THE COMMON SENSE MANIFESTO - A. K. Olivier, P. P. Sandorowsky

bid you a quick summary of world politics, changes (from scientific, rational, psychological, and philosophical aspects), blended in with various forms of trending media’s short examples. In a constant battle between being polite, reasonable and caring or straightforward, provoking and sarcastic, I wrote "The Common Sense Manifesto".

In this book, I originally wanted to talk about a known phenomenon in work psychology, sociology, management, organization and economy called the "Glass Ceiling". It’s the problem of difficult employment and feelings of professional inferiority that exists within especially social minorities and women. As the name suggests, this is not a material problem, it’s not something you can touch, but an invisible social barrier that hinders competent people to advance in their service and prefers less qualified candidates from favored social groups (e.g. during an application for a higher position in a firm - the woman is automatically rejected and looked down upon because of the “misogynistic patriarchal system in which men find it easier to reach leadership positions”).

The more I read about the topic, the more I realized that it is impossible to make a realistic analysis in which something like this is presented as a real problem. As always, for this and many other similar topics, I will suggest some more literature during the storytelling, after explaining the basics.

In the time well spent, while researching the original problem, I started comprehending many other issues that caught my attention. As I later found out, many of them were stereotypical misconceptions glued together in no particular order. I had suspected it’d be that way, but it was difficult to measure to what extent this self-proclaimed critical thinking was destructive for one’s vision of the world.

By reading the work of educated people, we develop our own stance. Everyone has a unique philosophy that is not valid for anyone else. I would probably not agree completely with any of the pieces I can recommend that you read, but what is ultimately important is that I agree with their sources, essence of their work, and way of thinking. The people I mention are the people who, once you get into their work properly, make excellent rational points. My personal geopolitical view is mostly based on scientific principles and statistics, rather than on feelings, and it is essential to start defining things for what they are instead of name-dropping, lying, or ignoring them.

We can start thinking, after that, we should speak, but only if we do so directly and clearly. We shall not sugarcoat illness and hell but have serious and important discussions.

Of course, every stance is debatable, in a manner. Nobody can be sure of something, but we can cultivate an amount of gratitude and respect for those people who took the time to read a lot and decide to follow a path after doing so. What I mean is: I don’t respect people who speak about things that are left unclear for them and that are not backed up by anything.

This is the reason why I tend to always give an alternative to every word I say. All kinds of standpoints can be augmented well and, because humans are beings based on belief, it comes all comes to whether or not we will take a side because we believe it contains arguments that are indeed truthful or just because we think it’s cool and popular.

After writing the book, I’m left with a strange notion that I’ll try to explain. Believing somebody like David Icke or Flat-Earth Society, Birds Aren’t Real or any other example of highly controversial groups is not about intelligence, nor even education, but about our own sense of independence, faith, revolt, and intellect. This comes back to evolutionary principles that I’ll explain later in the book.

After giving such a peaceful and tolerant prologue, as I advanced in the book, you will realize accumulated impatience as I started harshly and brutally disregarding some of the opposed ideas, but I still refrained from being offensive to somebody personally and kept a refined language.

If possible, we should make what we say interesting, maybe even if it means our words may appear as “too strong”. Being as funny as we are truthful about important things, we will certainly help this world read more, which is why I’ve included some stand-up comedians in my work. I’m happy to share all that I’ve found so that people don’t have to spend time on anything other than direct education.

With that in mind, I'd like to begin addressing the flaws of first-world modern society. I present to you, the first topic out of thirteen themes I have handpicked for presenting the manifest of common sense - an anthem of the unlucky and troublesome situations that we have gotten ourselves into.

The Common Sense Manifesto

Chapter 1

LEFT, RIGHT AND OTHER FORMS OF FAIRY DUST

he left was always a natural ideology that withholds utopistic ideals that all young people can relate to. Being a liberal screamed intelligence and education, just so that with age, people can start leaning more and more towards conservative thinking.

Given man's moral retardation, inability, and the obvious fact that the left has deviated from the source, the right may impose itself as a more mature option in the modern world right from the start. We live in the age of scientific Jesuitism and the popularization of public lynching. We are certainly getting closer to the age of the Inquisition, where one pointed finger can become the absolute judgment so that your honor cannot ever be retrieved. Thomas Jefferson's democracy is now completely dead.

The political spectrum has also pretty much followed the same path. It is almost stupid to talk about a political compass, thank you very much, Carl Marx! Due to the appearance and popularity of socialism and communism, we participated in a back and forth exchange of the position of progressive liberal and conservative views of human rights violations.

When it comes to that, I like to recede away from classifying myself, maybe for the lack of trying or I may feel threatened of what that label might be, who knows? Rather than a direction, I can probably say for myself that I’m a mildly provocative but rational conservative, a person that is not against changes but wants to preserve what was already beneficial to the society from ancient times and prevent it from falling apart. This means that I think that we can figure out what was already good and does not need change. It’s a huge task, but it can be done.

I'd also state that, since many conservatives are indeed religious, some neo-liberal changes endanger us in that matter. In the coat of fighting against aggression, the morally deplorable have found a place to hide. At least half of the commandments are violated by the left-wing, which would also fall under discrimination against a certain group.

In order for society to sustain stability, it needs to come back to its roots. The reason we are here is that we are standing on the shoulder of our great ancestors. So, what regressive left do we have? It's under a hard media embargo. For stepping out of a mold where you "should belong to" you can get crucified and rudely, forcefully shut. That’s highly indecorous. People should be able to hold any opinion that they want on any subject that they choose, but even so - they should not proactively be lied to. The truth shouldn’t ever be hidden.

I treat people with utter respect as I have nothing against educated liberals. I myself am not a liberal, obviously, but if you choose to identify that way with the same, similar, or more information than I have, then - good for you, we agree to disagree, but I feel like true old-school liberals are not satisfied with this modern liberalism and they speak transparently of the wrong they see in it. So, with them, I have much common ground and a few examples of disagreement in the way of analytical thinking.

However, there’s something else I find problematic: Uneducated people think they are liberals because they heard that's trendy on social media, in the news, or from a neighbor. The recent domination of liberals is the product of one of the biggest propagandas in history that was supported by media censorship and brainwashing celebrities. That, of course, is just another proof that the mass is dumb, but the mass was always that way and the government, although it may be naïve to think this will happen, should take responsibility for making sure that media is not missing out on any important information that people should hear.

Media manipulation should be unacceptable. People are getting fed by fables of rights and impulsive freedom. I can suppose, or at least hope, that there is any sort of starvation for the other side of the story because it isn't generally the case that liberals dominate entire hierarchies. This is just the yield of "modern era policy advertisement" that, as Satoshi Kanazawa claimed, "more intelligent people tend to be liberals". But out of context, that thought has become destructive, let alone interpreted in too many far-off ways. The “left is usually more intelligent” is now being used against its original purpose and due to the biggest problem humans have ever encountered – lack of self-criticism – neo-liberals are getting quite a few followers.

Let me explain that real quick. Not many people are highly intelligent. The reason for this is that many people follow evolutionary instincts. Just a few are bound to leave the evolutionary concepts in order to develop their own stance and solve problems that didn’t exist before. That’s why intelligent people (a minority) were liberals in the past. But now the left is not left anymore. And a fair percentage of the rest of its followers may be hypnotized. So, no matter the intellect and education, if not being a neo-liberal means I’m stupid, then I shall be stupid. I have no problem with that.

In conclusion, neo-liberals and their ideas are truly hell-bent on making their own country seem inferior to any other by not acknowledging its past to any extent. Their double standards allow someone like myself to get called a "Nazi" and not is considered a victim of "hate speech". These double standards encourage clown debates and name dropping and they are the most visible, memorable surface problems of the left.

Also, the only thing that I do have in common with Nazis is of course that I am opposed to the radical left, which is, considering all of the above, natural at this point. But, these days, the right also breaks sacred laws, but really – it does not even matter where on the spectrum we will find human rights, nobility, humbleness, education, and kindness – as long as there is an option that provides them.

One of the real tragedies of contemporary politics is that our most bitter disagreements are about something that doesn’t even exist—the political spectrum, an old tribal principle of designation. At first, this was an absurd claim, but before rejecting it out of hand, you should know that, as always, the history of the spectrum rests on falsified grounds. The essentialist theory says that, although it may seem that there are many distinct political issues in politics, there is actually just one big issue—an underlying essence that ties them all together (of course, it’s the change).

The social theory, with which I ultimately agree, since it lines up with the studies shown in academic work behind “The Intelligence Paradox”, sees the positions associated with right and left as tribal. It predicts that changes among the tribe would lead to changes among ideologues. Ideologues will hold opposite policy positions, depending on who supports the policy, and they are far more likely to change their positions to fit the politicians for whom they vote than they are to change their vote to a politician who fits their positions. This may also be considered a sign or proof of very high percentages of unintelligent, submissive, or pliable people.

Public opinion polls further reinforce the point, showing that left-right ideologues often switch their beliefs to conform to the tribe. In the past decade alone, not to mention throughout the times of war in the past century, we’ve seen self-described conservatives go from being Anti-Russia, pro-Germany, UK, or USA, to immediately taking an unannounced turn to be pro-Russia and anti-West. Where is the “essence” behind all of this variation? It doesn’t exist. The views associated with left and right are constantly shifting for social reasons that have nothing to do with essential principles, which is why it’s all as relevant as a tooth fairy.

But, on the other hand, what is interesting and relevant is the essentialist theory that says that people come to join political tribes by starting with an essential principle, using that principle to arrive at hundreds of distinct political positions, and then joining the tribe that agrees with them on those positions. But, social theory begs to differ. It states the exact backward principle: people anchor into an ideological tribe, adopt the positions of the tribe as a matter of socialization, and only then invent a story to explain how an essential principle binds all of those positions together.

The unpopular opinion that I pursue with this matter is: They are both right. Humans probably fall under some kind of peer pressure in an organization such as a political party, but the reason they are present there is the fact that it’s the place where they find the people and their words more reasonable.

An extensive analysis of election and public opinion surveys confirmed the most logical and rational conclusion you could come up with. People are more likely to submit to an ideology due to impressions involved with their family and friends, rather than self-discovery. But if that is unnatural, we are all quasi-thinkers.

The left-right compass is yet another tool of self-delusion that lets us indulge the fantasy that our partisanship is principled rather than tribal, while it’s literally a modern version of stone society tribe division. It’s the same exact concept. One thing is for sure: the spectrum makes politics simple and gives us the illusion that our party’s beliefs have an underlying and righteous philosophical coherence.

Also, a common retort is that conservatives (or liberals) who switch their positions or change their views easily aren’t “true conservatives” or “true liberals.” The fact is that there are some "speedboat politicians" traveling through every available party in order to gain power, but I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the fact that free speech traveled from left to right and then disappeared, so some people tagged along with it. And due to those shifting borders, the only thing that divides us is probably primarily the love towards our country and loyalty to its culture (of course, there’s also the rest of the system of values).

For this issue, I wouldn’t prescribe admirable traits like civility or calm dialogue. I think it’s better to try to confront everyone with the fact that their position is incoherent. The left-right divide might be a division between social identities based on class, region, race, or gender, but it was certainly not meant to be a clash between different political ideas. We all agree on what’s fundamental for humans. We agree on what we should reach. We disagree on the path and hierarchy on the way there. Compass makes recognizing this conceptually confusing, tendentious, and historically corrupt. For this reason, although it’s practically impossible, we may need to drop all of the classifications and just talk about our political values.

The terminology itself (spectrum, left, right, republican, democrat) arose in revolutionary France in the late 18th century and it represented the seating of royalists against anti-royalists. It was officially used in Oxford English Dictionary in that period but was fully accepted in the age of Marxism. In the modern USA, democrats insist that government makes many positive contributions to our lives, while Republicans argue that it is a barrier to the prosperity created by free markets.

In the interwar years, the terms left and right were used all over Europe as people wrestled with the politics of nation and class. It’s very difficult to talk about the period of time between the 1900s and 1950s in Europe without continually invoking ‘Right’ and ‘Left'. Our spectrum fully polarized somewhere before the Second War, when the Right became more radical, the Left also became more radical.

The terms took hold in American vernacular in the 20th century. But, just as the terms were becoming more common, those who might have used them most started to shy away from them, and then they were reclaimed around 1960. We don't live in the textbook of political terms, by the way, so the practice is much different. We live in a world where corporate capitalism has always completely depended on the power of the state, and the basic practical thrust of left statism has always been the annexation of the economy. Theoreticians usually fantasize too much, while the reality is in the shade of the glorious talk.

I will certainly talk more about this later, but it’s hard to write separately about all of these related topics, so I will include this here as well: We can easily see hyper-concentration of wealth in private hands. Consider the way nationalizing industry in the Soviet Union didn’t make society more equal, but it sure has made the Communist Party a committee of capitalists. That’s an example of a compass shift of a “left movement”.

Now, some of the most historically salient right-wing leaning movements are monarchism, fascism, and fundamentalism. They have nothing in common and even less in common with conservativism and republicanism, but they all oppose communism and socialism. They also all oppose one another.

The left pole, meanwhile, could be a stateless society of equality in which people are not subordinated by race, gender, and sexuality. Now, that may be a little too good to be true, but we should always strive to reach perfection, right? Well, when it comes to this, I’m not convinced. Many writers have foreseen total equality meaning there’s nothing left to fight for, hence nothing to live for. We can’t really enjoy peace – so the realization that no matter what we do, we will still be the same as everyone else would be devastating. But either way, it’s impossible on a few different levels, starting from the fact that in a society with show business, art, and international businesses – complete equality cannot be reached without an absolute rule of the state. Then, the work that has created men and the effort invested into salvation would both be gone. In the eyes of law, we should be equal, but in terms of everything else, we are all different – so knowing that underachievers have no reason to achieve would be a big knock-out for any kind of motivation.

In a simple Decartes coordinate system could not be enough to portrait positions of The Nazi Party, Orthodox Church, anti-globalists, and anarchists all in the same picture, because they’d be in a similar area, even though they have virtually nothing in common, which means we are missing a dimension. If one would try, I highly doubt they could think of a dumber way to perceive politics the existing spectrum.

There’s a burning question of equality and liberty killing each other. The left has held equality for a fundamental value that it is, for a very long time. There is a big fat “however” coming up as a natural response to the previous sentence, and it is this: Achievements of the left are programs they are still trying to enhance for some reason, even though they are actually starting to result in quite the contrary to the original idea. Dysfunctional hierarchies of Tech-Elite globalists are providing a cult of science with expertise that must become a unanimous catchphrase, such as “The Big Bang and Theory of Evolution are contradictory with God so God does not exist”. This is anything but a meritocracy.

So, when you think of it, the supposedly opposite sides of our spectrum stretch from authoritarianism on the one end to supposedly different, yet the same type of authoritarianism on the other, with literally other kinds of authoritarianism in between. Spectrum narrows all of the alternatives. I’m not sure of how else we could look at politics, but we should be able to address political opinions in measure of power and wealth distribution against geopolitical beliefs in a much complex projecting environment.

Either way, today all of the ideological terms are situational and have become tools that change based on their context. In other words, they have lost their meaning in political combat. Left is usually progressivism, right is usually conservatism in the USA today, but that can also change. The only thing that doesn’t change is that nothing will unite left and right tribes.

It is true that no single normative principle unites all the policy positions of either the Republican or the Democratic Party. I’ll talk about that later on, but it is important to mention the following: Issues like abortion, tax policy, immigration, criminal justice are unrelated, so believing that abortion should be prohibited, shouldn’t commit you to believe that taxes should be lower, but as I said, due to tribalism, people come to accept most of its policy positions.

European and American standards of right and left are often mixed, but like everything, even people, is starting to emerge, we've lost the line. Both political camps contain an impressive amount of internal philosophical diversity. Obviously, not all of those find common ground with one another, but not all of them deny each other. In the language of rights and class conflict, the story of expanding citizenship, justice or democracy, exploitation, oppression we can find a mixture of elitist and democratic thoughts in ourselves. Reformist or revolutionary, we make an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities or some kind of unfinished business in an infinitely imperfect world that we built. Which of those are right and left, or which issues are even repairable – who can tell?

Almost all present political ideas fight for some kind of equality, but the view and definition of equality differ. The left claims to be fighting on behalf of equality, while the right claims to oppose the left and fight on behalf of individual freedom and social order, but also for equality. So, can we say that we are fighting for some different kinds of equality, and does that even exist? In practice, both sides often fail to live up to their ideals. Sometimes they even betray the expectations entirely. The left/right spectrum doesn’t explain almost any of the ongoing political debates nor the disappointment we feel from their spokesmen and representatives, because the spectrum has a loose grip of the array of possible political positions, but that is not enough to dismiss it, it seems.

I ask to be excused if I, in later text or ever, say leftist or liberal, with the meaning of regressive leftists or neo-liberal - meaning self-proclaimed liberals who abandon liberal principles and overthrow real liberals in order to preach nonliberal ideologies (The reason for this is the fact that the majority of the left has now gone down that crazy path). Also, when I say right, I usually don't mean rational conservatives, but far-right actual dangerous white supremacists. All sides have their crazy cow for a fight, but in politics, victory goes to those with cunning, mettle, and deviousness, not those who have facts and principles on their side. Politics isn’t won by commanding the facts, but by connecting with people’s experiences that sometimes hides the political vulture on the left and a number of misogynists on the right.

There's a big fight between liberals and liberals. There is also a big fight of conservatives against conservatives. We have some educated elite still following liberal principles arguing with neo-Marxist "liberals". But we also have well-meaning conservative ladies and gentlemen fighting with extremist narrow-minded delusional "conservatives.

Modern liberalism is a mental disorder. That's a bold, but truthful statement. Hatred has engulfed the politics of the Left. Socialists hate the financially successful. LGBT activists hate fundamentalist Christians. Black Lives Matter hates police officers. Fat people hate skinny people. Everybody hates each other in that world.

Neo-liberals are constantly flirting with mental illness and it's highly unappetizing to watch. The sole fact that we make fun of the neo-liberal movement so much is proof of it being not-so-good because it’s very hard to make comedy out of something good. It’s difficult to make good into funny. Think about that, Biden.

It is alright to avoid topics such as political orientation since it is clearly so important in a true relationship and it becomes an obstacle and hangs like dead weight over any kind of bond you might have with your partner, friends, or family. Maybe a little bit due to hypocrisy, but also because you are sincerely concerned with the well-being of someone you think is doing themself wrong with their choices and beliefs. But then again, maybe we all are.

Anyways, it is especially hard to raise children nowadays. I’m tired of saying “I’ll talk about this later.” but yeah, I will. So when you are not on the same wavelength with your partner, when there are direct events that you find threatful or wrong, but your partner does not, such as protests, healthcare conflicts, and activism. A huge plus is the fact that people care about honesty, big heart, and loyalty. Trust is not really based on politics and that’s what keeps us from falling apart.

Liberty is the foundation of western civilization. We are losing the touch with it because mature people are political infants. That is degrading. I want to be one of the flamethrowers that helps make a spectacular fire that burns everything unreasonable and untruthful until extinguished. This is a childish dream, but I want to move the spotlight to exquisite rightful things. It is also good to read texts such as "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill, "The Conservative Mind" by Russel Kirk, and "Democracy in America" by Alexis De Tocqueville.

And to the fellow decent people that do not necessarily have to agree with me on politics, if you are educated, civilized, and highly ethical, you need not have the intention of screaming at anyone. Your sole logic is enough to buy this world more time to become a better place.

This is truly something I can say I love. No matter how much one can disagree with another, we all know that helping each other is good. We should raise children and learn from them, not raise hate and let the children learn that from us. We all know it’s good to mind nature and ecology, we all know it’s good to help animals, to donate to charity, buy meals and clothes for homeless people. In moments of truth, we can connect to each other, disregarding politics, because life is far wider than a view of society.

In the end, even if you don't agree with much of what I say, I hope to appear as a genuine person with good intentions, because I’m just presenting my views, based on what I read, see, and think.

SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE AND POTENTIALLY BENEFICIAL ELITIST THOUGHTS

his unpopular segment that I put so early in the book is, simply put, one of the core misunderstandings that I encountered dealing with right and is also connected to the previous paragraph with the follow straight-up sentence: Liberals don't believe in the concept of total self-reliance. They are searching through the government to give them a sense and source of stability and responsibility.

The first point I’ll try to make is that strength training is a fantastic microcosm of life. I want to convince you that pushing yourself through discomfort is vital for growth and progress. You can't live without repetition, everything repeats. Heartbeats, mornings, and dinners. Discipline is what defines eloquent and healthy men, but now it's being sold for "child abuse" while promoting coddling. It’s like we want our kids to develop ADHD.

Happiness is a pointless goal. It is not a rational goal. It is too abstract for an ordinary man. There is no point in boring and scaring yourself with a delusion such as "One day, I will know what I need to do to be happy, but until then, I'm good." Humans need smaller, technical, short-term goals because happiness is not a place that you can buy a magical ticket to. I don't tell people, 'You're okay the way that you are.' because nobody is. And that is completely fine. We all need some work done, but not a lot of us are willing to put in the effort. But, as a kid that's been picked last in gym class numerous times, I can tell you this: It sucks.

There's a big fuss going on about the popular thought that the fashion world is endangering an individual who is not in any way involved in the fashion industry. Everyone says it’s easy for models to say being attractive is not a life-easer, but people don’t know what the burden of a modeling job is. Some of my ex-girlfriends developed serious psychological trauma and went to therapy for a long time because agents, photographers, and colleagues are hunting your imperfections. And I must admit that kind of pressure proved to be useful to an extent in the beginning. It gave me a drive that led me to work on myself a little harder. Although, it is also true that it almost simultaneously led me to horrible products for becoming more fit and keeping my shape and skin in good condition when I was a teenager. It is also true that I thought a lot about getting plastic surgery, even though I did not lack anything on my face.

However, these are the unavoidable side effects of doing fashion business. When I looked at the billboards before or after my modeling days, I didn't feel anything at all. No pressure, no nothing. When I see someone I recognize up on a billboard – I just think to myself “Wow, good for you!” I didn’t feel the urge to look like the guys from Paco Rabanne commercials, nor was I ashamed of myself, even though, like everyone else, I sincerely wasn't completely satisfied with the way I looked either. Of course, people often tell me that they would be happy in my place, but they continue to procrastinate. They don’t put in the effort you need to reach the point I was at. In the end, I feel ungrateful about finding the attitude "I'd sell my soul to look like this" extremely irritating. If you'd sell your soul, why wouldn't you pick up a dumbbell? Is your soul lighter than a drop of sweat?

People tend to think that saying “it's hard to stay attractive” is being petty. Like Chandler Bing’s sarcastic comment: “Oh no, two women love me. They’re both gorgeous and sexy. My wallet’s too small for my fifties and my diamond shoes are too tight.", but it isn't like that. These are not just backhanded whines.

It is crazy how young people get so affected by showbusiness in modern society. It’s probably hard to defy the frustration that comes out of advertisements and posters, so due to the internet, you can easily find the most successful or beautiful people in seconds – and we start feeling bad about ourselves.

Because of the opinion that people cannot identify and sympathize with classic models, there is a trend of "plus-size modeling" and choosing people who do not comply with Paris Fashion Week standards. Classic model look in the picture is not a good product campaign because people "know they won't look like that when they buy the product", so we have the example of Calvin Klein underwear that has been using fat people for billboards for years to show that "all bodies are beautiful" and that "you look great too" in "#MyCalvins" campaign. A complete redefinition of the brand, that’s no longer associated necessarily with fit youthful musicians.

