomes reality for the people living under such beliefs.

This is not accidental; this is an inevitable, logical result of the beliefs themselves. To conceive spirit as being forever divorced from flesh, or of human nature as sin, or of desire as root of all suffering, is to rob the real world of the spiritual riches and to damn it to ever-perpetuating, ever-consuming darkness. In all such cases, the injury done to mankind is monumental. And in both cases this does not have to be.

Christ and Buddha had to adopt the attitude that they did toward the world, because of where they were in the world, what the world wanted from them, and what the world at the time was like. Jesus had to decide that the world "of flesh" was evil, because his flesh and his world was owned by an alien militaristic empire that ruled with crosses and whips. He had to reject the world and damn it as being a world of sin, because the world belonged to his enemy. He had to reject - women, money, politics, power, even his physical body - because all this was in the hands of the Roman Empire, which could do anything with all this anything that it wanted. So he had to actually transcend the flesh and then resurrect, in order to prove that his true self was not owned, that the power of the Roman Empire was not absolute, and that there was a light at the end of the darkness - the light of heaven, over which the Emperor and his thugs had no power.

There were many people who could very well believe at the time that the world was the world of sin. The Roman Empire was a brutal militaristic organization where three quarters were slaves and endured constant brutality and humiliation. It was not an ethical enterprise, and many people made the mistake of conflating the slavery and the brutality in the Roman Empire with its religious diversity. The truth is, the two had nothing to do with one another at all, and while Christianity offered a promise of eternal life to people living in slavery or under the Roman yoke, it offered less than nothing for people's earthly experience.

With Buddha, the circumstance was not the same, but analogous at a mental level. He was the son of a king, and at his birth his parents were given a prophecy that he would be either a great king or a founder of a major religion. His parents wanted him to become an emperor and kept him from fulfilling the prophecy of his becoming a founder of a major religion by lying to him, keeping him from knowing anything, and removing all sights of suffering out of his eyes. So first he saw real world outside the royal compound - people sick, dying, in torment - and found out that his education was a lie; then as he left the city to meditate under the tree, the king kept luring him by his desires - dancing girls, tasty fruit, friends, wife, power - back to the kingdom hall that had deceived him. So what would it be logical for the meditating mind to decide but that the world is one of deception (maya) and that desire is the root of all that is wrong with the world? He had to reject both his education and his education- shaped mind along with any desire that he may have had, in order to find any kind of truth. That was because his education was a lie, and his desires were being tempted to go back to the powers that had lied to him.

Buddhism preaches non-attachment; there is a good reason for that. All attachment - emotional, physical, intellectual, personal - was being used to tempt Buddha away from his pursuit of the truth and into the maw of the people who wanted him to serve their will for him - the will that he had found out to be a deception. He had to break all desire for everything that the kingdom had to offer - from nice food to dancing girls to his sweetheart to adoring friends to political power - as well as his family bonds and his personal friendships and loyalties and romantic attractions, and destroy everything in the self that was vulnerable to these things or that wanted or required these things, because all were used to control him and lure him back into deception. Buddha is offering a path that he himself had to go in order to achieve freedom. That path meant moving away from all that desired - because the desires were used to tempt him to that which had deceived him. It also meant going away from ego - because all ego's wants and longings and attachments were used to entrap him in the kingdom that had deceived him and that had absolute power over everything - money, fame, power, status, admiration, respect, validation - that an ego might want. It meant spending many years silencing, deconstructing and transcending the mind - because the mind was falsely educated and falsely conditioned and made to think things that were not true. It meant what he had to go through to free himself from false things; but it does not mean that all suffering is based in desire, or that ego is a piece of dirt, or that mind is evil, or that life is an illusion, or that spirituality is forever divorced from these things.