My personal opinion on this topic is that there is no need for that kind of marketing plan. Changes like that one will cause a destructive impact on society. It's overkill. I must say that not all bodies are beautiful. It’s disposable to say that each body is beautiful by itself. The fact that someone won't buy a product because it won't instantly make them look like Brad Pitt is immature, ignorant, and hypocritic.

There's a much bigger problem. Hollywood is trying to make you addicted to high fashion brand clothing, yet nobody seems to have a problem with spending thousands of dollars on a scarf. Their only problem is the fact that if they pay for the scarf, they won't become Justin Bieber look-alikes. Who would've thought? That same Hollywood that is “body positive” initially proposed the sole idea of the fit body standard – and that’s okay.

Namely, it is clear that most people will not look like billboard dolls, but who cares? If they don't want to make an effort to look like that, they shouldn't care. The models themselves will not look like that anymore in ten years, but the positive effect of that unrealistic staged beauty from commercials lies in setting up a mental wall that will eventually prevent us from slipping into an unhealthy life. Dissatisfaction with ourselves is what drives us to be better and looking up the huge posters on solitaires, we strive for a healthy life, training, sports figure, long life, harmony, beauty, so we slowly feel better about ourselves.

There is no medical justification to stay obese, we’ve all heard that, but obesity also doesn't prove wealth anymore, like it did in the past, where all Italian mob bosses were short fat grandpas.

Gluttony is also considered a sin, but excluding religion and medicine, I am not the kind of elitist to be able to say that you are a sinner or that someone must not be something. You do you - I don’t have the right to force you to do anything. In the final round, body shape does not define what is good for humanity.

With that out of the way, the reason why we should still not accept ourselves as we are is that it does not lead us anywhere. Coming to peace with oneself too early in life is something that will slow us down later. That fear of the reaction of others to our appearance is not really that terrible, and the story that everyone is beautiful in their own way calls us to stagnation, and it would be much more constructive to say "Everyone can be even more beautiful." (If you don’t want to throw insults and play the negative motivation card, that is). Humans are physical beings and they value almost everything in terms of visual beauty. Even Plato, who I believe was wiser than us, believed that the body must remain healthy.

Negative motivation usually makes you take action rather than knowing you should start exercising and rather than somebody telling you you are fine the way you are, but maybe you could hit the gym. This is the key to why the "anti-fat-shaming" campaign is too mild against a disease that kills 300,000 people a year in America alone. I can’t make anyone do anything, but I can criticize it the same way I criticize other dangerous things people do, such as gambling and drugs and if anyone is offended by my jokes, it just means they are truthful.

Negative motivation is the other side of the coin. This occurs when an action is taken to avoid experiencing pain or failure. Granted, that kind of motivation can absolutely work now and then, but it isn’t exactly beneficial to your morale in the long run, but that’s okay since it wears off in a few months. (P.S. Oh, boy, the things you can do during those few months.)

After all, the whole point is to quickly get out of the situation you got yourself into. It works in the same way young people want to prove themselves after they get their hearts broken. Although it’s popular opinion that working to get something is better than working to run away from something, I think it’s the other way around. In Serbia, there’s a saying that states: “You will never catch a man running away from a good beating.” So, if somebody walks up to you and says: “Hey, you will get a few bucks if you catch me in thirty seconds!”, you will run fast for the reward, but slower than if that same man pulled out a knife and told you you have half a minute to get lost because lives don’t depend on goals and rewards, they depend on not touching the bottom – and we can set the bottom pretty high.

It’s not uncommon to struggle with motivation. It’s a tricky beast to tame, but it’s also incredibly powerful. It’s just that the sort of motivation that makes you quit smoking because you’ve witnessed your grandfather die of lung failure (that leaves you a dramatic and dreadful feeling) is much more efficient for some people than reading about how it’s better for you not to smoke because you save money and feel healthy. I mean, yeah, the point is the same, but negative is always more powerful. Certain people are driven by fear and anxiety. The looming threat of loss is too much to bear and they tend to take action more quickly in such scenarios.

After all, man's main strength is the desire to avoid the embarrassment of being rejected by the environment and will work on himself harder if he looks in the mirror every morning and says: "Hey, you ugly idiot." until he makes a difference. The only other source of motivation that’s as strong is avoiding death.

“What's revolting is the body-positivity movement. What's revolting is this idea now that you can tell women they'll be happy and healthy at any size. Why? Because it tells women that you can be fat, and you can be unattractive, and you can be happy anyway. That's a lie." - Milo Yiannopoulos

When I see overweight people panting in the gym or jogging on the streets I feel proud of them. I feel the urge to let them know how good of a decision they've made. You are challenging yourself. It’s the same way for people that are unhealthy skinny. Now, I’d like you to pay attention to one of the best monologues spoken by a stand-up comedian Bill Burr:

"Hollywood makes unrealistic body images. The whole thing with "plus-size actresses", I don't know what's happening. They are going on the covers of magazines to show how fat they are and everybody is hyping them up saying it's so brave and courageous. I'm not saying it doesn't take balls, but that's a bit of an overreach with the word brave. What am I supposed to do if I see a fireman running out of a burning building carrying a baby and an old lady? Oh my God, you are brave, like that fat lady that takes her shirt of for the cover of that magazine?

I know you are not supposed to make fun of fat people, I just don't know why. They are not a religious group, they are not a race. It's curable. Eat an apple, go for a walk. Why are you yelling at everybody else? Shove some lettuce in there. You're not supposed to fat shame, slut-shame, why? Shame is legitimate human emotion. Why wouldn't people be ashamed of something?

You can only have so much sympathy because you know what changed my life? I had a gig in India and I saw a child there coming out of a crowd, no clothes, no nothing. He was taking a shit behind parked cars and went back to disappear in the crowd. When I came back to my country, and I hear people complaining about things like this: "The studio said I need to lose 50lbs to star in a movie." Well, start running you fat fuck. That's your big complaint in life?

You know what? Fat people have no respect for the amount of sacrifice and dedication to get to magazine-level abs. You ever tried to do it? It's nearly impossible to do it if you’re over twenty, without tons of help and a trainer. It's a miserable experience. You walk around and somebody asks: "You want some cake?" and you say "I'll make a salad. Balsamic vinegar on the side, no croutons. Where's the photoshoot? I want to kill myself." But have you ever tried to become fat? No, because you don't have to. It's effortless. You can lay on your back, eat and watch your favorite show. Don't need a trainer, it comes naturally."

What a great speech, huh? Now, let’s add this to the equation: When we say 'less fortunate,' we generally mean the poor rather than the disabled, who actually are less fortunate. The true less fortunate are not considered a nuisance generally speaking, but people who chose to sit in the chair for twelve hours a day and not even eat healthily or take a walk daily certainly are.

"Now that fat guy that took his and half of your seat on a plane is considered disabled because he can't stop eating cookies. What's the problem? 50% of the world is starving to death, fuck that guy. Eat a salad and get on a treadmill like the rest of us. We all work out. We all watch our shape." - Bill Burr

Now, I’m not saying let’s all be Marlon Brando, I’m just saying: let’s all be healthy. When I first got somewhat of a set of abs, I kept on checking every two hours to see if they’ve disappeared. What a great feeling, right? But what’s funny is that at that time, if somebody told me – “Haha, look at you, you have abs!” I would just look at them like they are an idiot – because no matter what somebody says or does, you are not ashamed of what you know is not something to be ashamed about. However, if someone walks up to you and says – “Haha, look at how fat you are.” you will feel shame.

Now a little disclaimer, masculinity is not all there is to adopting responsibility for your own well-being, you should help your family function in a way, and serve your community – but not like a politician's cliché, but truly help out people around you. Those are probably the only things that can ground you in life so that instead of blaming others, finding excuses, and asking for help, you can withstand the difficulties of life and help others.

Back to the main course - is morbid obesity beautiful? No, it's not. And it shouldn't be encouraged, acceptable or normal. Like anorexia, numerous chronic health conditions are connected to obesity. It's easier to pull out a sign that says "Fuck beauty standards" and smile for the camera than change your unhealthy life. Fat-shaming shouldn't be in the same bucket as racism.

Some airlines were sued for not making bigger doors or seats. So who is the bully there? They're promoting a lifestyle that is incredibly harmful and encouraging people to languish in a state of perpetual victimhood. And by the way, those campaigns are almost exclusively targeting women because the current concept of beauty standards is crafted by “the evil patriarchy”.

And yes, objectification and commercialization of women's bodies is a thing, but it’s not exclusive. Men’s bodies are commercialized to the same extent. And many of us like it, men and women – they like looking or they like their bodies being looked at. That may be a cheap form of appreciation, but if we scratch the surface, feeling good about yourself makes you happier in life. People should use their looks to their advantage because everybody can look good. But it's obvious that it's easier to whine than put in the effort.

All of that propaganda aside, does anybody think that we don't find ugly, fat people attractive because we don't see their bodies advertised? No. This is really just basic biology and psychology. Any departure from these basics is walking us towards sickness. Paul Joseph Watson said that the only reason people believe that this is a matter of equality is that they let policies be influenced by mentally deranged lunatics. I endorse that message and it can be interpreted into many other spheres of life.

It's untruthful to say fatness has nothing to do with health. It's a condition that shouldn't be embraced. We should encourage health and fitness and set the bar high. The idea that celebrating beauty is dreadful is insane. Beauty lets us develop.

This bond between the body positivity movement and feminism continues on making many things in life a bit less fun, more morbid, and disturbing. The idea of you being "okay the way you are" is bad and destructive to young people who are prematurely cynical, aimless, and ideologically possessed. They stop searching for more in life. They are okay if they don't contribute to the world. So it's not actually optimistic. It's a pessimistic idea. It’s a negative thought, people. Thinking that everything is beautiful is depressing. It shatters faith and kills pureness. That's tragic.

And also, when they say they have a medical condition. Oh, okay, so what do you take to treat it? Donuts? In the UK the cost of treating illness caused by obesity has cost more in a year than war and terrorism. And it's not even that I'm in any way threatened by people with thyroid disease. The problem is the normalization of healthy young people becoming immobile because they choose to stay home, play games, and eat throughout the whole day while sitting in a spinning chair when there is a never-ending list of medical complications connected to that. Of course, some of that is caused due to the fact that many people don’t have the emotional support to fight through the life around them, and I will also talk about that.

The policy of rational mind is that I'm not to blame nor to coerce someone into doing something that I think is right if they don't agree, but I sure am not going to promote unhealthy behavior like it's perfectly normal. Because just like feminism and the other parts of the "lefty-pack" (that’s my made-up word for the typical pack of opinions considered neo-liberal, I’ll talk about that later), it has embraced dogmas that conflict with basic biological reality. In this case, it is the fact of men being attracted to healthy-looking fertile pretty women because humans gravitate towards beauty.

I've listened to many lectures held by fat female plus-size warriors, talking about unrealistic body standards and the fact that men shouldn't be attracted to someone like Margot Robbie or Barbara Palvin any more than they are attracted to some paranoid obese fat pride activist while simultaneously showing pictures of Gal Gadot on the red carpet and a body positivity activist looking filthy snacking on the couch.

So, I shouldn’t be set to find myself a Jessica Alba-type? Where does that get me? It gets me to realize that “It’s industrialism and wall street wizardly hocus-pocus that got me to think Jessica was pretty in the first place”. Yuck. If the situation was reversed, we would have a crazy fat guy standing in front of a crowd talking about how women should not find Chris Hemsworth attractive and that Kim Jong Un is certainly as attractive as Hemsworth. That's absurd. Sounds like a sick twisted body-shape communism.

No matter what's on the paper, I still mostly see attractive people in a relationship. And body positivity articles are so ridiculously far from any logic that I read them as satire pieces. It is unworthy of any kind of engagement on a critical level (even though I did give some thoughts on it). It is really nothing to admire or aim for nor be aspired to.

Magazines do not say “look at this” when something is on the cover page, they tell us to be that way and to acknowledge that’s the standard. Being fat is not a standard because everybody is drawn to healthy and evolutionary desirable looks of clean fit shapes and geometrically proportionate body image.

I think critique will not get us far when it comes to this matter because it wakes up many kinds of self-defense mechanisms in people that find themselves in a targeted group, but comedy can still work. Ricky Gervais (Out of England 2) and Bill Burr (Walk Your Way Out) specials about fat people are very entertaining, and they have proven to be funny even if you are slightly offended because laughter is the ultimate cure.

Perhaps sometimes we can get rehabilitation of traditional values somewhere far in the future if we do not self-destruct. But now, let's start with the thought of acceptance. My body, I do what I like. Then, why don’t we legalize everything? Why is there prescription medicine? Why don’t we all just go to the pharmacy freely and kill ourselves with antibiotics that we know nothing about? Some things are still considered unhealthy and dangerous. Society is built to protect us from those. So, probably it's not the doors that should be larger, nor seats on the bus. It's you that should be thinner.

TAN AND SIMILAR POLICY DEFINERS

hen it comes to this particular topic, I should start by saying that some people don’t think they have the right to have a controversial opinion independent of what most of the news and media force on them. The next thing you understand by learning some history of activist movements is that it is always about money. Or at least it's about the attention that will raise some money. So that applies to environmentalists, feminists, LGBT, black lives matter, etc.

When Nikola Tesla was alive, some of his ideas were not conducted due to investors finding the ideas hard to cash in. Those were some actual revolutionary ideas that would improve the quality of our lives, but many people want to earn, rather than make everybody’s life easier.

Now, this is not something to discuss over cocktails. It's a serious issue, but it is easier for me to talk freely about this issue because, in a third-world country such as the one I live in, I owe nothing to African-Americans. Nobody was ever enslaved here. Of course, that does not stop me from reading.

Black lives activists talk about racism, while most people have never met a racist in their lives. Identity politics need to be valid for everyone or no one. A society divided by virtues as irrelevant as those cannot be stable, but the black community doesn’t want to acknowledge what’s really important. On that note, I'd share this sarcastic comment about the black community that Ben Shapiro said in 2018:

“This is the most important moment in Black American history. Not Martin Luther King, not Frederick Douglass, not the Civil War, not the end of Jim Crow — none of that. Board, the most important thing is that Chadwick Boseman puts claws on his hands and a mask on his face and runs around jumping off cars in CGI fashion.”

Official FBI crime report states that it'd take 40 years worth of police killing black people to equal the number of black-black murders. About 61% of people killed by cops are white males. Police murders are as uncommon as a person being stroke by lightning. Black men are 6.5% of the US population and they commit 52% of murders. 90% of black people are killed by other black people.

Those numbers are a reflection of 70% of black kids raised without a father and the fact that the government is turning a blind eye to the black community and instead of facing the problem. I’m talking about Barack Obama and his partners. Black people can thank him for his “hard work”. He’s done virtually nothing for them.

It’s essential to understand that I’m explaining on the example of Black Lives Matter that not any activist movement of the 21st century so far is actually about support, nor does it address the actual dangers faced by the community it represents. They just shut our eyes and tell us to look the other way. Black man getting the main role in a superhero movie is just a diversion.

Like when you point at something and everybody starest that way for a few moments so that you can do whatever you want behind their backs until they turn their heads back towards you. That’s exactly how media makes shiny titles that “woke people” are going to shout out loud so that we can never determine what is truly important.

Behind every racist joke, there’s is a scientific fact and laughter is a coping mechanism (that will be my topic number 5, so wait until then). We need to continue laughing. It's fascinating what's become of us. Life is unironically turning into LongBeachGriffy skits and somebody is trying to kill even that little bit of fun we have left. In modern society, there are fewer and fewer opportunities to joke around, as well as for men to stay men and expose their masculinity.

Black Lives Matter is the ultimate divisive movement that has the power to irreversibly divide us by color and establish impatience and hate. They are far from the shy, peaceful agenda of equality they claim to be. They hate the way western civilization was standing with its federal law. They have some problems with capitalism as a whole, as well as with the police. This movement that I’d rather name "culmination of the racial divide" is nothing more than a completely unnecessary hate group that the left finds socially acceptable. Every other person is called either a racist or some kind of a "-phobe". They use those words so much. It’s like they want us to be racist.

'White supremacist' and 'white nationalist' are not light accusations and you can't just run throwing them around to everybody you don't like.

Arguing that Black Lives Matter is not really about black lives is somehow getting confused with not respecting black people. That is uncanny and uncalled for. There's no doubt that inequality destabilizes societies. We have results of scientific research to cover that topic very well. The literature and evidence proving inequality brings social instability are convincing, but it is also obvious that the percentage of people that want inequality is as low as a factory error.

It's almost funny that leftists have no desire or at least have no talent to define things. I found this definition of racism: “A set of systemic and institutional functions which promote the continued dominance of a particular race (that being the one most academics agree on).” That would mean that what happened to Jews in European history is not racism, right? This bizarrely incompetently put the definition of racism is helping the creation of the alt-right, or alt-lite, which I'm also not a big fan of. Why?

If we subscribe for a moment to this definition of racism, then we believe that there is some kind of “white privilege”, and this can be left to germinate in other spheres (it's the same logic for "male privilege, or any other privilege of the sort) so there's a racial hierarchy that puts “whites” at the top, then this definition in even the most abstract and peaceful interpretation still excuses racism against white people. Possibly a whole generation of white supremacists is being bred by this narrative. It is the aggressive exclusiveness that will breed madness instead of smart rational conservatives and educated liberals. So, if you think you are "woke" when you say that any group has no right to speak or their voices don't count, you are actually asleep.

Hate is hate. Republicans should always remember that context and surroundings matter very little. To oppose the neo-liberal agenda held by the Democrats, all we need is to actually fight for equality and stick to the facts. We should never try to make up to a group, because of any historical oppression that is not preset anymore, by making them first-class citizens and repressing ourselves. We can all share the throne. It's big enough. But if we continue with this kind of problematic and frankly dangerous definition of racism, then malignant cancer that is hate will continue on growing until we disappear. The true question is, do black people want anybody to kneel down and dishonor themselves because of something that their great-grandfather might have done, or do they want us all to be equals?

Another funny thing is that white people live on other continents as well. Slavic people have next to nothing or very little to do with slavery, but if I go to the United States or if an East European football team goes to a tournament, it’s expected of them to kneel down because they should be “sorry for social injustice caused by white people”. Why? I feel bad for it, sure, but if my neighbor killed someone, I would not have to go to court and beg for forgiveness.

Racism is racism, and we need to treat it all the same. According to social warriors and their NGOs, every disparity is discrimination. Zero sense in that. The ever after national conversation surrounding racism, sexism and homophobia can really be ended in an instant if all of us just took a deep breath and confessed that there is a statistical unlikelihood of perfect equality across all groups. We can't be all the same size, IQ, or color, and the cause of that is not the "discriminatory system”. Saying that it is is ineffective and hurts certain demographic groups even more.

Institutional or systemic racism is closer to not being a thing than being a thing. It's important not to discriminate against any group and it’s more than okay to preach that, but the problem with radical leftists is that they obliterate the rest of the complexity of the problem of inequality. This is indeed a highly sensitive topic and by leaving things out when you speak, you can easily make people get the wrong picture.

Bias needs to exist. It has always existed and it is a part of our evolutionary developed survival instinct. In order for us to think and work properly - we need a filter that sorts the overflowing information that comes our way all the time.

As my previous paragraphs about the definition of racism were unpopular with the left, this paragraph is opposed to the right because it’s outside the marrow of politics. To understand the following sentence, we are going to need a bit of self-recognition and introspection: All of us have biases. Discrimination is deep in our cores. This happens due to imperfections of the human psyche and people can try to hide this or deny it, but anybody that seriously gets into literature will either notice it themself or read it somewhere.

Again coming back to the words of Satoshi Kanazawa and his "Savannah Principle", we have problems adjusting to things that our ancestors didn't have to adjust to. We are just a little bit upgraded versions of the same species that lived thousands of years ago, so we still need an internal danger alarm. Our primary instinct is to be scared and distrustful of anything different, but it is almost a duty of ours to explore and find a bond. Small tribes that are still left to live excluded, disconnected from the rest of the world and unplugged from the modernity in the Pacific Ocean will probably try to hunt you down if you come to visit – because you look different, and you can’t blame them for that because they know no better, they just do what is natural for undeveloped limited human understanding. We should be taught to be better.

It's also important to note to what degree the bias exists. No system is perfect, and usually, systems prefer the largest group simply due to easier understanding between members that identify themselves in the same way. Systems all have tyrannical elements in order to function as an institution.

It is great to be able to fight for civil rights, but they've already been granted. The differences will always exist and in order to at least get tolerable, we need to prove some stereotypes wrong, which will not happen if crimes happened among black people at such a high rate, or if white kids continue on being spoiled and rude, etc.

But Angelo, given there is some kind of unconscious bias, how is there no white privilege, you ask? Implicit bias, unconscious bias, and biased behavior are yet to be proven at any level that is even remotely necessary to be used in legal action. People have considered the relevance of biases in a courtroom, but there is no way to alleviate those biases.

So, if you point me to a racist, I'm happy to protest. What I can't protest about is something that is in someone's head that I cannot see, that he cannot see, and that no one can see. That’s like protesting against the boogieman when a kid gets scared and comes to sleep with the parents. There is a big difference between thought, words, and action. The left wants to bring that down in the name of legitimization of their own violent response to the truth.

It just so appears that hypocrisy is still a big thing. It's very hypocritical to think people necessarily act on their thoughts. People have thoughts they don't manifest all the time. These are usually bad thoughts, thoughts you are ashamed of, but you know that expressing those would be socially unacceptable. A light example would be noticing that you could probably steal something, but not do it, or thinking of punching someone because they are getting on your nerves, but not doing it. We can thank the law, the state, and the nation for having that kind of reassurance – that most people feel that the system protects them from other people’s potential violent thoughts.

There are certain bad thoughts that you never pursue. Some things cross our minds and we don't even consider them. We ignore them. We are not proud of them. We also have some thoughts we don’t even know we’re having. Unconscious bias is the same way.

If you want to cite instances of racism that we can find, that we can see around us, then let us fight them together. But if you just say that at your birth, your skin color has already defined destiny of pain in advantage, you are saying that someone is less valuable because of the difference in personal life experience and history that is present in all members of a social group - that’s an identity argument that may be true in some cases, but it’s highly apolitical and demeaning. It’s more of a conversation closer than an opener because it leaves no room for the opinions of people from other groups to be valuable. It probably does not leave room for different opinions from the same social group. A discussion can’t take place if you told someone in advance that you don’t value them and their thoughts the same way you value yourself and yours.

Moving on, or coming back to the story of society and cultural bias, I should also state that standardized tests in schools don't care if you're white, yellow, black, pink, short, tall, fat, skinny, dumb, smart, Christian or Jewish. The test doesn’t care. At the end of the day, all that matters is whether you know the answers at the time the questions are asked. It's as simple as that. It can't be cheated, bent, or bargained with. It’s simply one of the most precise tools humanity has developed. We can argue that it’s not one of the best because many different qualities are not measured by these tests, but measuring those would further enlarge the size of disadvantages some students hold. This way, we have a known standard, which has its own pros.

Now, I’d like to add a little something to the forever accusation that every white person gets at some point if they are staying in America. Please go through the following words of Paul Watson:

"I love my white male privilege. I love being made to feel collective white guilt for the slave trade even though whites were the first in the world to end it. I love being made to feel collective white guilt for the slave trade even though whites were the first to encourage others to stop it. I love being made to feel collective white guilt for the slave trade despite the fact that Islamic ones were far more brutal and longer. More whites were enslaved by Islamics, than black by whites. 1.4% of whites owned slaves, 28% of free blacks owned slaves.

I love being made to feel collective guilt for colonialism as if white people were the only ones to do it. I love being told I'm a racist. I like being scolded whenever the mass shooter is white. I like being lectured as a "would-be rapist" because of a rape culture myth. I like how there is 11 times more chance for men to die at work. I like how it is 5 times more likely for men to commit suicide. I love how I have a 15% chance of winning custody. I like how men are 3 times more likely to be homeless. Men get more than double prison sentences for the same crime. Given all these benefits, you get why I love my white male privilege."

- P. J. Watson

Now, almost traditionally, in the middle of a theme, we come to a small history lesson for those truly interested in my words that did not tune out yet. The Oxford English Dictionary's first recorded utterance of the word racism was by a man named Richard Henry Pratt in 1902. Segregating any class or race of people apart from the rest of the people kills the progress of the segregated people or makes their growth very slow.

Compelled speech and government overreach: Anti-discrimination laws are held against religious institutions. Now, you are discriminating if you do not use the correct pronouns. That pulls many religious, legal, and other issues.

The worst part of this topic is by far digital activism. It is divided into four categories: blocking access to information, destroying property, misusing information, attacking critical infrastructure. So, it’s basically like censorship with extra steps. The inherent capacities of the Internet are manipulated to cause harm either to a person or a property. So our peace is now compromised by the malicious self-proclaimed “justice warriors”.

What quality of destruction of national monuments is making the federal law unenforceable? Of course, it's not a matter of valuation of the property but about being civilized as a product of well organized and working state mechanism. One of the most pertinent examples discussed in the context of balancing the positive and negative effects of activism is property damage. A total justification and support granted to a disturbing movement from celebrities throughout the whole world. When justifying a destructive act, activists reject a part of the rationale used to condemn their actions. They may reject the validity of the law that finds their action illegal, the premise that the negative effect of the action outweighed any benefit. It’s like they are measuring the strength and will of the government to oppose them. And they like what they see. The ugly disturbing destructive effect of the protest is yet another proof of it being more of a barbaric anti-culture movement, rather than a purposeful rebelling. We should not be ashamed of nor destroy our heritage.

The excuse that white people are to blame for everything is both lazy writing and dishonest ploy, and also, defending those excuses to follow the most illiberal stances while calling yourself a liberal is an exposure of unspoken hypocrisy. I've read and watched many pieces about the era of slavery, even though I'm not among white men whose ancestors enslaved anyone. I know that many of the Founding Fathers of the USA held slaves, but it’s a lie that America is endemically and unchangeably racist, that its philosophy, history, and culture are fundamentally bankrupt.

Racism is vicious and unforgivable. But is it a root of any part of western culture? No, it’s not. And even if it was, crying about it is not going to help. There was a time when students of Pitsburg Uni were claiming they were "traumatized" by Milo's opinions on racism and feminism, asking for a counselor to be in the next room to help them. Such absurd demands were made by a bunch of whining babies.

Hordes of mindless people chanting that black lives matter is very controversial. Everybody (even people who don’t support the movement) agrees with that phrase, but the implication in the tone is that there is a bunch of people who do not believe it. The movement is much more than a simple slogan. It's an attempt to expiate guilt to people who have never done anything racist. Yelling "Black lives matter!" is like yelling "Pizza tastes good!" in a sense that over 99% of people already agree with you. It's just that the sentence has become much different than the simple fact - the importance of life. So, I have no common ground with the protestors anymore.

For the left party, being a part of a victim group is not the same as being a part of the group that has been historically victimized. It means being part of a group that is not experiencing outcomes equal to other groups. So, for instance, if a group is considered economically or societally underperformed compared to the rest, it's a victim group.

So, explained with the example of Asian-Americans, they are commonly well-educated, high income, and part of solid family structure, so it doesn't matter that they were also treated like slaves or what happened to them in World War II. So, not all of the inequality is inequity.

Justification for affirmative action is the thought of some group being inferior, disabled, and unable to fight for itself. It’s miserable. It’s dishonoring. Affirmative action is racist. That's a fact. Nobody should get special treatment while applying for a job based on something that's not relevant to the application.

And also, just to be clear, the difference in the length of prison sentence between whites and people of color is in something known as the previous record, it’s a simple statistical manipulation put into our heads by media. If a man with a bachelor degree has for some reason stolen something valuable from a store and that's the first time he breaks the law of any sort after a civilized life of helping the community, he is not going to get the same sentence as the person that just came out of the prison for murder and performed an armed robbery.

I mean, come on, the gentlest way I can put what happened to Native Americans is them being forcefully baptized by majorly white people. And by that I don’t even mean educated into civilization and prosperity, I mean they were also drowned because it’s the easier way to clear the land than assimilation. The scale of the physical and cultural violence is unimaginable – yet Thanksgiving is here every year. By what standards do we measure to whom we are going to apologize?

To make a final point, I will say that in order to not name-drop on innocent people, we should avoid reading just the titles of articles about serious, critical, and sensitive topics (or in general) and actually read the whole article or a book.

I sometimes feel that like I want to be a member of a minority group in order to be taken seriously. To be black in order to be able to say that Black Lives Matter is not really about black lives, to be gay in order to say the LGBT movement is unnatural fornication, etc.

The fact that a feeling like that exists in me is also a pointer that minority groups are often almost totally closed and heavily shut for the words of people that are not their members. That's why I'm glad I found out about people like Milo Andreas Wagner, or at least Anthony Griffin (while this second one is not very active politically, he is still a creator dealing with socially active themes with certain influence on young people).

At this point, I'm mentioning completely unrelated names: journalists, scientists, comedians, social media content creators, so I’m taking a few minutes to explain myself. The fact is that modern times require modern solutions. It's easier to learn through a wide variety of sources. Learn while laughing, listening, reading. The borders of forms are getting thinner and every person that seeks or tries to preach the truth is valuable. If all of us were curious enough to hear what others have to say, we’d probably already be living on Mars by now.

STRIKING NEO-FASCISM WRAPPED UP IN A RADICAL FEMINISM FOIL

en and women are different. We have different tendencies, skills, and behaviors. This should be accepted and nurtured. It should be supported and fostered, not demonized. Because the end result of the nonsense going on is feminine men and masculine women. Who wants that? It’s useless to push obvious differences down our throats like it’s something to be ashamed of. The world we want to achieve is the world where women can do whatever she wants, not the world where they are bullied into doing it all and looked down upon if they choose to be mothers.

Men and women aren't the same. And they won't be the same. They have different tendencies, skills, and behaviors. That doesn't mean that they can't be treated fairly.

Milo held a conference in Sydney about progressive feminism and its tendency to overstep the equality border and try to make up for "millennia of crushing patriarchy", demanding for men to get paid 60 cents on a female dollar. “Women’s life is pricier, so they should be paid more.” Jesus. Most of the girls I know never paid for their own drink in the club or pretty much anywhere else. The majority of girls in a relationship receive gifts and dinners, not the other way around. Women spend money on makeup, we spend money on women. So, more or less, the money spent on beauty products is not wasted. I mean, not that they really had to spend it in the first place, but when you subtract those, men’s life would be more expansive and it’s generally accepted that men need to earn and provide to their partners.

"How would you feel if we switched places?" is a famous feminist question when it comes to the wage gap, but they don't understand that the answer is: pretty great, actually. Because men spend their money on women they like, boys on girls they like, female friends that mean to them because on oppose of what people say, a lot of men act like gentlemen without reserve or wanting something in return, at least to a certain point. Also, just the way there are girls who don't mind getting attention in the form of a sentence like "Damn, baby, you're hella fine." most men don't get intimidated if they are catcalled. With our mindset, being a woman would be very much fun. But that’s probably why we are not women. We have other kinds of problems that we usually don’t really like to share.

It's a small percentage of people who work 80-hour weeks, or up to 100-hours - and almost all of them are men. Why? Well, men are more driven by status. They feel fulfilled and they find their worth in the way they are fighting with capitalism. They want to prove themselves, among other things, because women usually deeply want men who are competent and powerful, not to exert tyrannical control over others, but just to be there for others.

Those who think that our culture is oppressive patriarchy should admit that the current society might be predicated on competence. All of the screens have made us think that we are stupider than we are, so we don’t realize that this functioning infrastructure that surrounds us is a gift from our ancestors alongside technology, freedom, and opportunity.

Feminism is just like any female-dominated group. It’s a very poorly self-described catfight. You see, feminists don't really like to define things, especially things such as patriarchy. They prefer to keep it amorphously under the veil of mystery so that they can conveniently blame it for everything - salaries, careers, catcalls, bodies. A movement fighting for women’s rights that doesn’t support motherhood (the most unique trait of being a woman) is like being an Italian chef and not using tomato and cheese. It just doesn’t make any sense.

So, after losing probably too much time on trying to understand the manifest of modern feminism I will now sum up their views honestly much better than they themselves did and explain how every one of their beliefs is a dumpster.

Radical feminism is a perspective in gender studies that states that male supremacy is being denied in economic and social concepts and race, class, and sexual orientation have something to do with that fact. For a radical feminist, our society is male-dominated misogynist patriarchy that’s fighting against women, so they want to step up and “fight for the rights of everyone, so every person can have their freedom”. (Yeah, right.) This includes stopping sexual objectification of women, sexual violence, “class and race-oriented gender roles” (That does not exist, but alright, let’s keep going.). The main difference, whole point, and key factor that you almost cannot find a feminist explaining is this: Radical feminism departed from classic first-wave feminism because of the newborn idea of totally eliminating gender differences. Not just cutting the male privilege, but denying any of us are different in any way, because “if it was like that there would be no culture and political disputes”. Actually, there would be no culture and politics at all. There are literally books about feminism that repeat the sentence “Men are violating women’s rights.” in hundreds of different forms and that’s all there is to the book. Just one thought. No proof, no nothing. Although I’m not going to give you any names, since I don’t want to advertise such unholy delusions. If you’re bored or want to check it out for some reason, you can type “Books on radical feminism” in your search engine and try reading the first five that pop up (if you don’t puke, that is.) Even the theory of radical feminism, as you can see, is full of holes, so you can imagine what will become of it in practice.

Later on, feminists got new demands. They started asking for some kind of ultimate authority. But, women are not second-class citizens and there are no male-designed social norms against women on purpose, nor by accident. All that safe space propaganda is selfish, irritating, wrong, and really not doing anyone a favor.

In an argument, radical feminists try to use fancy words to scare men away and make sure they sound smart, but the truth is that if you cannot simply explain something, you don’t know what you’re talking about. And by getting to talk normally, you instantly hear sentences like “Google it”, “Do your research”.

There’s an official statistic that you can find, but not the one like usual leftist experiments that use small groups of people in short periods of time, but a real analytic saying that there’s a simple difference between typical male and female minds. It states that the male brain is typically more strategic and available for occupations like playing chess, while the female brain is more nurturing and can express better in jobs like nursing. And that is perfectly fine.

I went all out on the left, but that’s just because they are the rulers at the moment, so they deserve more harsh judgment.

Every picture can be painted in two ways and every brushstroke can be drawn in two directions. We can talk about how there are fewer women in business, but we can also talk about how there are more men who study business. There’s a two-to-one chance of hiring in favor of women because everybody is desperate to hire them.

Radical feminism’s favorite targets are the institution of marriage and the Church, or Christianity in general. It subtly changes people’s views on marriage and religion. A once, good and just act has been reformed into a demolishing tool. Making a mockery of what someone holds sacred is all you need to do in order to prove your movement is terribly wrong.

Ever since feminism was birthed into the world, it kept evolving and becoming more drastic as the ages go by. Initially a response to chauvinism and gender inequality, women only wanted an equal chance for themselves. Feminism’s goal of pursuing equality through the empowerment of women blurs with radical feminism’s primary goal. Actually, classic feminism is opposed to radical. Radical feminism gives women the idea that they would be better off without men.

There are many kinds of feminism. If any of them knew what they were doing, there would probably be just one, but since this is a serious piece, I must mention them. Liberal feminism emphasizes social and legal reforms through policies designed to create equal opportunities. Cultural feminism contends that there are fundamental personality differences between women and men, that sexism can be overcome by celebrating women’s special qualities, women’s ways, and women’s experiences. (In line with this, cultural feminists believe that women’s ways are better and that propagating these ways would make the world a better place. For example, they think there would be no more wars if women were to rule nations and I tell them – Look at Sweden.) Then we have ecofeminism rests on the basic principle that patriarchy is harmful to women, children, and other living beings and that it often draws from parallelism between a male-dominated society’s exploitative treatment of the environment and its resources, and its treatment of women.

All of the above sounds like an apocalyptic Rick and Morty episode, and an extension to that is this paragraph that quotes American feminist and theologian, Rosemary Ruether’s speech; “Feminist theology must create a new textual base, a new canon. Feminist theology cannot be done from the existing base of the Christian Bible.” Naomi Goldenberg, a professor at the University of Ottawa, claims that “God is going to change. We, women, are going to bring an end to God. We will be the end of Him.”

There is not enough information about radical feminism, due to their inability to self-describe, so their purpose is often misunderstood. If anybody else is writing something about feminism alone at the moment, they should tackle a bit more on the difference between feminisms. The point is: the good one is finished, they went home, they felt fulfilled, now it’s dead and what’s left is a big facepalm.

All hyperbole and metaphor aside, what passes for “radical feminism” these days is clearly fascism. It promotes chauvinism, censorship, maternalism, pseudo-anthropology, scapegoating, mystical identification with nature, tricked-up pseudo-pagan religiosity, enforced uniformity of thought, and even appearance. An ominous tactical continuity with classical fascism, also, is the complementarity between private-vigilantist and statist methods of repression.

According to feminoid epistemology, men understand nothing of the real nature of women. One might logically suppose that the estrangement of the sexes resulting from disparate roles and discrimination would work both ways, and so most of us attending to our actual experiences reluctantly conclude. But no: men don’t understand women, but women understand men. Women — feminist experts, anyway — understand pornography and its meaning for men much better than the men who write and read it — and lesbian-separatists, who avoid men and decline to have sex with them, appreciate these verities best of all. Now listen to this powerful sentence: The more remote your experience is from the real-life of actual men, the better you understand this practice.

Not all men are Homer Simpson, not all men are Popeye either. Radical feminism in practice has nothing to do with the definition of feminism. But it has much to do with prejudice and hate. It's tiring to hear that if a woman is not happy it is men's fault simply because anyone who is not happy is the only one to blame for his happiness. Nobody has ever been a reason for my unhappiness. On the surface level, yes, of course, but ultimately it depends on me only.

The only two reasons for a woman to accept radical feminism:

1) She is either stupid, uneducated, or deceived

2) She is tragically and deeply disappointed with herself

The only two reasons for a man to accept radical feminism are:

1) He is stupid, uneducated, or deceived

2) He thinks he couldn't appeal to women in any other ways

“If your son can make himself irresistible, he will make all that radical feminism evaporate in an instant.” - Milo Yiannopoulos

Many Americans, including feminists, have accepted the loss of freedom as the trade-off for shedding the burden of responsibility for their own lives. That’s actually against every ethic, but it’s easily understandable. It’s the easy route.

I wish I had the scientific opportunity like Satoshi Kanazawa does so that I can research the connection between being a radical feminist activist and being fat and ugly. Either way, it seems that UCLA research already stated that women that live up to female standards are commonly republicans and that conservative women tend to be prettier. Now, I'm not talking about celebrities that claim to be democrats because it's popular, I’m talking about ordinary people. Usually, conservative female politicians look better than Hillary Clinton.

A situation that I found extremely funny that happened on television is when Zoey Tur, a man wearing a dress claiming that he is a woman, threatened Ben Shapiro, a respected, educated, generous, polite, and righteous conservative because he claimed that wearing a dress doesn't make her biological women. Tur said that the two of them shall meet in a parking lot afterward and that Ben will be returning home in an ambulance car. What's funny about that is the fact that mister Tur proved that he is a man by his testosterone-invoked, adrenaline-soaked reaction to a political debate – a typical manly reaction.

By the way, If the situation was reversed, Ben would've been publicly shamed, but since Zoey is a transgender person, shaming his reaction would be a “transphobic hate crime”. Now, what the hell does transphobic even mean? If you are arachnophobic, you scream when you see a spider. You have an irrational fear of something – that’s the definition of phobia. I have a problem with these terms such as homophobe, transphobe, homophobe, etc. because even if you have something against gay people, you’re not scared of them. That’s why the pro-claim “transphobic” is highly annoying.

Next up: is gender equality a myth? Men and women won't choose the same paths for themselves. There's about an equal amount both of men and women in engineering, but more men in fundamental science and more women in nursing, and they are doing great that way. Equality of opportunity is desirable for society and individuals. It’s the story of inequality and inequity again.

I'm usually careful with my words and will not say something that a rational person can understand wrong, but I will say this: 9% gender pay gap is a result of women's agreeableness (women tend to settle for less money) and average position (women choose careers that are paid less). And that is not a bold generalization but a statement based on scientific research and official stats.

The wage gap is a statistical manipulation. Men are more likely to take risks and work overtime. Men work more. If companies could pay women less, they'd hire only women, so they are left with more money. Isn’t that logical? There's 2 to 1 female preference in hiring in some companies because of all of the glass ceiling and pay gap propaganda.

Of course, we can argue that being agreeable and deciding which roles are paid more are defined by a patriarchal society, but actually they are the product of what's beneficial to the market which has proven to be 80% women defined – women buy more stuff. Now, you can tell me that it is only that way because women are stay-at-home moms, but that is changing, and then I'd have to tell you that the argument is not valid. A majority of men just don't put up with the market and are more worldly-wide in many situations. Classical female traits don't predict success. Intelligence and conscientiousness do predict success. Now, I’m not saying women are less intelligent - there is no difference in general cognitive ability between the two genders.

The next counterargument that you can present me if you think about what I said is: we have no empirical data that would predict that feminine-driven companies would not be more successful, but then I can only say - go ahead and try. My prognosis is that it wouldn't end well. I believe it would be that way already if it was the better way. If male trait concepts made us firms like Facebook, Google or Tesla, I doubt some other way could've made anything bigger. I think feminine companies would gravitate towards chaos. Ask Sweden.

Let the following statistics sink in:

Deaths in battle - men 97%, women 3%

Homelessness – men 62%, women 38%

Suicide - men 77%, women 23%

Homicide - men 88%, women 12%

Workplace death - men 93%, women 7%

Now I’ll answer some questions I found women asking men.

1. Why can’t you watch romcoms with us?

In order to be able to think, you're going to take a risk of being offensive. It is also a scientific fact that men hate romcoms for the same reason girls hate a lot of video games with oversexualized female characters. Romcoms set up an unrealistic standard of men wanting to sacrifice everything they own, dreams, careers, and lives for women while promoting unrealistic destiny moments where men read women's brains and present the way love can never be in the real world. It's unfair to expect someone can live up to those standards.

It's okay to agree to some extent with the idea of wrong body image, but it's also expected of men to be emotionally and physically devoted to becoming princes in shining armor and is called selfish or misogynistic if they don't do so. That's a perverted imaginative view on love. Those same romcoms use female protagonists who sit around and talk about men, yet it's expected of us to think women talk about rocket science or about how men are objectifying women and spreading their legs too far apart on the subway.

2. Why do guys always talk about boobs?

The topic of the female body rarely comes up for more than a minute. The only guys who talk about the female body for longer than a few minutes are medical students. Do you want to know what we actually talk about? Movies, games, politics, religion, music, cars, guns, people we meet, daily activities, etc. We don't think about sex constantly, if we did, we couldn't invent and create 90% of the stuff you use every day.

3. Why do you think men are funnier?

Women are usually not as funny as men. That’s also been proven - you can find analytics on the web. If you understand what humor is and how it works, you've realized that fact. That's why most stand-up comedians are men. Men try out entertainment careers more often. Women usually search for someone who can make them smile, laugh, or generally happy, rather than wanting to be the ones that make others crack up. Humor shows us the absurdity of the human condition and that's why it's so dark sometimes, and also why women avoid thinking about it that way. Humor is almost a part of being a man and it’s often found to be attractive by women (more than by men).

Now, we are getting ourselves into the most searched feminist questions for men:

1. Also, why do people think women are obsessed with men when they hook up?

Well, let me tell you why. Many times, it has something to do with all the times we got a hundred texts in ten minutes and then got our tires slashed because they saw me liking my sister's photo on Instagram. Very lacking in self-awareness.

2. Why can't women sleep with as many people as they want?

They can. Go ahead. Nobody cares. No man hangs a trophy for sleeping with hundred people. But if you are dating someone and tell them that you've slept with a hundred people, your partner will think you are crazy to have that many failed relationships. Glen Quagmire, Barney Stinson, Joey Tribbiani and Charlie Harper (playboy characters) are not model citizens. 70% of people who slut-shame women are other women.

3. Why do they interrupt feminists?

They interrupt anyone. Also, women interrupt anyone.

4. Why do you have to sit with your legs wide open (I don't spread my arms for my boobs)?

Just the argument “I don’t spread my arms for my boobs” kills every will to respond rationally since it makes it obvious that you do not know what you’re talking about, but here goes: It’s a totally invalid point. You can literally find an experiment (on YouTube) proving that women would “manspreading” too if they had balls. It’s not that we want to point our penises at you all the time. It’s just that it’s the only way we can sit.

In the experiment, a device was attached between women’s thighs and without discussing it any further than “Is it set?” researchers talked with them a bit. At first, they sat through the pain with their legs shut, but the first moment those women got focused on the conversation and forgot about the experiment, they spread their legs to relax.

It really offends nobody.

5. Why are women the weaker sex (if women are the ones who give birth)?

This question sounds like this: Why is the sky blue if I had pizza for dinner yesterday? Women are not as physically strong as men. That's simple statistics and biology. Men are the ones who had to go to wilderness, wars, and dangers so that even entitled ungrateful feminists can eat. Women work soft jobs, and that's why they are the weaker sex. If there really is employment discrimination (there is not by the way), they should take the dangerous jobs and proves us wrong. I don't say women should put themselves in danger since many men's jobs are also not dangerous, but all of the dangerous jobs are mostly filled with men.

6. Are you aware that no means no?

No doesn't mean no, saying that it does is a feminist notion that all men are potential rapists, but teaching men not to rape is just stupid rhetoric. There’s a great Bill Burr speech on this you can find on the Netflix series Paper Tiger with the name “No means no”.

Would you please start arguing with logic and evidence instead of feelings? Contrary to popular belief, more educated women and women with more demanding careers do not have fewer children and are not more likely to remain childless. Boys inherit their general intelligence from their mothers only, while girls inherit their general intelligence from both their mothers and their fathers. So, women influence the general intelligence of future generations very strongly, through their sons and through their paternal granddaughters. (Choosing the right wife is very important!)

Women are the sex that chooses when to engage in intercourse. Men are not. Men would fight for women to not get raped. Even criminals think rape is bad, armed robbers, arsonists, every man I know hates rapists because they don't respect women. And not respecting women on a most basic level is something that less than 0.1 % of men can relate to.

7. Why do men think that women owe them their bodies if men are nice to them?

They don't. And they don't even want most of you. Jesus. They are sometimes nice just for the sake of being nice since men are really simple beings. Sympathetic, mostly. We are humans and we genuinely care about others. You give me a cookie, you get two. I want your cookie, I ask.