To damn the world, or to claim world as necessarily one of suffering, or to remove from the world desire, is in no way a way for making a better world. Instead it is the way to remove light from the world and plunge it into self-feeding and self-perpetuating darkness. So while many people in monasteries have successfully and effectively followed Christ's or Buddha's paths to freedom and wisdom and spiritual power, their social advice has been absolute disaster for the societies that followed their guidance in matters of life. In both cases, relationships, science, education, business, politics, - everything - has been damned and have been therefore carried out in the most destructive possible manner. And that does not make anyone or anything holy. It makes life on earth an unnecessarily and self-fulfillingly toxic hell.

Christ's advice on the best way to have a relationship is not to have a relationship. That flesh is sinful and that therefore there cannot be at the same time a sexual and a spiritual love. That sex is a dirty thing and that anyone who elicits sexual desire or erotic passion deserves not love but physical, personal and spiritual violence.  I'll pass on that one. I love my wife, I treat her lovingly, and if I have to go to hell for that I will do so willingly and make things better for others damned in that way.

With both Buddhism and Christianity, there is contempt for intelligence; for fact; for nature; for reality. So it is no surprise that application of both theosophies have eradicated learning, prosperity and accomplishment from the world in which they were applied. Roman Empire had great inventors, great philosophers, great scientists, great doctors, great engineers. They had a steam engine 1,700 years before the Industrial Revolution. And while religious people claim that Roman Empire was undone by its "decadence" (reality check: It was conquered 200 years after it Christianized) the true reason that it was undone is that it listened to Roman-day Republicans who thought with their pocketbooks instead of their brains and believed that the cheapness and abundance of slave labor made the steam engine uneconomical. If they thought ahead, they would have realized the promise of that invention and not only created real prosperity that they would have never dreamt of, but have also been able to invent war machines that would have vaporized any invading army - as well as being able to end the horrible institution of slavery that was the true moral outrage of Roman Empire and the real source of hatred and resentment against it.

In choosing whether to embrace high-technology, high-intelligence, job- creating clean energy, or to go on with the ruinous policies of Texas Oil, the present-day world faces a similar choice.

But that is a different matter, no matter how crucial in significance. The Romans had great science and engineering and could have had a world we have now, two millenia before it came about, if they had been smarter about their economic and political policies. Nothing of that sort existed in the Christian world until it was shaken to its core by European Enlightenment and American Revolution.

So it is no surprise that, in order to find intellectual, political, social, personal, sexual, physical freedom, many people have made the same choice that Christ and Buddha have made, in reverse. Like Christ and Buddha rejected the physical world, they have rejected the world of the spirit, because the world of the spirit was under control of mentalities that were hostile to intellect, nature, prosperity, science, human rights, sexuality, beauty, and all else that affirms life on earth. The European Enlightenment grew out of that, as well as a profusion of secular mindsets - rationalism, pragmatism, capitalism, realism, scientific materialism, economics, psychology, atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, and many others.

There is a problem with these mindsets as well. They stake their central claim on denying the world of spirit. So any spiritual longing, or any appreciation for or expression of splendor,or anything loving and warm and tender in people, is by them brutally and maliciously suppressed. Their supposed rationality becomes so overbearing, so controlling, so abrasive and horrible and destructive, that people flee from them even if it means disastrous consequences for themselves or living in poverty or losing their minds or their rights or their comfort or dying early or get brutally raped, tortured and killed. Denying spirituality to people with the same violence with which the religious deny physicality, these mindsets become just as cruel and just as horrendous as the ones that they seek to replace. And then what is left for people, is choice between one semi-life or another semi-life - the life of spirit without flesh, or the life of flesh without spirit. Both of which, in this situation, become lives of destruction and decay.

The process of evolution from rationalism - any rationalism - whether it be Enlightenment, or Victorianism, or the 50s, or the 90s - is quite similar. Genius struggles, laboriously, painstakingly, passionately, through the maze of rationalistic obstruction, to produce refutation and to bring into life some kind of splendor. Then more follows; struggle ensues. The world of the rationalist becomes less apparently certain, less apparently rational, less apparently noble, the more abrasive and terrible and hysterical it becomes in its attacks on what threatens its orthodoxy. And then - light at the end of the tunnel: A liberation. Which once again comes under attack from all sides, but shows a way for as long as it lasts and remains through history in its art to inspire those in the future generations who hunger for life to go as far as did they, and then further.