8. Do men understand how unemotional they are?

Men are not expected to show feelings. It's considered a sign of weakness. So we lie about them. Women also shoot our feelings down sometimes. "If you were a real man you would..." No woman has ever heard the sentence "If you were a real woman…" because they feel entitled to sympathy and are expected to cry, and men expect to be looked down upon if he shows weakness and male suicide rates reflect that.

In the end, I'm happy to be a man, I don't want to seem like I'm whining. I just wanted to speak about how many things men don't talk about. We just live with it and do our job.

9. Why do men have to prove women their masculinity?

Men could act like men just because they are men. We don’t necessarily want to impress anybody… but it’s true that we do that a lot. The reason for this is the fact that pure boys would do anything for their girls because they don’t see them for physical creatures that they are, but for Godly manifestation of inner and outer beauty. I will talk a lot about this on topic No. 12. For now, just know that we do it with a light heart and in hope of proving ourselves useful and lovable to our crushes.

10. Why is it okay to doubt people who were sexually violated or raped?

Well, maybe that wouldn't be a problem if feminism didn't encourage false rape accusations. Also, men don't doubt women who have been raped. Men doubt women who claimed to be raped until proven right. There is something called "The presumption of innocence" - everybody is innocent until proven guilty. Nobody gets to jail because they are accused of murder, theft, destruction of property, or rape. But, a man who is accused of rape already has his life ruined. He loses his job, relationships, and reputation, while the woman who lied has no consequences whatsoever when it's proven that she lied. (Like many of the stories, there’s a LongBeachGriffy skit about this.)

11. Do guys get tired of trying to be manly all the time?

No, because we don't have to try.

12. Why are men afraid of recognizing their privilege?

It's amazing how people assume there's a privilege without having to define it, but saying it defines men, alongside "Being the same gender as Donald Trump." Why? Is it just because you dislike him? These kinds of arguments kill every will to answer in any way but ridicule. With statements like these, you really shouldn't be able to build a campaign.

Still, since I'm a serious man, I'll make a counterpoint, and make fun of the question later. I'd like to see one legal privilege that women don't have and men do. I can't list many if it's the other way around. Women are more likely to get custody of children, children are more likely to get abused by their mothers, women have more safety nets that help fewer women be homeless, women get less serious sentences for crimes while not being held responsible for lying about rape, women can sue men however they want if they don't want children, or don't want men around children for any (potentially unrelated) reason, so they can opt off parenthood, but men can't. Before arguing that we can keep it in our pants if we don't want to be fathers, you would lose your mind if I said you should keep your legs together if you don't want to be a mother.

Nothing is off-limits. I really think that as a society there shouldn't be a list of appropriate and inappropriate words.

But for the first time in this book, and probably the last - I'll talk a little bit about real feminists. Not this fake liberal but the actually radical feminist extreme left clowns, but real first-wave feminists who just want equality and to help both genders function as a whole. Amongst them, there are two groups. Women like Christina Hoff who understand what is happening with the world gender politics are the first group that I like more. And then we have women who are a bit blinded and sincerely think that for some reason men should get 9 months off when the child is born and that men try too hard due to the patriarchal system.

That's why many men are scared to engage with women and choose to stay alone. That is killing our civilization. Feminists have abused the word rape and now it is losing meaning. The definition is shifting so much that nobody knows what it is anymore.

* * *

The feminist book-burners are cowardly opportunists. If what they object to is the subliminal socialization of women into subservient roles vis-a-vis men, their primary, near-preemptive occupation would have to be a cocktail, romcom, and the vast crypto-pornographic pop literature written for and snapped up by women. After all, gore and violence are derivative: only victims can be victimized in any way.

The masculine spirit is under assault. It's obvious. Here I'd like to make the biggest quotes of Bill Burr, whom I adore. There is so much to hear from this guy and his talk show, interviews, and guest appearances.

"They start talking about domestic violence. For the nine millionth time - just in case you didn't get the memo. Just if you did not know that it is not okay to slam your wife's head into cupboard drawers because she didn't dry the can-opener properly. How do you not know that? Why? Will wife-beaters watch that and come to a logical conclusion? And then we get the famous sentence: There's no reason to hit a woman. Really? I can give you, like, 17 at the top of my head. You can wake me up drunk and stupid and I can still give you at least nine. There's plenty of reason, but you just don't do it. But to suggest that there is no reason? The level of ego behind that statement... What are you, levitating above us, you are never annoying? Women, how often do you think about slapping your man? But you just do not do it. How about this: You marry a girl, you fall in love, you buy a house, you go to work every day, paying off the house and you come home one day and she's banging the next-door neighbor, hands you divorce papers, you have to move out, sleep on a futon and still pay for that house that she's going to stay in. So no reason? I don't say you should do it, but there are reasons. That was hypothetical, but I can give you many real stories." (you can find the whole monologue in "You People Are All The Same" stand-up show.

* * *

So to put it the way Satoshi wrote: Intelligent people are more likely to recognize and develop tastes for things that our ancestors did not have. That includes believing in science, dropping religion, being a left-wing liberal, smoking, drinking, doing drugs, not eating meat, and so on... Not all of those are right, good, correct or the smartest option there is, but we will get to that in the next paragraph. As I like to note, this causes a big domino effect because stupid people are now aware of these facts and want to act smarter than they are. It is fair to say that at this moment, those "smart opinions" are occupied by idiots, so they are not so smart anymore. They are now misunderstood and deformed. Also, some of the effects are not yet proven and demand a little more time, because science has been "denying God" (which I also do not think is really accurate, because neither church nor science denies anyone or anything) for roughly 100 years after Darwin's death, and also most drugs are fairly new and we haven't actually checked if they attract smart people. I think that some other characteristics define the desire for psychedelic substances that are not necessarily related to intelligence.

Many research studies have proven the benefits of marriage. The research by Waite mentions that “the benefits of marriage include: better quality of the marriage relationship of the couple, brings in better health for the two because the relationship in itself allows the two people to grow with better resources and lesser costs of living”. He also claims that “marriage lessens depression and alcohol abuse–better psychological health for both husband and wife”. Moreover, the research shows that the benefits of marriage are not just limited to husband and wife but also to children. Children who grow up with their biological and intact families are well-off because the environment is most suitable for the children’s development.

This isn’t sour grapes. It has never bothered me that some women dislike men, even to the point of having nothing to do with them. I don’t necessarily like most men myself, especially the archetypal “masculine” ones. I can’t help but notice, though, that the vast majority of women feel otherwise.

There’s also a lot of blah-blah going on about porn. Not that I could care less about the porn-for-profit industry, for its “rights” of free speech or property. That is beside the point. Why single out this species of business? To target porn bespeaks planning and priorities, not elemental anticapitalist spontaneity. Those who carry out a calculated policy can’t complain if their reasons are asked for, and questioned. Also, porn popularizes gay culture.

The asserted connection of porn with rape is allegorical, not empirical. If feminism didn’t exist, conservative politicians would have had to invent it. Radical feminism is a ludicrous, hate-filled, authoritarian, sexist, dogmatic construct which revolutionaries accord an unmerited legitimacy by taking it seriously at all. It is time to stop matronizing these terrorists of the trivial and hold them responsible for preaching genocidal jive and practicing every evil (even, if the truth be told, rape!) they insist has been inflicted on them. How to end Femenino-fascism? That’s easy: just take feminists at face value and treat them as equals... then hear them howl.

The dangers to individual privacy and accountability that follow such regulatory intrusions into sexual intimacy between legal adults have been well documented, not the least being the violation of the rights of the accused, who now enter a hearing with a presumption of guilt rather than of innocence. Also problematic is the double standard inherent in such rules, particularly when both accuser and accused are drunk or otherwise incapacitated.

The destructive effects of sex, in this view, were not inherent, but the consequence of repressive social institutions and religious superstition perpetuated by the ignorant and narrow-minded. In the sixties, Cultural Marxism interpreted traditional limits on sexual behavior as the instruments of oppression and conformity, reinforcing the “false consciousness” that perpetuated the ruling class and its power. Breaking sexual taboos and experiencing sexual pleasure thus became acts of liberation, leading to self-fulfillment and personal freedom.

Feminism embraced this notion of sexual liberation. The autonomy of women depended on their casting off the shackles of patriarchal misogyny most evident in male control of women’s sexuality––“our bodies, ourselves” became the battle cry. Women should have the equal power to choose sexual experiences and pleasure, and the unjust double standards that gave men but not women sexual autonomy should be discarded. The biological differences between men and women, especially nature’s subjection of women’s bodies to the relentless imperatives of procreation, were now discarded as arbitrary, unjust impediments to women’s freedom and autonomy. This process was moved along by the new technologies of reliable birth control and accessible and safe abortion.

But nothing infantilizes women more than the sexual codes promulgated by numerous universities. Obviously, sexual assault properly defined is a crime that should be investigated and the guilty punished. But getting drunk and then sleeping with an equally intoxicated partner is not a crime. It’s a learning experience about taking responsibility for one’s actions and practicing the virtues of prudence and self-control.

By criminalizing young adults’ complicated sexual experiences, feminism is betraying its original call for sexual equality and autonomy by making women perpetual victims too weak to be held responsible for their choices, and too incapable of painfully learning from their mistakes and thus developing their characters. At the same time that feminists still call for unlimited sexual freedom, they treat women as Victorian maidens who lack agency and resources of character and thus must be defended against sexual cads and bounders. As the Manhattan Institute’s Heather MacDonald puts it, this “new order is a bizarre hybrid of liberationist and traditionalist values. It carefully preserves the prerogative of no-strings-attached sex while cabining it with legalistic caveats that allow females to revert at will to a stance of offended virtue.”

This strange demand for absolute freedom without responsibility for one’s choices is not just a symptom of feminism. It reaches into our broader culture. It has become the enabler of the entitlement state, which justifies its growing size and regulatory power over people’s lives by promising to protect them not just from the vicissitudes of life, but from the consequences of their own choices, even as they enjoy more freedom to make even more choices. Thus the feminist demand for government-subsidized birth control and abortion is of a piece with government bailouts for homeowners who over-borrowed on the equity of their homes or lied on their mortgage applications. You can say that you are an equality movement, but your actions are pointed towards one gender and completely disregard the issues of the other. It's simple.

DOUBLE STANDARDS:

CLASH OF FREE SPEECH AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

olitical correctness never rears its ugly head independently. It always shows up as a series of actions designed to crush the souls of those blessed with common sense. Just telling the facts is no longer enough. You now have to be persuasive, charismatic, interesting. Just telling people things isn't enough anymore. And a crucial thing to note is that standing up for your beliefs against half of the world is an act of courage and risk.

The worst damage this could do, it could do only to me. I'm not in the business of being 'friendly.' First and foremost, I try to act like a good journalist. My business is the truth. Now, I happen to be other things, too - a pop-culture phenomenon, the most in-demand speaker on the campus lecture circuit, whatever. But I believe in facts.

Of all the threats to free speech in history, the one the media give the most credibility without question is the feminist movement, which is trying to rebrand public debate as harassment. Tiresome.

“I want people to be allowed to make jokes about, and discuss, anything they want. I don’t think people should be ostracized for doing so. Aggressive public displays of virtue are where the morally deplorable hide. I’d prefer a world with no identity politics. I’d prefer we judged people according to reason, logic and evidence instead of barmy left-wing theories about oppression.” – Milo Yiannopoulos

The new brand of political correctness, popular on college campuses and social media, is the idea that no speech should exist that directly challenges politically correct ideas. We have an ethical system. Some of those rules require us to use euphemisms in order not to offend people who come from other cultures. But that is not political correctness. Political correctness is an organized system of lying in order to save people from fairness, equality, and truth. It's what stops police from arresting rape, from reacting to shootings, and stopping any crime.

I want to watch political correctness shrivel up. At some point, it will overload and explode. To a straight man, the notion of walking around as a coiffed, waxed, nail-polish-wearing, lispy dude is uproariously absurd. As people, we find absurdities funny – but it’s not politically correct to laugh at that.

Our first step in making sense of things is humor. Free speech is not just another value on a deathbed, even though it represented the foundation of Western civilization, of which I happen to be a big fan since it fought tyranny and starvation.

"You are confused? Do you know why? Because I'm not the gender studies proficuous caterer to your trigger warning micro-aggression safe space bulls*it." - Steven Crowder.

Freedom of speech and thought matters, especially when it is speech and thought with which we disagree. The moment the majority decides to destroy people for engaging in thought it dislikes thought crime becomes a reality. We have a right, also, in various ways, to act upon our unfavorable opinion of anyone, not to the oppression of his individuality, but in the exercise of ours. If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

The world is going in a direction where comedians have gotten an easier job because their daily life has far surpassed the absurdity of their hypothetical stories. It will stay that way until suddenly they started doing a job unable to talk about politics due to censorship. Left wants to prevent us from laughing. They decide what is okay and draw artificial lines around certain subjects. No one can resist the truth wrapped in a good joke.

Everybody is just trying to do as good as they can and then somebody comes and tells you to stop laughing. Stop joking because it is not okay. As life is not hard enough already.

Many of the basic luxuries we take for granted today like two-day weekends, eight-hour workdays, and basic occupational health and safety, were won by our ancestors and are now our conservative values, so there’s that. And then we have this Liberal logic that someone who isn't Christian might be offended if we say Merry Christmas to them, so we shouldn't say Merry Christmas to anyone. Bizarre! "On campuses, where Liberal softies still rule with an iron fist, feminism is as safe as a city with no women drivers. That is the only thing I support about Saudi Arabia, by the way." - Milo

The term political correctness has infringed on our freedom of speech by assuming that the populace is too ignorant to realize what appropriate speech is. This term is now as common in our society as the term, ‘freedom of speech. It is incomprehensible how these two words have had such an effect on the manner in which our society communicates. The trend casts a negative view on our society by letting political views determine what is appropriate in our social sector. Political correctness, as applied in today’s society, seeks to control freedom of speech and poses a true danger to a free society. The First Amendment’s focus is the protection of our right to express our thoughts through speech, whether written or verbal.

The problem this poses on speech is its lack of regard for common sense, like every other issue in this book. There is a rich historical irony to the fact that today, conservatives are the ones who argue most forcefully that the decisions by private companies to “de-platform” certain speakers threaten what President Donald Trump described in 2020 as the “bedrock” American right to freedom of speech. Until very recently, this was an argument made almost exclusively by those on the left.

The decision by Twitter, Facebook, and a host of other social media outlets to ban Trump from their platforms after the January 6 attack on the Capitol intensified conservatives’ long-standing concerns that the powerful tech industry is violating their free-speech rights. Trump encouraged and amplified these arguments when he issued a (largely symbolic) executive order in May 2020 declaring that “free speech is the bedrock of American democracy,” and insisted that “in a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to handpick the speech that Americans may access and convey.”*

This dramatic shift of American politics suggests that liberals have lost faith in their arguments—above all, at the ballot box. If you hold sway over the media and the academy and yet still fail to convince a majority of voters with your views, suppressing speech that counters those views can start to seem like a constitutional imperative.

And make no mistake: beyond the rough-and-tumble of political campaigns, left-liberals continue to dominate the institutions that set the nation’s political agenda. As the incontrovertible and well-known data show, academics and journalists have, on average, quite liberal opinions; lawyers, too, lean left. The left-wing professors articulate the long-term intellectual goals, which are generally premised on the need for expansive government programs to achieve them. As John Maynard Keynes famously observed, “politicians distill their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.” Newspapers and television news broadcasters then shape the shorter-term political and policy agenda, and—Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and a few other major outlets excepted—they follow the academics’ lead. Most citizens aren’t sufficiently interested or coordinated to get items onto the agenda themselves.

Protecting citizens’ freedom to use their unequal endowments to pursue their disparate interests required the Framers to keep the government out of the job of actively shaping public discourse. And in a free society, what law could succeed in purging elections of the unequal influences of the press, the articulate, the celebrated, the well-connected, or the wealthy? Restricting one group would just magnify the influence of others. The First Amendment, correctly interpreted, tells us not to make such a delusive effort.

The better way to make politics more honest and ensure citizens’ equality before the law is to restrict the actions of government officials, not the speech of citizens.

Why is it considered “liberal” to compel others to say or fund things they don’t believe? The word “liberal” comes from a Latin root that means “free.” And “free” is the keyword in the First Amendment. Liberalism as a philosophy has been captured by a technocratic-managerial-cosmopolitan elite.

Yale Law Professor Stephen Carter’s observation that “every law is violent” because “Behind every exercise of law stands the sheriff.” Carter calls for “a degree of humility” in passing and enforcing laws that compel speech against conscience — something today’s “liberals” seems to have forgotten.

Once upon a time, folks who considered themselves left of the center believed in and practiced free speech and freedom of conscience. They saw these things not only as a fundamental right that transcends politics but also as an effective tool to advance progressive objectives and social justice. They went so far as to fight to allow skinhead gangs to voice their delusions and hate in the public square. They did so not because they agreed with them but because they viewed skinheads’ right to speak and protest — and that of all miscreants, gadflies, cranks, and rabble-rousers, no matter how despicable their beliefs — as integral to the American experiment and way of life. Indeed, as integral to liberalism itself or, at least, as sunlight doing its job as the best disinfectant. In short, what previous generations of liberals understood is that allowing others to say something is not the same thing as endorsing what they say.

The truth is, it’s hard to know. This may be a glorified view of a golden age of free speech and freedom of conscience that may never have existed. Perhaps this is a romanticized view of baby boomers and their hippie culture and values. Maybe it is easy to dismiss what they fought for — sex, drugs, rock ‘n’ roll, and free speech? — with the epithet “OK boomer” because some of these things were wrongheaded? Could it be the only thing this generation deserves credit for is helping end the Vietnam War?

Indeed, maybe those who pine for the heyday of free speech and fulsome expression are on the wrong side of history. Throughout our strange and turbulent story as a species, there have always been taboos against saying, even thinking, certain things, and fully expressing ourselves. We live in societies, and societies sometimes worship sacred cows. They, therefore, enshrine norms to protect their cherished icons — including policing conformity, silencing, shunning, and even permanently ostracizing contrarians, dissenters, and oddballs. Think of Socrates, Jesus, Galileo, and Hester Prynne, of “Scarlet Letter” fame. We can now add comedians Kevin Hart (canceled by the left) and Kathy Griffin (canceled by the right) and even some lowly professors to the list (canceled by both sides). Indeed, the right notoriously called for the firing of “heterodox” professors during the McCarthy era, a threat that became very real with the purging at the University of Washington by President Raymond Allen of three tenured professors accused of harboring communist sympathies.

Yet even if free speech was never an idea that liberals truly lionized, there is mounting evidence that some progressives don’t even recognize it as a legitimate right. There have been concerted campaigns by political activists, intellectuals, and the Twitterati to silence — and, worse, harass, intimidate and destroy — people who say things that are wrong, unscientific, bigoted, hateful, or that are simply insensitive or give aid and comfort to President Donald Trump and Republicans in general.

I hasten to emphasize that this is not simply a problem on the left, as the right’s version of political correctness, rooted in conspiracy theories, gaslighting, scapegoating, and fear-mongering also threatens free speech. Indeed, it is a grievous mistake. The things that the left claims to fight for require free speech and freedom of conscience.

But let’s forget about individuals for a moment and consider what is best for society. Science and progress require openness, curiosity, skepticism, and the articulation and testing of strange, unconventional hypotheses. That means entertaining heterodox ideas in the first place, which means fighting the urge to peremptorily dismiss them when they strike us as odd or threatening.

Both science and liberalism also require intellectual humility. Nobody knows the solution to every problem, and getting to the right answer requires that we create an environment that is conducive to admitting our mistakes and changing our minds. But this requires that we first respect a process by which individuals can reach the wrong conclusions for themselves and correct their mistakes. That means the ability to engage in thought, reflection, and judgment autonomously — again, without coercion. But the original liberalism will never be freed.

There are myriad perverse consequences that emerge when we try to stifle thought and speech. These things that we don’t like to hear about? If we don’t try to solve the fundamental problem behind the speech that we dislike and work only to mitigate the symptom — by censoring it — we drive the problem somewhere else. Out of sight, out of mind, and into the gutter: Untoward ideas silenced by polite society inevitably go underground. They don’t disappear simply because we don’t like them and censor them. Worse, silencing these ideas might mean stifling knowledge about their very existence. That helps make bad ideas fester, spread and mutate before they can be countered with facts, logic, and evidence.

The simple fact of the matter is that censoring speech is a recipe for illiberalism and regression. That is and always has been the reactionary way. Perhaps today’s left wants to make common cause with those who throughout history have used social and political means to eliminate people perceived in their day as heretics. If so, why not just admit it? Alternatively, the left could revitalize its historical commitment to free and open debate.

When you cut out someone's tongue you are not proving you are right. You're just proving you are scared. First, we started with banning extremists such as Nazis, KKK, and other sick people, but as the left has proclaimed to be the main party, the rest of us can also get banned like we are odious people with horrible views. I don't want anyone chased off the internet. I won't even people I hate here to be able to prove them wrong in public. When something is forbidden, it becomes more attractive. There is no bad publicity and writing about a ban is the best promotion and I don't want to give that to anyone.

I want people to be allowed to make jokes about, and discuss, anything they want. I don’t think people should be ostracized for doing so.

Real violence? What violence? Word can't punch you in the face with a baseball bat. But it is violence when somebody tries to physically stop Ben Shapiro's lecture, right? It's such a problem for them to find somebody with a different opinion.

Guess what, your feeling don't have a right. Have they even heard of free speech? It's a concept that gives even fools such as themselves a chance to speak.

Social media is currently purging free speech. They provide zero examples of what is the problem when banning some of their users for their "hateful words", really just an unspecified non-existent "hate speech". Now, you can argue about Facebook and others being "private companies that can ban whoever they like", but that is not really true. They are a monopoly, international firms, conglomerate companies that monopolize free speech and works directly with institutions of media. CNN is lobbying its competitors shut while whining about freedom of the press. Those bullies make cultural imperialism. A handful of far-left hysterical paranoid people that use political censorship.

The first amendment is dead. We gave up on that in the name of political correctness and politeness. We now have a reign of sensitivity where anything potentially offensive must not happen. But hey, at least you have freedom of religion? No, not really. You get called out for believing in biblical views of homosexuality.

Hate speech has a very fluid definition. Sometimes it is saying that biology defines gender, sometimes its Nazistic monologues. But we still cannot ban people based on our likings.

Empathy is dumb. We all have it. But you shouldn't make policy on the basis of who do you like, care about, and can empathize with. If you did that, you'd take away all my belongings and give them to your family right? Because you like them more. So if you have sympathy you feel bad for someone. If you have empathy you can't look at things objectively.

Behaviour is more of an ethical code than feelings or thoughts. Nobody cares about how I feel about something. The only important thing is what I do about it. So, compassion is important, but the way we act around it is more important.

What's next? Will our fridges be locked closed if we don't agree with the "correct political views"?

In conclusion: the Left loves free speech. But only of those who think the same as them. If that's not the case they wait for the first chance to instantly pull out the misogynist, islamophobe, homophobe, white supremacist, and male privilege cards. The fact of the matter is, you either oppose something or accept it completely.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAWSUIT DIVERSION CAMPAIGN AND “BEING NOBLE”

t is no secret that the environmental movement is ultimately designed to create new inroads into increased government control. All of the shots taken at emissions, the dependence on fossil fuels, and noise pollution are designed to paint those things as symptoms of a problem, with the government able to step in as the solution.

P. J. Watson sent a tweet criticizing the alleged hypocrisy of Bill Gates’ advocacy for the consumption of lab-grown meat. He stated: “Bill Gates saying western countries should switch to “100% synthetic beef” while himself being a vociferous carnivore and admitting his favorite food is hamburgers.” “You'll be eating the 3D printed plastic meat, not him and his Davos friends”, Paul Added.

Bill Gates says, among other things, that “cows are one of the main methane producers” and that “cow farts are a serious issue damaging our stratosphere”. Now, I’m no scientist, but I highly doubt that cow farts are more of a danger than factories and engines.

Giant banks, corporations, and the entire mainstream media have the backs of climate change hysteria preachers, and that sole fact should be enough to start doubting it since you should find in history books that it rarely occurs that people in power want to help other people. It’s not that they want to destroy us, it’s just that they want more power.

Environmentalists even suggested that we should have fewer children, which is extremely brutal and goes towards the same point with the other topics such as feminism destroying intergender relationships which immediately makes the number of children drop, the destruction of the traditional family, fall of the concept of evolutionary feminine and masculine alongside the (9th topic) the total loss of authenticity. Disgusting.

Global warming alarmists believe the weather has nothing to do with climate change unless they can use it for profit and support their claims. It’s just a bowel movement of an ox not-so-well-masked to appear as art.

Moreover, for all its negative connotations, propaganda is often defined as a value-neutral term, referring simply to communication that seeks to influence its audience or further an agenda. Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove, alongside Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita and many politically active comics, seemed like all the evidence I needed that art and propaganda were not mutually exclusive categories. Great works of art could also be designed to influence public opinion. In a world badly in need of many new carbon dioxide-absorbing shoots, or propagators, making climate propaganda seemed particularly apt.

Pollution, on the other hand, is not a war and it is not an economic depression, though it will likely precipitate in both. Nevertheless, it will fundamentally alter our societies in ways that resemble changes wrought during wartime and after the economic collapse. So, we should be careful with our resources.

No propaganda can be explicit enough to make a Saudi oil company prince even take interest in your performance. Environmental disaster? War crime? Ecological terrorism? A polarised and omnipresent social media is turbocharging the manipulation of environmental information during conflicts. While the use of environmental information for propaganda purposes isn’t new, what is new is the pace and volume of claims.

There will always be uncertainty, ignorance, and confusion in our minds, but when conflicts take place, information that is available will invariably be incomplete, and inadequate to conclusively determine the extent of any harm, or who was responsible. Why? Well, it’s hard to tell, but probably due to exaggeration, lies, and censorship from one or both sides of a conflict. So, we should continue our ways knowing that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It lies somewhere in between. The golden middle.

So, since people tend to selectively choose facts to obtain political gain, with the opinion of “we will all die in a few years due to climate change caused by pollution and inadequate use of natural resources” and “We fine, bro. You trippin’.” - the probable result is: we are doing a bad job keeping this planet clean, but there’s are some solid arguments that there’s something I could only label as “oscillatory weather change periods” which looks like a sinus and we are reaching the 100% warmth, so soon it will start to go down.

It will come as no surprise that everything becomes politicized in the context of conflicts, and the environment is no exception. This politicization ensures that the selective framing of environmental damage as a political tool by states and other actors is commonplace. While at times this may be unconscious, more often than not it is purposeful; often taking the form of criticism by one party of the actions of another, to distract or deflect attention from their own conduct.

The complexity of de-escalating conflicts, and building and sustaining peace, means that the international community needs all the tools at its disposal to do so. Environmental cooperation over common risks has the potential to be a powerful vehicle for peacebuilding but this is contingent on building trust between parties. Weaponising environmental information, or allowing it to become so, makes building trust more difficult. The practice also has implications for the protection of people and ecosystems. Deliberate misinformation, or the sensationalizing of information, can serve as a distraction that slows or confuses responses to harm. It can undermine the credibility of future warnings or, by promoting simplistic narratives, obscure more complex but no less important relationships that degrade the environment and contribute to human suffering during conflicts.

The increasing extent to which environmental information is being weaponized in conflict settings presents challenges on several levels. Most fundamentally, inaccurate or misleading information becomes yet another weapon in “this twittering world” of digital propaganda warfare. By polarising debate and building mistrust, it can prevent the utilization of the environment as a tool for cooperation and building peace. And, when distortions slowly become accepted as fact, they can be followed by misguided policy-making and responses, detracting from the measures necessary to mitigate environmental risks and protect civilians.

A concerted effort to address the weaponization of environmental information would also confer other benefits. It would help raise the profile of the environmental consequences of conflicts and improve responses. It would help inform more effective policy-making. And it could ultimately help reduce harm by increasing transparency and accountability. In that respect, the only thing we have to lose is the information war itself.

Leonardo DiCaprio is a great actor and an idiot. And not just an uneducated stud. He's a contradictory hypocrite talking about the environment and climate change while going around in private jets and yachts that use more fuel than 100 regular households in a year. That's like claiming to be a monk while driving a Ferrari. Actors are too occupied with work to have time for politics, and that's why they should avoid it on the whole.

The problem with worshiping celebrities is that you don't know them. You can adore someone you know. I like Robert DeNiro, for example, but I don't know what kind of person he is because that is configurable by watching his media personality. I think he's a great actor, he might be a genuine person, but for all I know, he could be an ax murderer. When you like someone in that matter, you should focus on their work and not try setting them up as some kind of an ideal.

Also, they get into politics, but I don't care about that. I look up to them for the things they are good at. But, actors tend to speak about things they don't know enough about and that is dangerous considering their influence on people. It's becoming common for teenagers (50%) to think they will be celebrities, out of which a large majority (70%) don't know how they will achieve it.

You're much more effective in advocating for your values if you fight through art because that is what touches people. If you tell them stories instead of blabbering about politics or engaging someone who is a musician, you can shape their views easier.

Being a global superstar is imperative to being a political prostitute to the establishment. You can only express views that are in sync with the authorities. The manifestation of anti-intellectual vulgarity is growing stronger and rational people cannot be ready to embrace and preserve those unhealthy radical views.

There is nothing morally wrong in you consuming products bought with your own money and yes people should give more money to charity. You're not a bad person if you have an expensive car. You are a bad person if you stole a car. You don't have to give money to charity. I think we should all do, but you shouldn't have to. If you employ people you've done some good and you can do whatever you want with the money you earned. Charity actually does less for the world than a free market. Someone like Elon Musk does good by creating thousands of jobs.

I feel like an aristocracy in the 1930s debating over the negative effects of an average uneducated man being able to vote. The chance to choose is a blessing by itself but every choice has a societal, historic, and cultural background. It’s important to look at the surrounding alongside a choice we have to make. Seatbelts have saved millions of lives, yet when they were first implemented it was considered a violation of personal space. It's important to differentiate a smart choice from a right choice. The view from the foothill is not the same as the view from the top of the mountain. That's natural, but we need to look through it.

It’s always easy to turn your back to capitalism and proclaim that all successful people are monsters, but that’s ultimately not self-reliable. It’s popular these days to talk about “victim-blaming” instead of self-protection.

The truth is, you don’t even have to read philosophical literature like Confucius or even Hesse to realize these things. You don’t even have to read regular literature like Dickens, Hugo, or Beckett. You just need to look around. An episode of a cartoon series Family Guy has episodes where they mock the stupidity on which we rely. A cartoon. So, it’s enough to watch TV to realize what’s happening around you. Seth MacFarlane, being the genius he is, presented some of the most exquisite work of 21st century animated programs, so that we can have episodes that teach us about absurdities of modern and conceptual art, race division, feminism, gender studies, rape, corruption, abuse of technology, middle-life crisis, crazies of puberty, relationships and God. 20 minutes an episode, we get soaked in cultural references and introduced to art classics and their creators. As the attention span is decreasing, some people seem to be finding new ways to teach us about important figures and events in fields of science, politics, and art throughout history. So, while staring at your favorite screen, it’s easier and easier to get to do something useful and productive. If you’re procrastinating and wasting your time, at least do it in style. Don’t allow yourself to realize, in a few years, that you’ve been in the same place all that time.

THE CITY OF ANGELS K.O.-s OUR FAITH

iblical stories are at the base of our culture. Our ancestors who managed to survive conditions that would've been difficult for a lot of us now wanted us to remember those stories, so we should give them a benefit of the doubt. It's not easy to accept or understand something like that in modern society, but let’s give it a try, shall we?

In the story of the tree of good and evil, Adam and Eve realized they were naked in a sense that they understood their transience and mortality, thus becoming a subject of humiliation and judgment. That was the ultimate source of shame – as I said, a legit emotion that we shouldn’t avoid now that we know it – and a sudden lack of self-sufficiency. Realizing that consciousness enables us to do horrible things and hurt intentionally. So the world was no longer just sunshine and rainbows, it was an ethical problem at the time where something like ethics did not exist.

Nowadays, there is a crisis of religious loss. Prosper is dead. There is less material to provide meaning. We can't seek meaning in a new quiz on Facebook. There is no transcendent truth, but the one inside you, and the truth is that we suck at finding purpose.

There are always your feelings, and facts that come from a higher place. When you want to make this world "a kingdom of science and math without any sky fairies" you actually create an endless hole of desire for something transcendent and infinite. Education has always been set up so that it fights ignorance by pointing out all the greatness that God has given us.

Now, God is being systematically discharged and removed, later replaced by atheism first, then by satanism. Society interactions have become prosecution of God by the witchcraft gang. We have Satanic Temple, which is a highly political group that supports the left, and the Church of Satan which just uses the visuals of the devil to get attention to their existential "hey, look at me, I'm smart!" standpoint. (They sometimes are smart, actually.)

Of course, the center of insanity and the nest of modernity is in the overpopulated cities, while the brain is much more of common human quality in the countryside. The more people, the more schizophrenia. They are the late-stage capitalism's visceral disregard for the quality of life due to an increase of stress and a large number of a criminally prone underclass that does large amounts of property damage, drug abuse, and public assaults. They are not conforming to the rules.

I mean, Hollywood, it’s okay, we get it. The Christian faith just doesn't work for you in the long run. However, for a large percentage of this country (the same country that makes you millions of dollars), it still does. So please, for all of our sakes, keep your beliefs to yourself and just stop the hate. Preaching Christian salvation is to preach moral absolutes - Hollywood does not like that. Liberals in Hollywood can't stand when Americans resonate with conservatives on television.

Every time you get to know, or at least learn a little bit about a religion that somebody is trying to oppress, it's extremely valuable for your understanding of cultural history. You instantly understand why it is a threat to the corrupt system and on the other hand, why some people chose to follow that path. It is possible to take the story of Noah figuratively, although virtually every Near East ancient civilization has its own version of the flood story (including the Epic of Gilgamesh), so the probability that it happened is pretty good.

Listen, one doesn't need to be religious (nor smart) to see the value of abstinence. Whether you see Jesus as nothing more than a mythical figure or not, there's no doubt that living your life in a Christ-like manner is a lot harder than the hedonistic lifestyle reflected in Hollywood. Even though ripping apart those of the Christian cloth is nothing new, edgy, or thought-provoking, Hollywood feels the need to do it with each of their religiously overtoned talks.

The Left masks its distaste for the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality in a straw man argument that Bible believers are violent narrow-minded fools. They are not. Citing the Bible doesn't make you devolve.

Selective Biblical quotation is a favorite of leftists who interpret the Bible the same way they do the Constitution: as a Chinese menu designed to allow picking one out of a hundred related things. They despise the Bible.

I believe there’s a quote saying: “I still can't decide which is silliest; a person believing in a God who 'isn't there,' or a person offended by a God whom he doesn't believe exists.” Real or not, when a person denies God, they often try and fill that higher power void with something else. I think that if every Christian acted like Christ, the world would be a better place. (Also, if every Muslim acted like Muhammad, according to modern law, they would have to be jailed.)

To me, any ideology is corrupt; it's a parasite on religious structures. To be an ideologue is to have all of the terrible things that are associated with religious certainty and none of the utility. If you're an ideologue, you believe everything that you think. If you're religious, there's a mystery left there. Humans are religious beings, no matter who tries to say the opposite.

Socialism violates at least three of the Ten Commandments: It turns government into God, it legalizes thievery and it elevates covetousness. Discussions of income inequality, after all, aren't about prosperity but about petty spite. Why should you care how much money I make, so long as you are happy?

In acknowledging that most Americans have become less religious, a trend that is likely to continue, the majority of the authors argue that Americans are still more religious than any other developed nation. The discussion spawns new frontiers where the authors delve into the issue of internal wrangles within and among churches, which continue to depict an institution that is losing its vitality day by day.

Interestingly, Americans have not lost touch with Christianity completely. The intellectuals had argued that science, modernization, urbanization, and rationalism would take the place of overall religion, which includes Christianity, in organizing the world.

Other factors that may have led to Christianity decline are liberalism, the independent college life since colleges are the churches of atheism, availability of scientific explanations to the existence of the world, and some level of confusion, which are also factors that have contributed to the decline according to the contributors.

Americans are waiting for justification of atheism (for example a sitting atheist president) and this will undermine Christianity in America further down, or directly to the bottom. Some believers are too strict towards teenagers, so they think religion is about obstruction.

There’s constant internal wrangling between different jurisdictions and incessant power struggles motivated by ideological affiliations as the main causes of consternation in the church. This breeds hatred and divisions and alienates the church from the core purpose of spreading unity and love, which makes people develop a bad attitude towards Christianity.

This is a classical representation of an institution whose structures continue to crumble. The church was an organized institution, which would shape political decisions, legal, and constitutional changes. As time has gone by, greed and competition within and among the churches continue to undermine this authority.

The church is in an interesting moment of history. Its prerogatives, for some reason, get on people's nerves. People claiming no religion in the United States have doubled in the last three decades.

There’s an increase in secularism and anti-Semitism. It’s only fair to say that the more time you put into learning, there’s less chance you’ll change your mind. You won’t just scratch everything and say “My life was a waste.”

Experts remain tongue-tied when it comes to this and many other things, including the fact that some nations are led by mentally deranged people.

There was a notable trend across America that shows that the ‘unaffiliated’ individuals were increasing. Now, it is not often that I find myself in a room full of people who are more or less guaranteed to agree with me on the subject of religion, but it just so happens that religion has more than its fair share of bad ideas.

The problem is that the concept of atheism imposes upon us a false burden of remaining fixated on people’s beliefs about God and remaining even-handed in our treatment of religion. People’s core religious beliefs and faith itself should be left alone. Nobody can have a knockdown argument against nor to support God, but the same way I presume innocence, I presume creation.

Of course, as an argument for the truth of any specific religious doctrine, this is a travesty. We have Russell’s teapot and thousands of dead gods, flying spaghetti monster, big green goo alien god, prophets, reptiles and it’s getting out of control. This is for some reason a place where I go with the gut, rather than reason and evidence. The more I look into it, the more I feel like the world is making me believe. “Non-euclidean mathematics and genetics are just too much to be acquired by a spontaneous cosmic burst.” That’s just a thought I had and that I want to believe, and in the end, that’s just what faith is about.

But the truth is that there are very few people, even among religious fundamentalists, who will happily admit to being enemies of reason. In fact, fundamentalists tend to think they are champions of reason and that they have very good reasons for believing in God. The fact that people don’t want to admit that is also contradictory, because religion and faith were never based on reason in the first place. Nobody wants to believe things on bad evidence. But the general arguments against God are also very poor. “Bad things happening in the world” and “You’ve never seen him” are just so easily beatable.

In an episode of Family Guy, there’s a quote saying “Some people just must believe in God in order to act better.” It’s as simple as that. God is not a nuisance to anyone who acts in their best manner. The concept is similar to the concept of love. Faith and love cannot be explained and shouldn’t be exiled. What bad has God done to you? Just leave religion be. Either way, it does good things. No kind of Don Quixote would ever fight against people’s good-hearted beliefs.

Of course, humans being limited beings that they are, found a way to demonize both faith (with made-up religions and wars) and love (with non-existing genders and pedophilia), but when you check the odds, God’s still done us good.

First, let me describe the general phenomenon I’m referring to. Humans of whatever culture begin to notice that life is difficult. They observe it even in the best of times. No one died, there are no armies marching in the distance, the fridge is full, the weather is okay – but we are perpetually on the move, seeking happiness we can’t get to know how to reach. Then, we find temporary relief.

Feelings of accomplishment remain vivid for a while until we start getting the same old question: What’s next? Nobody was assuming that Tesla was done with inventing when he discovered a lightbulb, even though it was more than average man contributes in a lifetime. Whether you are a revolutionary figure in humanity or a hotel cleaner, people will constantly expect more from you and you know it.

Even when everything has gone as well as it can go, the search for happiness continues, the effort required in order to keep being in doubt, dissatisfaction, and boredom at bay continue. If nothing else, the reality of death and the experience of losing loved ones puncture even the most gratifying and well-ordered life.

This question, I think, lies at the periphery of everyone’s consciousness. We are all, in some sense, living our answers, repeating our pleasures, and avoiding pains; there is nothing more profound than seeking satisfaction. Now, this is the only point of common ground I hold with Sam Harris, a man I respect very much but agree on a bare minimum, so if you are an atheist – you should see what he has to say (if you already did not). As a natural follow-up of the “seeling satisfaction” part, he continued to explain how people want to be bigger than they are by believing they are a creation of a higher being and there’s more to life than avoiding misery. He went on to mention monks and pilgrimage, being alone, searching for meaning – to him, all of that is absurd as it’s not realistic to expect to convince yourself you have no more goals in life. I present you a few of his consecutive paragraphs:

“Touche! Now let me just assert. Leaving aside all the metaphysics and mythology and mumbo jumbo, what contemplatives and mystics over the millennia claim to have discovered is that there is an alternative to merely living at the mercy of the next neurotic thought that comes careening into consciousness. There is an alternative to being continuously spellbound by the conversation we are having with ourselves.

Most of us think that if a person is walking down the street talking to himself—that is, not able to censor himself in front of other people—he’s probably mentally ill. But if we talk to ourselves all day long silently—thinking, thinking, thinking, rehearsing prior conversations, thinking about what we said, what we didn’t say, what we should have said, jabbering on to ourselves about what we hope is going to happen, what just happened, what almost happened, what should have happened, what may yet happen—but we just know enough to just keep this conversation private, this is perfectly normal. This is perfectly compatible with sanity. Well, this is not what the experience of millions of contemplatives suggests.”

Pretty good, right? But, one problem with atheism is that it seems more or less synonymous with genuinely not being interested in what someone like Buddha or Jesus may have experienced. I see no reason to refuse it, it’s pretty good literature even if you see it as a myth.

As someone who has made his own modest efforts in this area, let me assure you, introspection just gets you to see the plasticity and sickness of the human mind, so people are afraid of it. It is probably easier to go there if you think no God will ever judge you.

So, apart from just commending these phenomena to your attention, I’d like to point out atheists’ tiresome insistence that they are being oppressed. First off, there’s atheist victimology: Boohoo, everybody hates us ‘cuz we don’t believe in God. That might’ve been the case before communism took its toll, but not anymore.

Maybe atheists wouldn’t be so unpopular if they stopped beating the drum until the hide splits on their second-favorite topic: Why are believers so stupid? Dawkins described religious believers as follows: “They feel uneducated, which they are; often rather stupid, which they are; inferior, which they are; and paranoid about pointy-headed intellectuals from the East Coast looking down on them, which, with some justification, they do.” Good boy, Richard. Now go to a retirement home already. Jesus, do I get annoyed by these comments? People like this become a reason for other people to do bad things, hate, and pursue extremist ideologies in the name of religion (which is also a great sin).

Dennett likes to call atheists “the Brights,” I suppose everybody else, is not so bright, Hawking, Pupin, Einstein (now there is propaganda that none of them believed in God, but you can literally find their books published pre-communism, you’ll see paragraphs devoted to God). Dennett, after his heart operation, when his friends told him they were praying for his recovery wrote the following: “Thanks, I appreciate it, but did you also sacrifice a goat?” Better to have no friends, than friends like this guy.

Also, calling believers imbeciles or looney is not going to help. At the American Atheists website, a writer complains that God “set up” Adam and Eve, knowing in advance that they would eat the forbidden fruit. That motherlover has literally been going through the Bible chapter by chapter and verse by verse in order to prove its “insanity”. As you see, I too have gone through a wide variety of non-believer literature, but as to go that far to read big books just to prove it wrong sentence by sentence – that’s just insane. Even if I read it, I do so to find good points, which I did, not to hate – I leave that to them.

Another topic that atheists shove in your face like breaking new is Darwinism versus creationism. Maybe Darwinomania will lose its power with time, but haven’t atheists heard that many religious people (including the late Pope John Paul II) don’t have a problem with evolution but, rather, regard it as God’s way of letting his living creation unfold? I’ve studied Darwin's work for some time. He was an interesting man, deeply religious, he had some priests in his family and he wrote letters to fellow scientists regarding his new work and some still unexplainable fast development of certain types of plants, suggesting that his work is incomplete and that the civilization is “still not ready to reveal the ways of God.” This is official documentation that can be found in a museum.

And then there’s the question of why atheists are so intent on trying to prove that God not only doesn’t exist but is evil to boot (which is highly contradictory, because he can either be evil or not exist, not both). Dawkins, writing in “The God Delusion,” accuses the deity of being a “petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak” as well as a “misogynistic, homophobic, racist ... bully.” If there is no God -- and you’d be way beyond stupid to think differently -- why does it matter whether he’s good or evil? Atheists were always liberal, but as there are these neo-liberal people, there’s also a neo-atheist movement of rudeness and hate. Someone who for no reason insults people who have in no way offended anyone, such as they do, cannot be taken seriously.

The problem with atheists -- and what makes them such excruciating snoozes is that few of them are interested in making serious metaphysical or epistemological arguments against God’s existence, or in taking on the serious arguments that theologians have made attempting to reconcile, say, God’s omniscience with free will or God’s goodness with human suffering. Atheists seem to assume that the whole idea of God is a ridiculous absurdity, the worthy only of their typically lame jokes. They think that lobbing a few Gaza-style rockets accusing God of failing to create a world more to their liking (“If there’s a God, why aren’t I rich?” “If there’s a God, why didn’t he give me two heads so I could sleep with one head while I get some work done with the other?”) will suffice to knock down the entire edifice of belief.

The four horsemen of atheism: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens unleashed their anti-religious beast and their work is certainly not un-recommendable. It’s not Bertrand Russel (actually it’s far from Bertrand), but some of it is well done. Dawkins is the worst by far. He’s a big old baby with almost limited cognitive ability and no will to take something seriously whatsoever. Dennett is also very immature. Hitchens is somewhere in the middle, but I can say that – if you read Sam Harris and put your ego aside, not take it as a personal insult – he’s based on fair points.

As the posters on the sides of British buses rather simplistically put it, "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." God's non-existence is a fact atheist live with, not something that they should obsessively read about. There’s just an irritating general tone and direction the new atheism they represent has adopted.

But! The absence of higher power will rapidly lead to the presence of bigger evil. Imagine for one moment that atheism triumphs and belief in God is eradicated. On the view that atheism needs religion, then this victory would also be atheism's extinction. This is absurd.

As many like to remind us, the concept of “I do not believe in God” relies only on God. You are positioning yourselves negatively towards the idea of God. So in every human being, there is an idea of the existence of something bigger than ourselves. You can neglect it, but you can’t destroy it.

So, the prefix “a-” with the same meaning of prefixes such as non-, dis-, un- (meaning “absence of something”) has taken the meaning of anti- in this case (meaning opposed, against, etc.) This anti-theism is for me a backward step. It reinforces what I believe is a myth, that an atheist without a bishop to bash is like a fish without water. Worse, it raises the possibility that as a matter of fact, many atheists, do indeed need an enemy to give them their identity.