I know this from history, and I confidently give this prediction. A rationalism - any rationalism - will always be followed by a romanticism of one or another kind. Romantic period after European Enlightenment, Bohemian period after Victorianism, the 60s after the 50s - these are not accidental; these are inevitable. In all cases, we've seen the walls of false life-negating rationality refuted by people who have seen something more, or who have dug deeper, or who have used rationality itself to get to a more profound understanding than what is preached by the theories and that refute its conceptions and its implications for the world and for mankind, or who have experienced and studied learning from other cultures, or who have achieved powers of insight, or who have decided to feel instead of to only cognate and were able to see what the rationalist does not see himself or does not want people to see. An Einstein who as a scientist applies science to a place that transcends physical determinism that dominated the 19th century conception of the universe and its resulting structures and institutions - the 60s existentialist psychologists who refute the behaviorist dogmas and arrive at a concept of man as a human being rather than a machine - a Rousseau, Thoreau, Emerson, Byron, Wordsworth or Elizabeth Barrett Browning who open people's minds to the world of beauty and passion that in the Cartesian conception of universe could not exist - a Nash who in his work on game theory arrives at refutation of orthodox economics and gives place in the world for compassion and interest in the good of one's fellow man - will always pop up through history to refute any kind of rationalistic determinism. And this will go on, for as long as the rationalists of one or another kind try to construct a world out of their dogmas and to trap the minds, spirits and lives of their children and those after them in those entrapments.

With religious supremacism, we will see the same thing happen as well. A Luther who uses Biblical teachings to show the corruption of Roman Catholic Church, or the Enlightenment scientists who used intelligence to show the falsehood of the Biblican cosmology, will exist for as long as do both human intellect and the Bible. Intelligence will always continue to come along and refute dogma that denies intelligence. And if the theological dogmatists want to do away with or to subvert intelligence, as Roman Catholics did, as Puritans did, and as both the Muslims and the Bush administration appear intent to do, then it will come at them and their societies from without.

There has to be a better way than either of the preceding. A positive way is an integrative experience of life, in which both the physical and the spiritual exist and work to each other's benefit. It is a way in which both the physical world and the spirit world are affirmed and find ways to enhance one another and exist in synergy rather than disintegration. And it is a way in which life as a human being - a being who combines the spiritual and the material aspects - can be affirmed in its entirety, allowing for lifestyles and covenants in which the totality of humanity can exist - and achieve greatest human experience, greatest human accomplishment, and most complete and integrated manifestations of human beings themselves.

Read more

America's Medical Mess: Economic Solution

The medical crisis in America in all its manifestations is all due to one underlying problem: There are not enough doctors. And no solution is going to be adequate until this problem is fixed.

The low number of doctors limits supply of medical care. This causes three problems at once. First, according to simple mathematics and economics, low supply amid growing demand means exhorbitantly high prices. Secondly, low number of doctors means that the doctors are overworked, and overworked people make mistakes that they would not make under normal conditions. This results in disastrous errors that kill or cripple the patient. Thirdly, because of these mistakes, there is huge amount of malpractice lawsuits; which mean high insurance prices for doctors, which either have to be absorbed by doctors themselves, or passed down to the patient in high costs.

All these problems - high prices, medical errors, and huge malpractice insurance costs - have been the bane of American medicine in recent decades. And only by addressing the problem at the root, can any meaningful or lasting solution be effectuated.

How can this then be solved? How can America increase its number of medical professionals? There are two possible directions to take, and I believe both are rightful. One, is to tap into supply of medical professionals abroad or from abroad. The other, is to increase the number of domestic doctors.