The second feature of atheism is that it is committed to the appropriate use of reason and evidence. In order to occupy this intellectual high ground, it is important to recognize the limits of reason, and also to acknowledge that atheists have no monopoly on it. The new atheism, however, tends to claim reason as a decisive combatant on its side only. With its talk of "spells" and "delusions", it gives the impression that only through stupidity or crass disregard for reason could anyone be anything other than an atheist. "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence," says Dawkins, once again implying that reason and evidence are strangers to religion. This is arrogant and attributes to reason a power it does not have.

This is most evident when you consider the poverty of the new atheism's "error theory", which is needed to explain why, if atheism is indeed the view evidence and reason demands, so many very bright people are still religious. The usual answers given to this are not good enough. They tend to stress psychological blind spots and wishful thinking. For instance, Dawkins says "the meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry."

The thing that gives me the urge to beat it out of people is the need to disrespect different thoughts out of blue. If you are really smart, you don’t have to tell people everybody else is stupid. If a product is really the best one in its category (on the market), people will see it and it will not need costly marketing strategies, otherwise, the words won’t cover its imperfections.

But if very intelligent people are so easily led astray, then shouldn't the new atheists themselves be more skeptical about the role reason plays in their own belief formation? You cannot, on the one hand, put forward a view that says great intelligence is easily overridden by psychological delusions and, on the other, claim that one unique group of people can see clearly what reason demands and free themselves from such grips. Either many religious people are not as irrational as they seem, or atheists are not entitled to assume they are as rational as they seem to themselves due to what seems to be high, but is generally very low – the achievements of overall science so far.

The practices of religion may be more important than the narratives, even if people believe those narratives to be true. When people think of atheists now, they think about men who look only to science for answers, are dismissive of religion, and are overconfident in their own rightness. Richard Dawkins, for example, presented a television program on religion called The Root of all Evil and has as his website slogan "A clear-thinking oasis". Where is the balance and modesty in such rhetoric?

Liberals merely provide cover for the extremists. They argue saying that talking to democratic socialists only encourages the communists, or that letting an extremist speak ultimately gives value and recognition to extremist beliefs. That’s very unpersuasive. The more we oppress free speech, the more ideas like Nazism will rise. Sure, if we put them on TV there will be some labile people who will admit to those beliefs, but at least we will know how things are really going. On the other hand, if we shut them down, it’s like sanctions or a social media ban – it just brings an enormous advertisement option, titled “They don’t want you to know the truth, so they censored my words!”

It might sound strange to say that atheism destroys science. Indeed, many will laugh merely upon reading the heading of that sort. While it may seem to many that atheism leads to science and moral progress, rather than upholding science, atheism destroys the foundations that underline science. It degrades humanity and inevitably leads to moral decay. An atheist has no choice but to accept and adapt to the post-modern world.

Most of the scientists of the early modern era were Christians because their faith in God led them to expect order and stability in the universe. My belief that life is a gift from God gives me sufficient ground to trust we were also given rationality to explore and understand this space we’re privileged to call home.

While the previous paragraph may be an egocentric view of the universe, I find it more trustworthy than an opinion stating we are a mere cosmic accident. That thought makes atheism a depressive ideology and brings us to an interesting turn of events. Science is limited, as I said, but I still find it amusing and this one story of God may be the only reality that differs from the rest of the mythological beings we used to explain all parts that science lacked because this one gets along with it.

Now, returning to claims that “Life is a gift made so we can explore the universe” is egoistic. Isn’t it more egoistic to think that your ability to reason and operate is large enough to know exactly what happened so that you can exist and where are you? That’s why it’s called belief. I don’t know if God made me. But I believe so. I don’t fall into any kind of quandary there. If you admit that and just take it for what it is, you cannot call out one of the most sensitive topics there is and say it’s artificial superstitious blah-blah nor will I say that you are a skeptic self-centered bore.

After all, if we are in the Matrix, chances are we wouldn’t know. I’m serious. We may be. Maybe it’s not just that there’s no God, but many of us can be AI in a Matrix or a human inside a cell. Air’s not real, nothing is real. Or maybe we are real, but there is nothing coming after we die. Maybe it’s dark for eternity, then we have 70 years approximately to live, then we return to darkness. It’s natural to find a distant constellation that you believe denies that, because if it was like that, there’d be no point to ever be motivated to do anything. We could all just die this instant. It’s easier to think that at some point, there will be some bearded middle-aged man descending from heaven and granting us eternal life. (I found out there’s a similar point made by Bertrand Russel – it’s easier to think eternal life will be granted. He made a counterargument, which I will paraphrase, that we don’t really care what will happen far after we die, so the infinite disasters don’t tangle up with our daily schedule very much. I agree, but I think it’s just because we repress them, not because we truly don’t care. So it’s the same way with death. All of us find it dreadful, we just try to remember it as rarely as we can.)

Now, as Kant said, we all have basic moral instincts. From a Christian point of view, I believe that God is perfect and he gives us a basic knowledge of what is right and wrong so that we can try to live up to that and find God as the ultimate ethical ideal. Christians need to justify what’s written in the Bible and start acting accordingly. From an atheist view, there’s no moral objection to reach out to and morality is subjective – there’s the law and there’s your thought, nothing else. Of course, Kant fights to prove that there’s inner good in all of us and that “stars above us and ethic code within” are all we need. But it’s not. Do you think that Ted Bundy is much of a religious man? No. The same way people need laws, they need a religion, because laws can’t be based on changing your attitude for the better in hope of enlightenment.

The atheists certainly have a sense of morality. The problem, rather, is that their metaphysical worldview cripples them from having an objective foundation for their morality. The reason for that is the fact that everything is fundamentally meaningless to them, and seeing some great minds being attracted to that standpoint, I can’t help but respect it., even though it upsets me and brings despair to a certain degree and even though it seems to me like they are stuck to the ground blindfolded not seeing the basic instinct – that there’s something divine in the stars.

The descendant of a monkey made haphazardly is a little bit of degradation compared to being a child of God. We can argue that today's Western World is an example of men's inability to sustain morals without a God. Most respected atheists don’t fight for the rights of the unborn and many other seemingly unrelatable issues.

Also, I’m not saying you need to fear punishment in order to behave. Good should be sought for its own sake, rather than because of fear, but some people find it easier to be scared than humbled.

A lack of religious affiliation has profound effects on how people think about death, how they teach their kids, and even how they vote. (You can watch “The Story of God” with Morgan Freeman for more about how different religions understand God and creation.)

Millennials think they are smart if they say no to God (due to the domino effect caused by knowing the fact that smart people take liberal standpoints). Their environment is unaffiliated. Now, Is God Dead? No. He is not and he can’t be. Religion will always be relevant to life in the post-atomic age, even after communism. But now, instead of uniting because of their beliefs, people are dividing because of disbelief.

Now it’s common to associate God with laziness, uneducated and poor people. The puzzle is how this perception could have gained ground, especially in light of the facts mentioned in the opening paragraph, and the relatively anodyne temper of the new atheism, historically speaking. The next paragraph, it’s going to get highly theological and philosophical.

Man, as an intelligent being, is capable of being the bearer of morality because he has consciousness. He does not act only according to instinct, but always follows some goal and purpose, and he knows what he wants. Therefore, a person can always overcome the basic needs, which refer only to personal interests and move towards the interest of the community. We are not alone in society and the world, we are members of that community, so in order to survive - we need to belong to it. Good should be a moral law in all of us when we act in such a way that we do not expect anything in return but wish for the common good. With such a goal and purpose, it can be said that we are traveling to a new level of spirituality because we are not traders - we use categorical imperatives, we point to the existence of a universal principle. Obedience to the law which we have ascribed to ourselves is freedom.

Latent despotism is present almost everywhere, under democracy, liberalism, and everyday life, and we live by the laws that we say apply to all but us, the exceptions. Morality is a commandment of the soul, which we do not have to obey, but then we move away from ennoblement. Man, first of all, needs a path towards himself, and then towards others.

We need reconstruction because we are stuck. We can no longer seek goodness and love anywhere but within ourselves in the beginning. We have to stand on our own two feet, or as Hegel would say, on our own head, to build a new and better world. We build our lives by overcoming capitalism, imperialism, or any other obstacle that man has been forced to create. We need a revolution of the spirit. The more we progress, the more we will realize that our fears, condemnations, dissatisfaction, come from ourselves and we will realize that we are on the right course. The reason is an incredible privilege, but an instinct that cannot give us an answer as reason logically does can give something else. We are capable of building a world based on ethics and aesthetics.

Kant presented the only two things that are clearly eternal in our field of vision, which will fulfill us more and more, the more we look at them. 'Well, if questioning the existence of God would make old Lampe unhappy, then let the practical mind guarantee his existence…' (Critique of Practical Mind) Something like Tolstoy, where in the middle of Anna Karenina we see the simplicity of the view on God, precisely because the peasant does not bring excessive re-examination and doubt into his mind, so he finds ease in living. We need to remember these two sayings: 'Do good, not evil' and 'If someone needs to suffer, don't let the punishment come out of your hands' (according to the cosmic laws or “Cosmic Justice” as Tesla called it, everybody pays even without your interference). We are not judges and we should not take revenge, revenge is God's and God’s only.

That is why we should live honorably. Everyone has a shot at that and a choice, so let them choose and live as they want, without prompting. It is up to us to set an example. According to Christ, there is no place for anything else. That is why we follow Serbian writer Jovan Ducic:

"Our hatred harms us more than our adversary. You speak ill of a man for half an hour - and you are unhappy and poisonous afterward, and you speak well of him for half an hour, even when he does not deserve it, and you will be calm and blissful, even proud of the beauty of your feelings, or at least the beauty of your words. ”

Of course, no matter how committed we are, we will not always be able to obey our moral system, to always tell the truth, or to always respect the elderly, because modern life requires other values, but we still have enough space to mostly follow our inner voices. Maybe it sounds naive and immature, but it is indisputably healthy. Believers always strive to connect their ethical systems with religion.

If we are on the wrong path, every religion points it out, even if we have changed fifteen of them, we won’t run away from guilt. This may be hard to understand but here is an example: if we become selfish and arrogant by misunderstanding the Buddhistic principles of solitude and self-concentration, we will see that we are on the wrong path if we continue reading "We are the result of what we teach others" and "Give, even if you have only a little." "If you understood what I knew about giving, you would not eat a single meal in your life alone." Those three common Buddha quotes completely nullify the "individualistic concept" because they obviously refer to interaction with others. Of course, if we want to, we can find that arrogance is not the right way in the Bible as well.

"Silence the angry man with love, silence the rude man with kindness, silence the stingy with generosity, silence the lies with the truth." – Buddha

While denunciation lasts, the fear of self-loathing cannot be a sufficient guarantee of legitimacy; however, whenever you find yourself in a society where citizens obey the law, you are in some way assuming that it works. It seems that Dostoevsky shared his opinion with Kant. When Dimitrije asks Starov in the Brothers Karamazov: "What must I do to gain salvation?" Starov answers: "More than anything else, never lie to yourself."

Of course, Aristotle also knows about God, who is imperishable and immortal for him, and he thinks that the greatest virtue of man consists in living as close as possible to the neighborhood of God. Socrates was the first to ask (in Plato's Euthyphro) the question: "Do the gods love holy things because they are holy, or are they holy because the gods love them?" If a man is a creature of God, of course, the same things that God "loves" must be good to him, and in that sense, Thomas once really emphasizes, as if answering Socrates' question: “God commands good because it is good.” That is why Kant, with the consistency of his opinion, puts duties towards himself before duties towards others.

When Socrates says that it is better to suffer because of others’ evil deeds than to commit them, he expresses an attitude that has always been difficult to prove. Its validity cannot be demonstrated without abandoning the discourse of rational argumentation. Even the Bible does not explain this best – and there comes the beauty and essence of religion. The first to see a scandal in this was Nietzsche. But even with him, we will not hear anything about intentionally doing evil: “Cain did not want to become Cain when he went to kill Abel, and even Judas Iscariot, the greatest example of the perpetrator of mortal sin, hanged himself.”

Religiously speaking, it seems that everyone must be forgiven because they did not know what they were doing, which is what Jesus said when he was on a cross.

If we turn to literature, Shakespeare, Melville, Dostoevsky, where we can find great scoundrels, we may be in a slightly better position. They are also not able to tell us anything special about the nature of evil, but at least they do not avoid this question. That all radical evil comes from the depths of despair, Kierkegaard said explicitly. This sounds very convincing and plausible because we have already been told and we have learned that the devil is not just a diabolo, a slanderer who falsely testifies. He’s an enemy who tempts and seduces man – that’s a force that we can all relate to. Now, for non-believers, the next part is problematic – he is also Lucifer, the Fallen Angel. According to Nietzsche, a man who despises himself respects in himself at least the man who despises! However, true evil is what causes silent horror in us, when we can all say: That should never have happened.

We are neither capable of automatically doing good nor intentionally doing evil. We are tempted to do evil and need the effort to do good. Thus, people usually take good for what they do not like to do, and as wrong, they take what they are tempted to do. So, was anyone in the world really a saint? Kant, walking the streets of Königsberg every day at the same time, used to give some change to beggars. For this purpose, in order not to offend the beggars with worn-out money, he carried new coins. After the third walk, he was, of course, surrounded by beggars. In the end, he changed the time of his daily walk, but he was ashamed to say the real reason, so he made up an argument with some butcher's apprentice who allegedly threatened to kill him. The real reason for changing the time of the walk was, of course, the disagreement of giving spare change in these new circumstances and his moral formula, the categorical imperative. Indeed, what would be a general law, valid in every possible world or for

every intelligent being, could he report from the maxim “Give to everyone who asks”.

Machiavelli knew said in the Prince that we must learn "how not to be good", and he did not mean by this that they should learn how to be evil and corrupt, but simply that we should resist both inclinations and act according to politics rather than moral or religious principles. This attitude is confirmed at every step by people who seriously dealt with the theory of power, because politics are really not a naive everyday life thing as our neighbors present it to us, so for every broader picture, there is an even broader picture.

Rousseau's position that a man is good until society makes him corrupt is very well known. We have all felt on our own skin that a person is born free and feels societal limits later in life. If it weren't for others - there would be no revenge, but would we ever be self-sufficient? However, Rousseau thinks nothing more than that society makes men insensitive to the suffering of their fellow men, even though man has an "innate aversion to observing the suffering of others".

In Gorgias, Socrates sets out three deeply paradoxical views: (1) It is better to suffer evil than to do it; (2) It is better for the perpetrator to be punished than not to be; and (3) A tyrant who can do whatever he wants with impunity is an unhappy man. It seems like he speaks things no human being would say and yet Socrates believes that all people agree with him - only they do not know it - just as the King and evil tyrants never reveal that they are the saddest of all people.

Every perishable person was in mortal danger of becoming corrupt. To this ambiguity - the same act makes the good better and the bad worse. Epictetus can indeed be understood as an example of the mentality of an angry slave who, when his master tells him, "You are not free because you cannot do this and that," replies, "I don't really want to do that, so I am free."

Jesus also said: "Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you," and if anyone takes your shirt, give them your coat as well! ” This seemingly strange selflessness, a deliberate attempt at self-abolition, is truly the very quintessence of every Christian ethic that deserves that name.

"How can anyone judge with common sense if we contemplate objects with subjective senses?" Kant finds a situation in which the Socratic “it is better to be in conflict with the whole world than to be in conflict with oneself” loses some of its validity.

Finally, I’ll give you another Bill Burr quote to have you understand the depressing standpoint of a real, smart non-theist:

“I ran away from religion. I didn’t like getting up on Sundays and listening to the same stories. It’s like: Okay, we got, I heard it a hundred times, Jesus hadn’t come back yet, there’s no progress. And it felt like my religion and no other made sense, and others sounded stupid. I’m not talking about the basis of religion. Every religion has a basis that makes sense (ten commandments): don’t kill, don’t touch my wife, that’s my bike… all that makes sense. I’ve broken every commandment except for the fifth one. I haven’t killed anybody yet. But the murderous thoughts that I have, I think I could...

…The first time I heard of Scientology I thought that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Your messiah’s name is Ron, he didn’t live thousands of years ago leaving a lot of it is the mystery. He was alive 50 years ago, he had a driver's license and a social security number. He worked at Denny’s, he got sick of it and was like: Let’s start a religion! Hey guys, there’s this spaceship getting back, everybody’s getting sneakers, this is Tom Cruise… I’m paraphrasing, but that’s essentially what they believe in. I said that’s dumb while believing that a virgin woman gave birth to a baby who walked on water, died, and then came back three days later. Why does that make sense? I think it’s because I heard about Christianity when I was a kid. When you’re a kid, you believe there’s a fat guy coming down the chimney on Christmas if I lost a tooth – there’s a fairy, then we had Easter Bunny. When you look at it like that, why wouldn’t there be some guy moonwalking across the water 2 thousand years ago? But I heard about Scientology when I grew up. All of the illusions started to fall. There’s no Santa, it’s your parents, your mom is a tooth fairy, rabbits don’t lay eggs, NBA is fixed, bankers are cunts, most of your dreams won’t come true. I was just like: Wow, that’s how the world is. I was just about to decide if I’m going to cling to the last silly story.”

What is the truth? Who knows if we will know for sure, but we can at least try to find it. We should have something we believe in, not just something we do not believe in.

THE DAWN OF TRADITIONAL FAMILY

ay back in the 50s, men were gentlemen in coats who worked to support their families, stayed married and repressed women. Now, that's coming to an end. Gender differences get larger in more egalitarian societies. Ironically, genetic differences are also proving larger nowadays. I mean, there is a reason why Marx wanted to abandon family - because he needed people to become pioneers of the state.

We should support an infrastructure that is able to help people instead of feeding lies about their wellbeing. We are starting to build expectations for boys to meet female behavioral standards and they are being punished for not meeting them.

Monogamy is also viewed as pathetic and naive. Young men are ashamed of their masculinity. Promiscuity and ferocity are expected and highly promoted in the lives of young adults.

The number of married couples is spiraling down. Far back, marriage meant something. It was a symbol of, among love and other things, sex and status, but the existence of porn is also diminishing the necessity to seek an actual partner. Now, marriage is frowned upon. It’s becoming a sign of giving up on youth and freedom.

"Now women are taught that they need men like fish needs a bicycle. The number of women in the workplace has surpassed the number of men and more women get a college degree. Now, I'm not saying that a woman should stay in the kitchen. She can make whatever choices she likes. But the culture has venerated the career women while denigrating the stay-at-home mom. The woman who chooses to concentrate on motherhood, arguably the most important task a human can fulfill, is treated as a failure. They turned housewife into a dirty word." Paul Joseph Watson

A generation of boys is abandoning the female company, relinquishing relationships, and retreating into a virtual reality culture of addiction, pornography, and video games. Boys are left behind in this wreckage of third-wave feminism. They cannot engage with women. Girls that are not brainwashed can't find a man.

The gap between women's words and thoughts has never been wider. We hear that we should be almost feminized, but they drool over testosterone-soaked characters on-screen. Men are turning into Herbivores and that's why we have "pick-up artists" who teach other men how to talk with girls. That's very sad.

Now, what I say is easily disregarded because I say it’s a major practice. Of course, it’s not. Most people still look normal, but everybody is getting a little bit twisted. Even the percent of those who are a lot twisted is rising exponentially.

Sadly, marriage has become a punchline in today's society. From referring to the wife as 'the old ball and chain' to nearly every poorly written sitcom that we watch, the message we're sending to today's generation is clear: Marriage is no fun.

A challenge to real men is to talk about your marriage in a good way if you are happy with it... If you love your wife, say it. If some moron tells you that you're merely a 'newlywed' or that you're still just 'too young to understand,' correct them.

The divide is growing and growing and nothing seems to be stopping it, to say the least. Same-sex marriage is not the final nail in the coffin for traditional marriage. It is just another road sign toward the substitution of government for God. Every moral discussion now pits the wisest moral arbiters among us - the Supreme Court, President Obama - against traditional religion.

Young, not bright, not hardworking people are being bred by older, stable, diligent people shocked by degeneration around them. We can probably help by making the loudest noise about self-reliance, civic virtue, and traditional morality

Studies have shown that women of higher authority at work are more depressed, while men with higher authority are less depressed. I think we can apply the ancestry principle. Since the 1970s women have been more depressed because they feel pressured into the obligation to have it all while the majority of them just want to live peacefully. Yet, women had never had more rights.

All of that is probably the case because the state doesn't benefit from traditional gender roles. You can't tax a stay-at-home mom nor indoctrinate a child well-behaved and taught by two educated, loving, and emotionally strong parents. We are producing lonely people who bounce around meaningless relationships.

So, in the end, when a stranger knocks at the door in your country house, what kind of men do you want beside you? And to men reading this, what kind of men are you?

Next up, about the parenting crisis: The problem of wanting to be a friend to your child, the problem is that’s not enough. You're far more than that. You're a pillar of safety in the sea of the unknown and a child needs that a lot more than a friend. You have to let them make mistakes. You have to let them fall when they learn to walk. You need to have some detached harshness in order to let your child stumble their way into mastery. You need courage in your convictions. You also learn and are forgiven. You aim up, even though you know you'll make mistakes.

A four-year-old should have no self-esteem, and for good reason. What could he have possibly accomplished in his life to justify esteeming oneself so highly? Unless taught otherwise, children are the most selfish, oblivious creatures on the planet. They have no family, no job, no responsibilities, and nothing but time to think about their gluttonous, sticky selves. We should be teaching them to take some focus off of themselves and onto how they can best serve and treat others.

Every time we rock our babies in the night, we bring order back to a disordered world. Every time we look down at our children and cry, we make the world one shade brighter. That's what children do for us.

Freud says that a child is the father of a human. Children get the feeling of security from their parents. How they treat him and how they treat each other. Children of the elite have an obvious problem. It's tempting to try to fix problems by throwing money at the problem. If material comfort and financial security are the keys, can't we just take steps to ensure that everyone enjoys those things? Build daycares, offer child allowances, and try to smooth the road so that people don't need to succeed at high levels in order to enjoy comfortable family life. Some liberals have already made proposals along these lines, and some of their ideas may be good.

However, I found that children live apart from their parents after they turn 18 in America so a single student is defined as a single-family. In America, a traditional family is defined as a nuclear family which consists of parents and children. Grandparents usually live apart from their sons or daughters. A three generations family that is living together is rare. Now Americans have a variety of family types ranging from single, nuclear, extensive, single mother or father and children, gay and lesbian. Americans think of a nuclear family as a traditional family, other types as nontraditional families.

Thinking of traditional values like family and community as an educational environment, it is very important because children are not free from the family in developing and educating themselves. Family is especially the most important environment for education, especially in childhood. Parents’ love may be a key for children to develop their love for others. Training in a family is the beginning of education. Through family and community, children learn social rules and morals.

Why after the feminist movement do we have a variety of families? Why did the civil rights and feminist movements encourage the tendency of high divorce rates? Because we thought the rights to divorce are freedom from traditional restrictions such as family, we seem to be succeeding in freeing ourselves. However, are we truly free from ourselves? Are we free from our instinctive desire or egoism? Don’t we need to be free as responsible members of society?

We all have eyes yet we are not seeing that there is an abundance of evidence that we live in a society that is slowly seeing the collapse of the family structure; a society in which crime, especially murder is often random and senseless.

We live in a society in which children are neglected by part-time mothers who are forced to assume the role of fathers in the home; women are abused, raped, and sometimes killed and children are sexually molested and mistreated.

It is becoming increasingly clear that our religious way of life which is based on truth and love is being betrayed. Nowhere is this more evident than the betrayal of the institution of the nuclear family, which, in normal society, comprises a father, mother, and children living together in a stable home.

The religious way of life insists on a legal bond of marriage between a man and a woman, which is the bedrock of society on which family and home are built, religious institutions are sacrosanct and crime and violence are extremely low.

Yet these things did not happen overnight. The women were left with the children and when things got too heavy to bear, they, in turn, left the children to fend for themselves. These children grew into adults and had the idea that the way to treat children was to allow them to fend for themselves.

For children to grow up in a home comprising two fathers or two mothers or for schools to teach them that such a lifestyle is normal in today’s world. It shows that societal norms are being eroded and maybe beyond restoring. This often leads to the destruction of the family, which could eventually result in the collapse of our culture.

The argument that gay marriage doesn't affect straight marriages is a ridiculous red herring: Gay marriage affects society and law in dramatic ways. Religious groups will come under direct assault as federal and state governments move to strip them of their non-profit statuses if they refuse to perform gay marriages.

The federal government distributes more than it takes. Transgender Berlin study problem 1 year, you need 10 years to know if the adjustment period is over, its always either too small of size or too short time. Again, it’s like a Griffy video.

Also, you can watch supposedly educational videos of leftists bullying kids into believing their views on sex and gender. That’s obviously child abuse. A three-year-old does not know and does not need to know what sex is and whom they should be attracted to.

Indeed, the traditional two-parent family structure has changed dramatically and is no longer the norm in society. Today, many grandparents are raising their grandchildren because either the parents are not present in their children’s lives due to death, imprisonment, addiction, abandonment, or being unfit parents.

Now, about the liberal war with family: Financial hardships are indeed bad for families. But it alone doesn't adequately explain the dramatic rise in divorce and non-marital childbearing throughout the world in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Depression-era families were considerably more stable, though their economic situation was far more precarious. How do we explain this, if changing cultural norms were just a noisy sideshow?

We needn't paint liberals as saboteurs to plausibly argue that some of their cultural crusades have destabilized family life. A century ago, divorce and fornication were widely regarded as sinful. Liberals don't hate families as such, but they have made an effort to undercut traditional norms that once brought stability to family life. They weren't trying to create a world in which 40 percent of our children are born out of wedlock. That's what happened though, and after issuing warnings about this for decades, conservatives feel justified in concluding that liberals are to blame.

Liberals aren’t comfortable with the idea that family obligations might necessitate sacrifice. The data consistently suggest that conservatives see marriage as a higher life priority. They are likelier to be married. They attach high importance to marriage as a social good. They often advise young adults to marry young, instead of waiting until multiple adult milestones have been achieved.

Conservatives want to embrace this reality head-on, telling people from childhood that marriage is hard and that they need to prepare for it. Liberals prefer to go a more indirect route, urging people to prove themselves in other spheres, and offering marriage as a kind of reward once they've demonstrated their capacity to be responsible citizens. Both methods can work, but it may be that the conservative approach works for a larger number of people. It offers marriage itself as a worthy aspiration and challenge, even for people who are unlikely to succeed at high levels in other spheres.

The USA is taking this period very hard. Four out of ten children are born to unwed parents. Millions of babies are aborted every year. Children are likelier than ever to grow up without one of their biological parents. Pornography has gone mainstream. Unwed pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases are at all-time highs.

If you don’t rigorously engage in the fight, you and your family will be among casualties. We have already suffered from it more than we probably realize. To successfully resist this dangerous trend, you need to see it clearly—and recognize the unseen force motivating it! Who is behind this war, and why? You must also understand just why it is so deadly.

We’ve not only accepted the plague of divorce. Many now see it as the morally right thing to do in most circumstances. Those marriages that remain intact often suffer from other curses, like sexual dissatisfaction, financial woes, and role confusion. Tocqueville lauded the 19th-century American family for accentuating the “diverse” roles men and women undertook in marriage. “They have carefully separated the functions of man and of a woman so that the great work of society may be better performed,” he said. The roles of husband and wife, he explained, perfectly complemented one another. “You will never find American women,” Tocqueville wrote, “in charge of the external relations of the family, managing a business or interfering in politics; but they are also never obliged to undertake rough laborer’s work or any task requiring hard physical exertion. No family is so poor that it makes an exception to this rule.”

Of course, the way marriage and family were arranged back then was much closer to the way God designed it from the very beginning. Today, these unique roles have been reversed. Men have forsaken their responsibilities in the home as the family’s primary leader, provider, protector, and educator. A growing number of wives (and children) simply miss out on the positive impact an involved father has on the family.

As a consequence, children are largely left to themselves—growing up without proper direction, goals, and dreams in life. They have no clear code of ethics upon which they can build their future families. Without a strong parental influence at home, children have become easy targets for evil forces—particularly regarding sex which instantly ruins all of the innocence humans carry throughout life. Most Americans and Britons have now accepted premarital sex as inevitable for teens, which is why the primary focus for government-sponsored sex education is on teaching young people to be “safe” once they become sexually active when at first it was teaching about the negative effects of early sexual activity.

This new approach, of course, encourages sexual activity among teens, which returns the favor by increasing the frequency of illegitimate births, sexually transmitted diseases, and abortion. Teenagers are still children. Many of them are barely emotionally ready to know what sex is, not to mention actually engaging.

While it might’ve been easy to deny what I’m saying a while ago, how do you deny it now, when it’s so clearly happening? Most people have followed blindly along with these modern trends. But even among those who recognize it as a destructive drift away from humanity that should be resisted, few understand just why it is happening and what is wrong. Why such a vicious assault on marriage and family? Why is the downward trend so rapid?

Everything about our modern-day dysfunctional society is exactly as the Prophet Isaiah said it would be: with women ruling the homes, children oppressing society and behaving arrogantly against their elders, and people parading the most heinous of their sins with pride (Isaiah 3:12, 5, 9). Apostle Paul prophesied our epidemic selfishness, preoccupation with material things, disobedient children, loss of natural familial affection (such as is manifest in the appalling abortion rate), and other rampant problems (2 Timothy 3:1-5). Christ Himself foretold that just before His return to this Earth in power and glory, our sophisticated, ultra-modern, anti-God society would revert back to the way it was in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:28-30). I’ve heard people make that comparison without ever reading the Bible (because Sodom and Gomorrah have become a common idiom used with the meaning of “chaos and immorality” without necessarily relating to biblical definition.)

People are missing a whole new dimension in their life. The majority of people don’t feel a higher passion for sex. Sex itself isn’t that good. It’s a little bit of “I want to calm down my hormones and feel like an idiot the first second I’m done”. You can watch many people talk about this. It’s the same way with porn. “How can something so beautiful be so incredibly disgusting the next second?” is a question Matthew Perry asked Connan O’Brien at his guest appearance. The answer is: because it was never beautiful in the first place. It was just meaningless fun that leaves you in emptiness and disgust.

As you might know, concepts and institutions of family and marriage are unique to human beings among all animals. It’s even unknown that angelic beings were meant to enjoy the blessings of family life. In the first chapter of the Bible, you see God adorning the Earth with all manner of plant and animal life, creating conditions ideal for human beings. It then informs us, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness …. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:26-27). There is much to note in these pivotal verses.

What does it mean that mankind was created after God’s likeness, in God’s image? It means that we look like God and that we are meant to be fashioned after His very own perfect character. That is because He has implanted within us an incredible potential far greater than that given to anything else He has created!

Finally, why did God create males and females? Clearly, He made the conscious decision to divide us into these two groups. In His design, the family begins with the joining of a man and woman—through science is working to eliminate this inevitability. Sex is not an accident of evolution, nor an arbitrary ornament on creation, but a conscious, deliberate choice with design and intent.

I believe in the theory of intelligent design because human intelligence predicts the structure of things around him, yet I have two questions. Why are we gifted something other creatures are not? If male and female are just embodiments of metaphysical soul, what is the problem with homosexuality other than the inability to reproduce? Where’s the moral fault?

Either way, the relentless drive over the past half-century, in particular, to equalize the sexes has completely obscured and destroyed the very deep and important reasons for God’s creative implementation of sexual differences. Homosexuality, in effect, treats this essential component of creation as if it were mere decoration—even a mistake. But are you willing to consider the reasoning, the logic, in His decision? This God who reveals Himself in the Bible claims that His thoughts are higher than your thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9).

What is not widely understood but should be is all of the problems I address are coming from the same core with the purpose of total annihilation of the traditional family. Bible is not the reason I believe in the existence of an omnipotent Creator. It’s just that every time I look at the sun, at a forest, myself, not to mention other planets – I don’t think they could be a spontaneous reaction to a big explosion.

God could have made us all alike, never established marriage, provided some other means of reproduction, had us born with fully developed bodies and minds. He could have done things any number of other ways. But that would be cheap writing. We need a few enemies to become friends-friends become enemies, character development journey type of story. The truth of this reality far surpasses the insipid view of an afterlife spent sitting on a cloud strumming a harp.

If I was God at this moment I’d regret giving humans freedom in the hope they will stay noble. We can be thankful to God that His supernatural intervention in the affairs of mankind, as prophesied in hundreds of biblical passages, is now just ahead of us. In the not-too-distant future, the world will end and be reborn.

In conclusion: Marriage and family are not obsolete. They should be stirring and inspiring. For instance, women whose parents divorced in childhood are 83% more likely to experience suicide ideation. Children of single parents are 50% more likely to develop health problems.

We're immaturely cynical as a culture. We're not wise enough to look at an institution like marriage and to really think about what it means and what it signifies. We are unable to see it makes us stronger. It is a place, to tell the truth.

Many pivotal benefits of marriage have been proven by many researchers and yet, radical feminists want to destroy the family tradition. First of all, they want to destroy the traditional family structure which consists of fathers, mothers, and children because they see this condition as women being ‘subjugated’ by men. They also pursue lesbianism and same-sex marriage in order to eliminate the subjugation of women.

There are obvious reasons to be skeptical about affluent pundits who jump to blame society’s ills on moral decadence and decay; namely, it’s a convenient excuse not to spend tax dollars fixing the country’s problems. That said, I think more liberals need to get comfortable acknowledging that, even if it doesn’t explain the whole story, culture probably has played a role in the changes that have rocked domestic life for so much of the country.

Putnam makes this point early in Our Kids: Of the values-versus-economics debate, he says simply that, “The most reasonable view is that both are important.” How come? For one, we can look back to the Great Depression as a historical counterpoint to the trends we’ve witnessed in recent decades. With mass unemployment, the marriage rate tumbled during the 1930s, “showing the perennial importance of economic stability in the marriage calculus.” At the same, however, the birth rate also fell, and unwed childbearing remained rare. “In that era, men and women postponed procreation as well as matrimony,” Putnam writes. “

‘No marriage license, no kids’ was the cultural norm. Unlike today, desperately poor, jobless men in the 1930s did not have kids outside of marriage whom they then largely ignored.”

This is all in keeping with what researchers find when they actually go out and talk to single mothers. Women in low-income communities say they would like to marry but have trouble finding men with stable jobs whom they can see as a husband. These women still want to have children, however, and so they choose to have kids before marriage, even if the pregnancy might be accidental. The economy pushes them to choose unwed parenthood—that’s the structural economic argument conservatives ignore—and these days, that choice is considered acceptable (that’s the cultural one liberals detest).

Liberals shouldn’t shy away from acknowledging any of this. Rousseau said that a father can’t do anything more for his children than to love their mother. If men were women and women were men, everything would probably happen the same way. At some point, everything would break. At some point, both would protest. So, the specious doom is inevitable. The story was selfless all along.

THE BIG MERGE

h, the abomination that is mainstream art and culture. Everything is getting turned into an opportunity for propaganda-poisoning the masses. Sports events are no more sports events. People are getting sick of football being a stage for political advertisement, while it should actually be an escape from the suffering that we get from modern politics.

Gen Z is the most conservative generation since WW2 and liberals feel the urge to change the way their grasp is slipping. For those who followed the death of Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union, those things are obvious. There are always people claiming to be conservatives that are actually just psychopaths. We need to expose people like that and help them behave according to the law to get cleansed from the mud they drag the term “conservative” in. In the same way, real liberals that follow classic liberty should dropkick the neo-fascist party that's infiltrated meanwhile.

Yeah. Music has become a stupider. Now more or less every song with meaning is considered "musicians music" (like classical music and jazz were before). Pop culture is not even culture. It's hedonistic, dehumanizing, and self-absorbed. It should be about appreciation of knowledge and beauty, not this sewer pipe ramble that it's been for the last 20 years.

For years and years, young adults have adopted extremely liberal world views in their attempts to be different, ultimately failing to see the irony that they've all become the same. Conservatives in Hollywood are being exiled. Being conservative in Hollywood is like being gay in the 1950s.

We always had plastic drizzle in artistic industries, but now there is less and less alternative. Musicians are prevented from challenging the sterile status quo. They have given up their seats to a handful of non-musicians to make boom-clap stone world music. Culture is sanitized, there's no counterculture. Everyone looks the same, feels the same, and tastes the same. Same tattoos, hairs, outfits, no authenticity. It's hideous and repugnant.

The real core of all evil is the relativization of everything. Nothing is good, nothing is bad. Things could be good, but they could also be seen as bad. Nothing is precisely defined. Demonizing patriotism, welcoming globalization. It is time for Christian conservatives and true liberals to not just dispense with politeness and decency when dealing with these neo-fascists that have turned elite institutes into libertine and pagan strongholds, but also the bogus notion of state neutrality in matters of religion.

For centuries, we have associated the word “liberal” with open-mindedness. Liberals were people who were supposed to be tolerant and fair and who wanted to give all sides a hearing. They cared about everyone, not just their own kind. By contrast, illiberal people were hardheaded in their opinions and judgmental about others’ behaviors, hoping to control what other people thought and said and to cut off debate. In extreme cases, they would even use violence to maintain political power and exclude certain kinds of people from having a say in their government. Sadly, the kind of liberalism we used to know is fast disappearing. While the intolerance of the far right is well known, its manifestations on the far left are less known and often not fully acknowledged.

Progressive liberals, the group that I’m trashing this whole book, like cutting corners, bending the Constitution, making up laws through questionable court rulings, and generally abusing the rules in order for everything to appeal to their ways. They establish “zero tolerance” policies. They create regimes in which normal human development is sliced to fit into a mold.

Although originally swimming in the same intellectual stream, American progressives and classical liberals started the parting company many years ago. Perhaps they finished parting around the Second War. Progressives initially clung to freedom of expression and the right to dissent from the original liberalism, but under the influence of socialism and social democracy they gradually moved leftward.

Thus, what we call a “liberal” today is not historically a liberal at all but a progressive social democrat or progressive extreme radical, someone who clings to the old liberal notion of individual liberty when it is convenient (as in supporting abortion or decrying the “national security” state), but who more often finds individual liberties and freedom of conscience to be barriers to building the progressive welfare state.

To untangle this confusing web of intellectual history, we need a more accurate historical rendering of what “progressive liberals” actually are. If they are not liberals, then what are they? When mixed with radical egalitarianism, postmodernism produces the agenda of the radical cultural left—namely, sexual and identity politics and radical multiculturalism.

These causes have largely taken over the progressive liberal agenda and given the Democratic Party most of its energy and ideas. The illiberal values inherent in these cases have been imported from neo-Marxism, radical feminism, critical race theory, sexual revolutionary politics, and other theories and movements imbued with the postmodern critique.

To bypass the topics of ethnicity and nationality, there are pop icons that parade around, spreading and popularizing a new type of culture. Is that good for our naive and pliable, but essentially innocent and good children?

The next thing I want is to localize this segment of the book in your head. The ultimate point I’m making is this: National stars and youth heroes are uncensored drug addicts and of course, they sing about it. Things like that can’t be a blessing to the youth. Society shows drunkenness with admiration, pride, and anticipation. Vulgar consumerism, fashion brand enslavement, entertainment through prostitution, and uncontrollable rage are promoted over fast rhythm, fast cars, tobacco, and auditory and visual representations of a strange attempt at aesthetics. Hypersexualised attention holders are dancing around men that look like mascots. Wealth and a good life are now associated with crime.

As Tony Accardo once said, "You can't catch a fish if it keeps its mouth shut all the time.” The negative impact of social media is an increasingly common topic in the world, especially after the recent interviews of former Facebook employees. The company itself has admitted that its users feel more depressed when they spend more time browsing, posting, and following the lives of their acquaintances, relatives, and so-called friends. I recently watched a documentary show in which one of the main people responsible for the creation of the "Like" button appeared. He said that he stayed awake at night thinking about whether there was any chance that his work did not harm the world.

The first major study of its kind, The Secret Life of a Teenager, was conducted by CNN in 2015. What did these anti-social media networks do to children? I'm not trying to curse new technology, we just need to set an optimal usage.

Last year, for some reason, cybersecurity’s been a burning topic. The most common questions were about the problems such as fake profiles and identity theft, sending and receiving explicit photos and further blackmail, as well as reporting peer cyberviolence. A major problem is also insufficient information and the ignorance of parents when it comes to digitalization.

Any kind of situation in which cyberbullying is a real threat is almost negligibly rare, and the only scenario in which an institution's intervention is necessary or at least desirable is which grows into classic violence.

But, in addition to the disadvantages, of course, all social networks have their advantages. With them, you can communicate with dear people who are far away from you, exchange photos, and refresh old friendships. You can easily open your works and abilities, find out about events in the world and the country. You can also get valuable information regarding education through various courses and workshops in various fields. After all, they are also good for leisure. While relaxing with a cup of coffee, you can enjoy your favorite activities. It is up to you to decide whether social networks have a positive or negative impact on your life and to act in accordance with your views.

According to some research, the results that have been published indicate that more people communicate via the Internet than face to face. Physical contact with other people encourages greater personal satisfaction, while virtual contact encourages suspicion and disagreement. A recent study done in Italy showed that intensive use of social networks negatively affects self-confidence and increases fear of others, and as we are a generation, an additional lack of self-confidence is what we need the least.

Among those many of my "friends", I mostly wouldn't know about their problems if it weren't for the timeline. Then I asked myself: If I see that something bad is happening to someone and I feel the need to respond, is it an expression of my empathy or a reaction to social pressure that dictates that I should sympathize with other people, so I want it to look like that? It seems like the internet can lead us to less honest types of empathy.

People are becoming robots. Among intellectual stimuli, learning a foreign language stands out, yet more people tend to speak only one. People just go out there and learn about choleric temperament, Hopocks theory, professional adaptation, double rejection conflict, sublimation, quid pro quo, normative theory, paradigms, SWOT analysis, reengineering, broker’s method, geographic departmentalization, corporative strategy… When they finish, they become just another part of the business mass.

Authenticity has become ferociously eradicated and the view is vacuous, obscene, contrived, plastic, empty, amoral, and meaningless. We need to take the red pill and I hope to be able to help with that. Bizzare behavior is empowered by the dominant culture. The hypersexualization process has also normalized betrayal.

Dr. Kanazawa has asked a very simple, yet fundamental question: "What, if any, evolutionary advantage does intelligence give us?" He said that actually, less intelligent people are better at most things, but I would dare and correct it, or try to make it a little more precise to a way I see it: Stupider people are better at necessary tasks. In the ancestral environment general intelligence was helpful only for solving a handful of revolutionary problems.

"Evolution equipped humans with solutions for a whole range of problems of survival and reproduction. All they had to do was to behave in the ways in which evolution had designed them to behave—eat food that tastes good, have sex with the most attractive mates." However, for other development matters, we were equipped with general intelligence that has helped us arguably very little so far. The reason of this is what I like to call "cavemen software" that we are all working on. So, basically, the mindset that we use today is a module of a brain that homo Erectus had that has some more ancestry information and that is pretty much being repressed daily. Sure, if we wanted to, we could still act by instinct, but it is just not accepted by society anymore because we like to think we are above that at this point.

Basically, dealing with any type of major issue was a very infrequent task compared to highly repetitive behavior, for example, something that we do a few times a day. A few thousand years later, most of what we do in school, at a job, on a computer is intelligence-based and does not come naturally to us because our ancestors did not have to do it.

"Now intelligent people do well in almost every sphere of life, except for the most important things, like how to find a mate, raise a child, make friends. More intelligent people do not have an advantage in finding mates and often have disadvantages." These two sentences that look like a lie invented by smart people in order "not to look lame" are actually truthful scientifically proven facts. I'll tell you why. Intelligent people tend to fail at some emotionally important stuff because it does not come naturally to them. They have to acquire it through observation and practice because their primal instinct is muffled. The reality of making friends and finding a spouse or raising a child is not fair and is actually fairly similar to what they were during the beginning of our race.

So to put it the way Satoshi wrote: Intelligent people are more likely to recognize and develop tastes for things that our ancestors did not have. That includes believing in science, dropping religion, being a left-wing liberal, smoking, drinking, doing drugs, not eating meat, and so on... Not all of those are right, good, correct, or the smartest option there is, but we will get to that in the next paragraph. As I like to note, this causes a big domino effect because stupid people are now aware of these facts and want to act smarter than they are. It is fair to say that at this moment, those "smart opinions" are occupied by idiots, so they are not so smart anymore. They are now misunderstood and deformed. Also, some of the effects are not yet proven and demand a little more time, because science has been "denying God" (which I also do not think is really accurate, because neither church nor science denies anyone or anything) for roughly 100 years after Darwin's death, and also most drugs are fairly new and we haven't actually checked if they attract smart people. I think that some other characteristics define the desire for psychedelic substances that are not necessarily related to intelligence.

That is how we arrive at the next stop to take a look at another misconception, or rather a phenomenon that humans encounter. Smart people suffer from a desire to do stupid things. Because they do not relate to good or bad, right or wrong, but to what they think, and sometimes when they think too much, they connect the unconnectable. "More intelligent boys (but not more intelligent girls) are more likely to grow up to value sexual exclusivity. This is because humans are naturally polygynous. Sexual exclusivity is evolutionarily novel for men but not for women. " (Kanazawa had a long lecture about this, but I will cut it short. The reason is very logical and some of you can probably guess it. The primitive man had plenty more reason to commit to polygamy because the purpose of his sexual activity is growing the population, inheritance, descendants. The way of him achieving that at the time was finding new partners.)

Would you rather be a good brain surgeon or a good parent? Would you rather be a good corporate executive or a good friend? Reproductive success is the ultimate goal of all living organisms, so intelligent women are more likely to go against such an evolutionary design. Data suggests, and to me, this is contradictory, that women tend to not have kids with more intelligent men. The reason is probably the insufficient feeling of safety. Even income and education have no effect on this. In one word, intelligent people are rebels.

Intelligent people are only good at doing things that are relatively new in the course of human evolution. The law of evolution by natural and sexual selection states that the ultimate goal of all living organisms is reproductive success. The "caveman software" (as I put it and mentioned earlier), as I later found, is something that causes "The Savanna Principle" described by Satoshi Kanazawa - your brain is consciously still as good as in African Savannah. Your perception of the world that you get by relying on your senses is dependent on your ancestors. Humans have problems comprehending problems that were not presented to our ancestors.

The human brain implicitly and unconsciously assumes that all ostracism is costly, just as it assumes that all realistic images of people whom they see on a regular basis (and who don't try to kill or harm them in any way) are their friends, even when these people are on TV. (Basically, it states that our subconscious brain cannot differentiate between TV and reality and TV shows influence our life more than we know it).