The first is already taking place, as people are going to Canada, India or Russia for operations. And they are right. In countries where there are adequate doctors who do not earn enough money at home, Americans going for operations or treatment gives these doctors a better way to make a living and rewards their skill and their work, while also allowing American people treatment for lower price and with less wait. But unless America is to see its domestic medical system whittle away, there needs to be a greater number of doctors at home, which means a greater number of foreign doctors licensed to practice in America, as well as a greater number of domestic medical school admissions and graduations.

The first can be accomplished by creating an intelligent licensing system that ensures quality without being needlessly lengthy and bureuacratic. But the more important solution is to increase the number of doctors being graduated at home. And there are three problems that are contributing to the artificially low number of doctors being graduated: Small number of medical schools, outrageous tuition prices, and ridiculously high requirements for getting in.

One does not need to have 4.0 GPA in undergraduate school to become a good doctor. Nor should one have to pay $300,000 to become one. And the prohibitively high price, prohibitively high admission standards, and low number of spots in the medical school admissions, are the three main contributing factors for the shortage of medical doctors in America.

The solution to the preceding, is to increase the number of medical school admissions by reducing requirements and by increasing the number of medical schools. The more medical schools, the greater the number of medical school admissions. Furthermore, with greater number of medical schools, there will be adequate competition among them, leading to reduced tuition costs. This will open the door for many promising students, many of whom either cannot afford medical school financially or cannot get in because of artificially small number of spots in the school. And that by itself should solve the crisis of inadequate number of doctors and the resulting inevitable wrongs.

While socialist solutions can alleviate the strain for the patients, it is only by addressing the structural problem that the situation can be resolved in a meaningful and lasting way. The solution, is to increase the number of doctors. The extent to which it is done by Americans going to foreign doctors, by America bringing in foreign doctors, or by America increasing the number of medical school admissions and graduations, will determine the extent to which other countries will get the business, to which foreigners living in America get the business, or to which Americans will get the business of American people in need of medical care.

Read more

The real cause of China's export scandal

As a result of the recent scandals involving deadly mistakes made by Chinese exports, China is experiencing an international loss of credibility and a reduction of its export-led economic growth. This is not the end of the world for China, but it does point to an endemic problem, and I believe that it is a problem that can be fixed and should be fixed now if China is to continue on its path.

Chinese workers are, and have always been, among the very best in the world. It is not in their blood to work incompetently or to make the kinds of egregious errors that have marred China's reputation abroad. They are however people, and there is something that's true of people no matter how hard working or ethical they are. And that is, if people are sick and overworked, they become more error-prone and make the kinds of mistakes that they would not make if they are healthy and adequately rested.

The problem is this. Chinese workers are working so much, and breathing in so much pollution, that not only their health falters, but so does their productivity. No matter how good a worker, or how good his skills and his ethics, if he is not healthy, he will make mistakes. The more mistakes, the less appealing the exports, the smaller the export revenue, the worse the prospects for sustaining China's economic growth.

Nobody of any goodwill or intelligence in the West wishes ill to the working people of China. There are many people in the West who take issue with Chinese government's policies to Taiwan, Falun Gong and Tibet; there are some who want China to be a more free society; there are some who are afraid of China's military capacity; there are some who are unhappy that their jobs have gone abroad; and then there are people who simply want to see the Chinese people have better lives. Many countries in the West have discovered that the last do not at all need to conflict with production. In fact, workers who are healthier and more rested are more productive and less error-prone, as well as more loyal to the countries that have given them their rights and improvement in their condition. And since the escalating errors in production are now threatening China's exports, it would also benefit Chinese economy to do the same.

Yes, China is not as wealthy as some of the Western countries were when they seriously embraced pollution control. However the technology for smokestack filters and water effluent filters already exists, and its development costs have been borne by US, Europe and Japan. Putting them in operation on China's industrial installations should be good for China not only for environmental but also for economic reasons, as its people's health improves, they become less error-prone at work, and China can resume its export-led growth.

As for improving working conditions, giving people some time to rest, and reducing work hours, that should improve their health and productivity. Better health would reduce their errors, improve the quality of their production, and give China a better reputation unmarred by the scandals of recent months.

It should also improve their quality of life. Not only is that a good in itself - a real good for millions of people - but it also is good for the reasons that people who benefit from an order are more likely to be loyal to it than ones who do not. The last time I checked, China was listed as a socialist country. Worker rights have been the main force behind socialism, as well as behind improvements in workers' conditions in capitalist countries. To give Chinese workers these basic protections and freedoms, will improve China's standing abroad as much as it will improve its credibility at home, while effectuating an even better outcome: Real improvement in Chinese people's quality of life.

And at this time, it is a matter of economic import as much as it is that of human, political and environmental import to implement meaningful pollution reduction technologies in Chinese cities and better working and living conditions for Chinese workers. Their productivity depends on it, and so does China's financial and political strength.

Read more

Clean Energy Solution: Hydrogen Transmission Network

My friend Arindam Banerjee, an Indian-born, Australia-resident, scientist and engineer, proposes a two-birds-with-one-stone clean-energy, high-technology, efficient, job-creating, hydrogen transmission network to create on-the-spot water and energy for the end user. Essay and link at

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/greenpaper/consultation/pubs/0086-adda.pdf

Read more

Oil Character and Clean Energy Character

The basis of the economy percolates through all levels of human activity to become the basis of the character of the people in the economy, which then becomes the character of the societies and policies that the people create. In the same way as the Roman Empire built itself on slave labor - and made the basis of Roman character cruelty, brutality, conquest, predation, short-sightedness, laziness and oppression - so the oil economy fosters in people a character that mimics in its mentality the character of oil industry itself. This character is toxic, extractive, destructive, short-sighted, polluting, and ensnaring. And its poisonous influence can only be significantly reduced through a greater use of clean energy - and greater influence for life-affirming, intelligent, provident, and socially and environmentally responsible character that its development and widespread use stand to foster in humankind.

The oil character is the character of extraction and exploitation, but that's not remotely the end of it. From combustion of oil, are encouraged worldviews that see the world as being given, and of man as only there to burn it without consideration for the rest of the world or for its future. The planet is seen as there for people to burn; the people are seen as there only to burn it for present consumption. Which means that anything that cares for the given world that man has not created, like anything that cares for the future of the civilization that man creates, is a competing interest that must be wiped out by any possible means.

Since the oil resources are finite, the oil character does not see nor plan for life beyond the time that oil runs out. Any mentality that sees this, looks for alternatives, or stands to create alternatives, is mortal enemy to the oil industry. Not only therefore is the oil character is short-sighted to the point of being apocalyptic and as such foresees - and effectively works to bring about in its spirituality, politics and economics - an artificial end of the world; but far more significantly it is aggressively, imposingly and overbearingly so, and seeks to stamp out by all measures all that is not itself.

As people are made dependent on oil industry for their lives and their livelihood, the economic foundations of life and liberty are likewise destroyed. All thought systems, spiritualities, psychologies, are manipulated by this interest toward forcing assimilation into the oil-industry way of living, but more profoundly into the oil character. These then are directed directly toward destruction of qualities that might influence people to not quite like this state of affairs or be motivated to look for or seek to create better alternatives: qualities such as knowledge and respect for the planet and nature in all its complexity and diversity; caring for humanity and its future; ability to create innovative solutions; and all in the human being - intellect, curiosity, natural wisdom, compassion, love of life, humanitarian orientation, and capacity for creative and innovative thinking - that might make these possible. Which means that destroyed is not only life and liberty, but also all in people that seeks and makes possible the above. First the order destroys life and liberty at economic level; then at spiritual, intellectual, and psychological levels; then finally at the political level. And then the oil order sets humanity careening toward planetary destruction while in the process destroying everything that is of life and liberty in its own ranks.

The extractive oil character is one of destruction of nature with no sight for the future and no creative role for man. It pits the interests of the industry against both what man has not created and everything that man has created and that he stands to create. Which means that both nature and mankind become enemies of the industry; and that creates the most destructive of all conceivable orientations. At social level, we speak of oil-based mentalities and their orders subduing, exploiting and driving into extinction all that is life-affirming at both natural and human level - controlling, expropriating and deceiving what can be controlled, deceived and expropriated; demonizing, abusing and destroying what cannot. At the political level, we speak of oil-funded Texas Fundamentalists claiming ridiculously to speak for America and then seeking to destroy, screw and enslave everybody who are not oil-funded Texas-Oklahoma Fundamentalists, both outside of America and within.

All that is life in nature, and all that is life in man, are targeted for contamination, discrediting and destruction with eye toward eternal damnation. This is true for all that is physical and emotional; it is also true for all that is of the mind. Science, business, politics, art, relationships, are there to be conquered, subdued, eviscerated, and made through force and deception to serve the agenda of artificial Armageddon. Anything that is life-affirming, is sabotaged, corrupted, contaminated, slandered, defunded, discredited, undermined, in order that people can be led to believe the explanations that want to portray life as sin and all its manifestations as evil. Which people then want to bring about an end to life as such.

To that end no lie, no cruelty, no violation, no atrocity, is inacceptable. This is the case among oil-funded states claiming to profess both Christianity and Islam. The puppet of oil-funded Texas Fundamentalist acquiring Republican nomination by spreading false rumors about his opponent, getting in office through corrupt dealings, putting the government trillions dollars in debt amid collapsing family incomes, silencing truth about global warming, deceiving America into a war, and doing what he can to destroy the true greatness of America - its constitutional democracy, its ingenuity, its scientific knowledge, its affirmation and preservation of rights and liberties, its foresight, its humanitarian orientation, its willingness to lead through true diplomacy rather than barbarism, and the freedom of speech, thought, and way of life, that has made possible its accomplishments - while claiming ridiculously to be making America stronger and greater - this, is only the political manifestation of the oil character. Its effect on the people within and on the world without, are even worse.

The oil character does not see man as a creator but only as a destroyer; thus it destroys man's capacity to create. Its hatred of nanotechnology, biotech, stem-cell research, genetics, is of the same mindset as its hatred of innovation, of ingenuity, of individuality and of art. By sabotaging and eviscerating man's capacity to create, is destroyed man's capacity to create a long-term and livable future. It is as such the worst possible way to relate both man and nature, destroying nature while also destroying man. And from this mentality, outgrows a toxic, necrophilic, destructive, totalitarian and apocalyptic character - which then becomes the character of the oil arrangement, and shapes their economics, their politics, their spiritual life, and their inter-relations. A character that feeds on life, poisons life, inhibits life, and seeks to make life uninhabitable - and uses man's intellect, emotion, physicality, spirit, everything, toward not merely abusive and totalitarian but in fact apocalyptic ends.

Driven by oil mentality man destroys nature; then he destroys the foundations of his own existence. And in the process man's mindset as well as man's activities mimic the worst practices of the oil industry - short-sightedness, expropriation, aggressive ignorance, violence against life at all levels, criminalization and demonization of all thoughts and characters that may see to the contrary, destruction of liberty, and apocalyptic totalitarianism. The past life that is fossil fuel is burned; so through poisoning and global warming is life present as well as life future. The inheritance of the past is squandered, the present is poisoned, and the world is set to slide toward an artificial end. The character that burns dead dinosaurs, also makes dinosaurs of the living while destroying anything that is not a dinosaur and anything in people that may lead to clarity as to the character of the dinosaur ways. And just as dinosaurs died out in a mass extinction, so has the order based on the burning of the dead dinosaurs created the fastest extinction in the history of the planet - the order that now threatens the existence also of humanity itself.

Clean energy, on the other hand, is not based on extraction or on combustion, nor does it work toward a planet-wide poisoning. Clean energy is based on transmutation, by high technology, of abundant energy into usable energy, while generating in the process no poisons or waste. This process fulfils the energy needs of the civilization, while being itself non-obtrusive to the planet and its inhabitants. The achievements, knowledge, prosperity, of civilization, are made possible through tapping into abundant energy of such sources as the sun and the oceans, without producing any toxic byproducts and without poisoning life present or sabotaging yet-to-come. The creative, constructive uses of human intelligence make it possible for both nature and civilization to exist - for nature to be accepted and left as nature, and for man to make the best of man and his world.

This makes the best of the given and the created. The world given that is nature is known, respected, and left as much alone as possible; the world created that is the civilization exists in all of what it capable and reaches, through maximization of intelligent creation and minimization of waste and destruction, to greater heights with no end in sight. The mind is not used to blindly destroy, but to intelligently build on the givens, to provide sustainable long-term existence for the civilization that man has created, while treading lightly upon the nature that man has not.

The sun and the ocean water are not at risk of running out for thousands of years; which means that, with clean energy, the world can be counted upon to be there for a long time. This allows the people to conceive and work toward a future that is indefinite rather than one that will end when the predatory oil-funded dinosaurs extinguish the life on the planet while telling people that it is punishment from God and using that to suffocate them still more. Life can go on, in both natural and human aspects, and people can plan and work towards a viable long-term future for themselves and for humanity. This builds in people the habits that are prudent, responsible, viable and conducive to life.

Clean energy recognizes, validates, and respects both nature and man, and makes most and not the least of life in both aspects. Nature is not just resources to be burned for consumption without regard for the future; it is something that is respected for its variety and richness and life-generative capacity - while man, rather than being merely a short-sighted destroyer, becomes an intelligent creator who builds on the knowledge of science and technology to create a livable future and livable world. Prosperity is not sacrificed; it is enhanced and extended. And so is livability of the planet, as well as of civilization itself.

The high levels of technology needed to put in place solar beams and similar devices encourage and validate the view of humanity as intelligent beings responsible for the destiny of both humanity and the planet, while also drawing on - making constructive use of - and fostering - in people inventive intelligence, long-term perspective, generative capacity, responsibility for the future, eye toward maximal benefit and minimal destruction, and greater understanding of, respect for, and caring for, the world - both in the given, natural aspect, and in the human, man-created, form. The mentality and character that is encouraged, both in people and in their social and economic and political activities, is therefore one that makes most of these virtues. It is the character that not only makes possible to indefinitely power the civilization while being minimally obtrusive to nature, but also fosters a nobler, more prudent, more responsible, more creative, more nonobtrusive, and more life-affirming and life-extending character in the people who would inhabit such a civilization - and, pursuant this, in the character of the orders that they stand to create.

Not only does clean energy therefore lead to a viable future, but it also fosters a more viable character in the people and consequently in the economic, political, and social orders that they create. From predatory destroyers eating alive the world and engorging themselves in the process, people become intelligent human beings who work toward a sustainable future in which the natural world can keep living, as civilization remains existing and achieves ever greater heights. The qualities of clean energy economy - responsibility toward the future, high levels knowledge, inventiveness and intelligence, use of mind to create, sustaining and growing the civilization while taking care to tread lightly upon the planet, life-affirming character that uses mind for constructive solutions that maximize creation and minimizes destruction, and respect found by intelligence for what man has not created as well as respect earned by intelligence for opting for and implementing this arrangement - will become more and more the substance of people's characters and percolate more and more to their social and political interactions to impart to them greater levels of these virtues. And that is a positive influence not only for the chance of the world to have a viable future, but also for the character of the people who stand to inherit the world.

Read more