No human traits have a heritability of 0; genes partially influence all human traits to some degree. This is known as Turkheimer's first law of behavior genetics. Among adults, intelligence is about 80% determined by genes.

Early childhood experience does affect adult intelligence, but they mostly function to decrease adult intelligence, not to increase it. What Satoshi Kanazawa is saying is that intelligence is dependent on genes and no matter what you do during childhood will increase it. You can only fulfill your genetic capability. There are very few childhood experiences that will increase adult intelligence much more than their genes would have inclined them to have. Thus, according to the basic principles of quantitative genetics, the fact that general intelligence is highly heritable suggests that it is not very important for our survival and reproductive success. This theory suggests that more intelligent individuals are better than less intelligent individuals at solving problems only if they are evolutionary novel. More intelligent individuals are not better than less intelligent individuals at solving evolutionary familiar problems that our ancestors routinely had to solve.

This new finding can potentially explain why less intelligent individuals tend to enjoy the experience of watching TV more than more intelligent individuals do. (Darn, I enjoyed TV a lot. Well, after reading this book, it is not too good to be too intelligent. Just a little bit more intelligent is the best.) The more intelligent you are, the later you marry.

More intelligent individuals are more likely to be stupid and do stupid things. Liberals and other intelligent people lack common sense because their general intelligence overrides it. They think in situations where they are supposed to feel. In evolutionary familiar domains such as interpersonal relationships, feeling usually leads to correct solutions whereas thinking does not. (This explains why intelligent people are usually not good in relationships. They think too much and may sometimes feel a relationship is a waste of time!)

More intelligent people reject the "simplistic" solution offered by common sense, even though it is usually the correct solution, and instead adopt unnecessarily complex ideas simply because their intelligence allows them to entertain such complex ideas, even when they may be untrue or not useful in solving the problem at hand.

Just like the human mind, smoke detectors are designed to be "paranoid". This is known as the "smoke detector principle". (This principle states that our mind is designed to be paranoid because it is safer on the safe side. This is similar to the design of a smoke detector where the smoke alarm tends to sound alarmed even where there is no fire because the risk of the smoke detector not sounding the alarm when there is a fire will result in death while a false alarm is a small inconvenience we pay for our survival. So, it is natural that our minds always picture the worst-case scenario because that is how our brain has evolved from the days when we have to avoid being eaten).

Pascal's wager - The 17th-century French philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) argued that given that one cannot know for sure if God exists, it is nonetheless rational to believe in God. If one does not believe in God when He indeed exists (Type II error of false negative), one must spend eternity in hell and damnation. In contrast, if one believes in God when he actually does not exist (Type I error of false positive), one only wastes a minimal amount of time and effort spent on religious services. The cost of committing a Type II error is much greater than the cost of committing a Type I error. Hence one should rationally believe in God.

Intelligent people also make more money and attain a higher status in organizations, because the capitalist economy and complex organizations in which most people work today are entirely evolutionary novel. I don't quite agree with Mr. Kanazawa here. In modern complex organizations, some people are more successful if they are better with soft skills – that’s not evolutionary novel as cavemen also need to have good people skills in order to survive and lead.

As such, I would think that intelligent people will be successful in areas such as engineering, medicine, etc. while they are generally poor managers, politicians, etc. It is not surprising that we don't see many intelligent politicians.

Before we move on I shall address one more little thing. This perhaps paradoxical position of esports and football is very intriguing to me. It is a trap that has been, in many cases, deliberately set for us. And we have jumped into it with both feet. We don’t go far back into history to know when exactly we invented entertainment such as fighting games. If we’re talking Western Civilization, we had fought for entertainment in Greece, then Rome, and later on, when killing was prohibited, we took football from the Chinese and started competing in sports instead. Since the human brain feeds on relaxing things, or things that make his mind go away from everyday suffering, entertainers were overpaid forever and ever.

The next step of the fun update of gladiator arena, after sports arenas, are definitely e-sports arenas. In the same way, we were watching football in stadiums and in café’s, kids nowadays watch mostly Korean teams play League of Legends, Valorant, Counter-Strike, Dota, and such.

In the same way, we were emotionally involved in sports for no apparent reason, young people are now involved in games. Even though it requires motor skills and brains, the fact that everything is revolving around a PC is horrible. Even sports will die and leave the throne to something more pointless. Looking into electric devices and clicking. No more running and kicking the ball. Who knows where does that road lead.

Now, finally, how do we overcome The Big Merge? People can always fight their misfortune in a cruel society, which does not understand or sympathize with such a struggle. The hardest part is getting started. Once I noticed that I realized that things are never as dark as they seem.

The weak are afraid of fighting for happiness. It doesn't seem that the world is going exactly where I would like it to, but I’m also not going where it’d want me to. If there is an omnipotent being, it is easier to believe in his punishment than in love. Then faith becomes a confrontation with the tribunal, waiting for God's scourge. Happiness without freedom or freedom without happiness, but such a view swarms in the imperfection of the human being.

What does a person mean when he says the word "society"? is it plural of people or something more than that? The word intellectual, of course, became a curse. This happens due to human incompetence, persistence, intolerance. People don't like others that know more than them. That is why education is always a burden and that is why a person often strives for something else. Damn that education, because whoever runs into it, will hardly ever stop.

Life ultimately means taking responsibility for finding the right answer to your problems and fulfilling the tasks you constantly set for each individual. When we are no longer able to change the situation, we are challenged to change ourselves. An abnormal reaction to an abnormal situation is normal behavior. You don't have to be completely calm. You need to be really upset from time to time. That's how we know we're still alive.

People mostly see what they are looking for and hear what they are listening to. The Bible is more dangerous in one hand than the rifle in the other. So the gunpowder was used by the Chinese for fireworks, and then it was stolen by Britons in order to make guns.

What is required of man is not to endure nonsense in an existential crisis until he dies, but to learn to bear his own shortcomings and inability to grasp his absolute meaning. Probably a person should not ask what the meaning of his life is but must recognize that he is the one who is wondering. In other words, we are questioning ourselves.

Love goes much further than the physical person of a loved one. Bold philosophers will always be like children. Freud said that a child is the father of the man.

When I realized that, for the first time in my life, I saw the truth as it was brought into the poems by so many poets, which so many thinkers declared to be the final wisdom. It’s the truth.

Love is the ultimate and highest goal. The greatest secret is the salvation of the soul through inexhaustible love.

THE OVERPICED PREMISE OF SUCCESS

all me old-fashioned, but this educational system is getting worse with the use of technology. It's always been my firm belief that an ideal educational system should be made by making rewards for both the student and the teacher. The higher the average score, the better reward for the teacher. The better the personal grades, the better the student's reward.

There is no greater way to ensure that universities remain a hotbed of leftist thought than to guarantee that professors knight their own successors. But that's basically how the Ph.D. system works, with sitting professors approving the work of would-be professors.

The truth is that your head should hurt when you think about giving away $40,000 a year for that. That much money just to be lectured on microaggression and free information found on Google. If you don't have a degree, that doesn't mean you are stupid, even more so when you understand that having educated standpoints is usually against the official politics of your university and it just so happens that the institution you graduated from doesn't stand behind you as you talk. In some cases, I even read that schools mentioned taking back diplomas because they are "ashamed of their graduate’s ideas". When colleges start to take intellectual and political diversity as seriously as they take the more superficial forms of diversity, the world will become a better place.

Schools have been killing creativity ever since they began. Students enroll, ready and eager to explore the world and its opportunities but are quickly entwined in our archaic education system. Education ought to be established on a foundation of curiosity — it is looking at the world around you with the eyes of your child self you buried long ago, always asking “why” and never taking “it simply is” for an answer.

Creativity is a way of living, grasping innovation, and making unique connections between seemingly divergent thoughts. In fact, creativity and intellectual curiosity are the keys to changing the world.

Teenagers come out of school, financially uneducated. Debts have never been bigger. School teaches us Math 101 and English 101. Where is Money 101? One of the reasons may be: somebody wants us to be financially rewarded. Of course, if you plan on working 40 hours a week and living for the weekend, encompassed by the equivalent hopeless companions who aren’t content with their occupations, then we shouldn’t change a thing.

There is no lecture on how to invest and manage the financial side of my business, but there are courses like ”greeting the customer”. This may have been acceptable before, but with today's civilization, it’s absurd to say that we need hordes of zombie robot workers.

I hate school enough not to neglect it completely! Just enough not to let it ruin me. Enough to do as much as I need to get around and never say something like "If I only loved school more, it would’ve been easier for me."

Honestly, when someone else says they don't like school, I often feel sick, because all of the biggest idiots have also noticed that it's popular not to like school, and now everyone is following that trend, like everyone used to have an iPhone. All the things that really stayed in our heads remained because we later studied them ourselves.

On our skin, we all feel the conflict of generations, because we live unhealthy anti-conservative postmodernism. There is one healthy dose of tradition to which we should all be loyal. At least I think so. The new is often reckless, untested, and of poor quality.

It’s generally accepted that religion is a lazy path, where you say God will judge you or God will bring justice so that you can lie on your sofa and watch Netflix. But truly religious people will not ignore issues such as this one. The system is so bad that kids arrive at Kindergarten with less naivety than teenagers a few generations ago. Teachers don’t get innocent clean little children anymore. They get young minds cluttered with random information and ideas too serious and perfidy to comprehend at that age.

About 60% of school dropouts go to prison later in life. Are these young people bad apples, destined to fail academically and then to live a life of crime? For a young person to truly have a shot at an honest life, he or she has to believe in the value of an education and its impact on good citizenship. I don’t think it’s necessarily or purely genetic predisposition. Kids need a belief system that comes from trust in peers and adults, which, then again, comes from direct and honest dialogues about choice.

Technology brings a whole new dimension to cheating. Academic dishonesty is nothing new. As long as there have been homework assignments and tests, there have been cheaters. The way that cheating looks have changed over time, though. Teachers must stay vigilant, too, when it comes to what their students are doing in classrooms and how technology could be playing a negative role in the learning process. Parents must also talk to their kids about the appropriate ways to find academic answers and alert them to unethical behaviors that may seem innocent in their own eyes. We still struggle with making teacher tenure benefit both students and teachers. We are still wrestling with the achievement gap. We need to consider how school security measures affect students.

The world is facing a learning crisis. The pandemic amplified it, even in first-world countries. While access to education is increased, being in school and having information ready for you isn’t the same thing as learning. Worldwide, hundreds of millions of children reach young adulthood without even the most basic skills like calculating the correct change from a transaction, reading a doctor’s instructions, or understanding a bus schedule—let alone building a fulfilling career or educating their children. People are functionally illiterate.

Education is at the center of building human capital and sustaining the quality of life on this planet. The latest World Bank research shows that the productivity of 56 percent of the world’s children will be less than half of what it could be if they enjoyed complete education and full health. One big reason the learning crisis persists is that many education systems across the developing world have little information on who is learning and who is not. As a result, it is hard for them to do anything about it. And with uncertainty about the kinds of skills, the jobs of the future will require, schools and teachers must prepare students with more than basic reading and writing skills. Students need to be able to interpret information, form opinions, be creative, communicate well, collaborate, and be resilient.

A growing body of evidence suggests the learning crisis is, at its core, a teaching crisis. For students to learn, they need good teachers—but many education systems pay little attention to what teachers know, what they do in the classroom, and in some cases whether they even show up.

Providing quality education requires building systems that deliver learning, day after day, in thousands of schools, to millions of students. Successful education reforms require good policy design, strong political commitment, and effective implementation capacity. Of course, this is extremely challenging. Many countries struggle to make efficient use of resources and very often increased education spending does not translate into more learning and improved human capital. Overcoming such challenges involves working at all levels of the system.

However difficult it is, change is possible. Have you ever considered the tuition fees throughout the world? So how on earth do students manage to fund their university education? Student loans should not be the only answer.

If you hope for a more positive financial future for your children, the key is to save in advance for their university education.

Can’t remember the name of the two elements that scientist Marie Curie discovered? Or who won the 1945 UK general election? Or how many light years away the sun is from the earth? Ask Google.

We should fight back against disinformation. In my recent research looking at the ways students write their assignments, I found that increasingly they may not always compose written work that is truly “authentic”, and that this may not be as important as we think. Instead, through prolific use of the internet, students engaged in a number of sophisticated practices to search, sift, critically evaluate, anthologize and re-present pre-existing content. Through a close examination of the moment-by-moment work of the way students write assignments, I came to see how all the pieces of text students produced contained elements of something else. These practices need to be better understood and then incorporated into new forms of education and assessment.

Part of this is developing a critical eye about what’s being searched for online, or “crap-detection”, whilst wading through the deluge of available information. This aspect is vital to any educationally serious notion of information curation, as learners increasingly use the web as an extension of their own memory when searching. Digital literacy is obviously necessary, but we are overdoing it?

Colleges take superficial forms of diversity much more seriously than intellectual diversity. Universities should be about challenging ideas and free debates, not microaggression and trigger warning safe space. If your reaction to someone's thought is crying because you don't agree, chances are that your beliefs are not that solid. And namedropping and yelling don't boost your credibility.

When you graduate, you are transformed into a beginner in the next stage of life. What are you going to be when you grow up? That question should actually aim for what are the qualities of the person you want to be. Do you want to take care of your community? Do you want to be honest? If not great things, we should engage in positive things. “What will you become?” should not be limited to a profession.

And also another reason to boycott the educational system is the fact that they are a bunch of well-synced robots wound up to speak the same and ban people that differ from their opinions.

So there is the ultimate question: Why not save the money? Well, in some fields, college is almost a necessity. If you can, it is best to get educated, have a beautiful house, wife, and kids, and then when your life is stable and set, start actually telling people about voting and your political thoughts.

THE OVERWHELMINGLY FORGOTTEN PAST IN AMERICA

he majority of politicians sell their work on a diet of fake news. What they say is like honey is dripping from their mouths, but what they do is commonly almost exactly the opposite. It’s just like what fascists did. They launch fake news to cover things up or start wars and then talk about humanity. It’s the same thing with public media nowadays. It's like Ted Bundy telling you not to kill people.

So, Hitler got a stimulating Nobel Peace prize, right? Almost the same way, Obama got one. Comparing Obama with the great leaders who have come before is painful. So, of course, Trump shouldn't get a Nobel Prize, because America has stopped being the world's self-proclaimed policeman during his mandate – wars were stopped and the economy rose. Why would he get a Nobel Prize, the same one that was given to Obama?

When the Soviet Union fell, optimistic scholars believed the world had shifted inexorably in the direction of free markets and liberal democracy. Instead, the West gradually embraced bigger government and weaker social bonds, creating a fragmented society in which the only thing we all belong to is the state.

Let’s not become laugh-free, brain-free fools. Socialism has no moral justification whatsoever; poor people are not morally superior to rich people, nor are they owed anything by rich people simply because of their lack of success. Charity is not a socialist concept - it is a religious one, an acknowledgment of God's sovereignty over property, sovereignty the Left utterly rejects.

Socialism states that you owe me something simply because I exist. Capitalism results in a sort of reality-forced altruism: I may not want to help you, I may dislike you, but if I don't give you a product or service you want, I will starve. Voluntary exchange is more moral than forced redistribution.

The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing when it is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors. While the West tries to turn its citizens into cultural variety hour, Islam tries to turn Muslim lands into a cultural monolith. The same West that justifies the rap culture thinks that every Muslim terrorist bombing is an expression of economic angst or social alienation.

Not only that the modern implementation of the prison planet has far surpassed even Orwell’s 1984, but the only difference between our society and those fictionalized in apocalyptic comics is that the advertising techniques used to package the propaganda are a little more sophisticated on the surface. Yet just a quick glance behind the curtain reveals that the age-old tactics of manipulation by fear and manufactured consensus are still being used to force humanity into accepting the terms of its own imprisonment and in turn policing others within the prison without bars.

We don't know where we are going if we don't know where we're from. But there is a deeper reason, which is that history allows us to understand our own fallibility and hubris, helping us to approach our shortcomings with some degree of humility.

It also emphasizes that progress is not linear, nor is it irreversible. With every step forward, we can still take two steps back. If we study history's trajectory and learn from our mistakes, perhaps we can be better attuned to what Abraham Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature".

What about the American original sin - slavery? Thomas Jefferson was also a slaveholder which should remind us that the story of human progress is hardly the magnificent, linear journey toward the promised land of peace and justice that we often believe it to be.

President Barack Obama was fond of quoting Martin Luther King Jr.'s aphorism that "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." But the progress is fragile and reversible. (And Obama made no progress anyway.)

History isn't a march to neverland. History warns us, however, that a steady march to the promised land is fallacious -- as much as we all might want to believe in it.

The ones who study history have a better grasp of politics, so they play games of predicting the future. Masses might’ve been manipulated into voting for a certain decision, but their original thoughts have never and will never be acted on. But that is alright, we are responsible only for our own actions.

History makes loyal citizens because memories of common experiences and common aspirations are essential ingredients in patriotism. History makes intelligent voters because sound decisions about present problems must be based on knowledge of the past. History makes good neighbors because it teaches tolerance of individual differences and appreciation of varied abilities and interests. It gives long views, a perspective, a measure of what is permanent in a nation’s life. History leads to all these goals, but so do other subjects studied in schools.

The unique importance of history is based not on its objectives, which are common to other school subjects, but on its methods and materials. History is about the experiences of groups of ordinary individuals as well as the achievements of extraordinary people. History arranges its materials in chronological order and thus is naturally led to stress the concepts of change and continuity, of development and decay. This time dimension cannot be given so much emphasis in any other school subject. In short, history attempts to present the facts of social experience in the same form and order in which the facts of individual experience occur.

What is true of individuals is also true of communities. Every organized social group is guided by its recollection of the past. If it does not think about its past it will be ruled by custom, but only the most primitive people remain at this level.

It is hard to see how a community could exist without a sense of its past. It could not know that it was now a community if it did not know that it had been a community. It could not have a common policy if it did not remember the common experiences from which policy must be derived. We all use history; we all appeal to past experience in making both individual and group decisions. Much of the history we use comes to us naturally and without effort; we remember our own experiences and those of the people with whom we are most closely associated. In a small community or a primitive society, this informal history meets most needs. In a large community or a complex society, it is inadequate.

It was not very important for our ancestors of the eighteenth century to know the history of people that live thousands of miles away, but it is today. We should become good neighbors as well as good citizens – that’s something that America lacks the most. No country can exist without a diversity of occupations, interests, and beliefs. We need more tolerance and an active appreciation of the contributions of all the kinds of people who make up our countries.

National history can teach us how to live with ourselves, and the history of the world lets us know what to do with our neighbors. Understanding and appreciating what has been done by others is one way of keeping life from becoming monotonous and meaningless. History, when properly taught, shows the importance of religion, art, and literature as much as it does that of economic and political processes. It can interest us in science and many other spheres of life. It can make us curious about life. At least, it places us in the proper setting. There are many interesting stories to tell in order to study the development of humans as a species.

One of the most important lessons of history is that all human activities are interrelated. A history course that is broad enough would provide questions, solutions, and consequences for those solutions. History is the record of human existence and it’s absolutely 100% made by us. There is no reason to be proud of anything that’s not the product of our historical choices.

Finally, history prepares us for living. We must know our own history if we are to understand our country and deal adequately with its problems. However, history can give birth to ideas of superiority or inferiority that lead us astray, however, history is also the antidote for that. Some myths are made up and easily debunkable.

Nostalgia contributes to mythologizing the past. We always make our memories a little more exciting due to our long grief about the loss of Eden. Our memories often become idealizations of the revolt against the present. The truth is, most of us live in an ordinary world and times. There’s nothing too unique about it, however, something is always going on.

So, yes, we should be guided by no grand story. We should just tell one thing after another, and we would if that was possible. We are not robots and we have our own thoughts and perceptions.

Each person is a sovereign individual: unique, independent, self-reliant, self-governing, and ultimately self-responsible. We start to assume that we control our own fates and are responsible for ourselves, which is very important – to take the blame. We are encouraged to examine and improve.

I’m talking about America in particular because it’s a great example of the destiny of Western culture. It’s a great example of politics that influences the rest of the world. Skepticism about national character leads many scholars to also reject the common description of America as an “exceptional” society.

America and culture, many people in the world believe these two words do not really belong together. The stereotype of the clueless and uncultured American runs deep and not just abroad. It is part of American culture itself – a kind of “in your face” pride at being down-to-earth and every day. America is the youngest and most progressive descendant of Western civilization. It’s like a fully grown son of European democracy. Though it may not have a huge history span compared to my motherland, it still got some good traits.

At the same time, the sophisticated tastes of the upper classes have been viewed with satire. That is why it is a bit of a paradox that American culture has become the world’s most widespread and influential today. Indeed, it has become so powerful and ever-present that some fear it may actually damage their own national cultures and in some places it already did.

It was in the 20^th century that America started getting serious and the “American Dream” was the greatest cultural export in the world Around the time after the First World War that it became like that. The USA exported some of its homegrown culture abroad through films and music. Charlie Chaplin and “Westerns,” and jazz became familiar to millions of people in other continents. Then, after WW2, it became even more extreme. The 1950s were the most important point for the cultural domination of the USA.

Just about 70% of all native English speakers are American, dwarfing all other groups. It is the young who are particularly likely to pick up American slang through music, films, and TV. Two billion speak some form of English, and most of those have the American variety as their model. Now that is cultural influence.

Turn on the radio, check the TV listings, look what’s playing at the local cinema, pull out a computer game or just go online anyway and you will run into American cultural influence. Why does America have such reach in these media? One answer is the market. The United States has a domestic market of over 300 million people in addition to a potential global market of more than two billion English speakers. That means Americans can profitably produce TV programs, films, songs, computer games, and other products for use at home and then export the same programs abroad at very low prices. No other country has this advantage in both numbers and language.

Another reason is innovation. It is often in the United States that new forms of communication have either been invented or perfected. TV broadcasting is a good example of this. In the 1950s American TV networks created a zoo of new program types including game shows, soap operas, mystery shows, westerns, and, of course, situation comedies (sit-coms) that were later exported internationally. Later, cable TV expanded the variety of American shows creating such international bestsellers. And it also set the foundation for the first international news network, CNN (Cable News Network).

America’s cultural influence through movies has been particularly strong. Just the word “Hollywood” itself conjures up visions of movie stars and Oscar nights and Western gunslingers getting ready for the shootout. Motion pictures may not have been invented in the US, but modern movies were perfected there. The figures are imposing. For example, in 2006, 64% of all movies shown in the European Union were American. In comparison, only 3% of the movies shown in the USA were from Europe. In addition, all the twenty movies earning the most money worldwide in 2006 were American or were made in partnership with an American film company. Who knew what would become of it?

American literature spans too great a range to be quickly summed up, but American authors are certainly well-liked in popular literature today. If anything can characterize American literature in general it might be, first – that it began to make a serious impact internationally only after the First World War with authors like Ernest Hemingway and John Steinbeck. Beginning with The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, American authors have used fiction to criticize and poke fun at American society, trying to force it to live up to the ideals it so often claims it stands for.

In summary, today’s modern artists belong to a global community and it is impossible to sort them out by nationality - but America remains at the center of activity.

The only thing left for the USA is to make baseball and American football popular in the rest of the world. Both share common roots with the more international British games of cricket, rugby, and football.

I previously, in The Big Merge section, talk a little about sports, so all of that applies here, but I haven’t made the famous joke of American athletes using steroids. Either way, it’s not that important since they rarely engage with the rest of the world. The chances that we accept baseball and American football are bigger than for them to accept soccer. That’s the only way they have yet to influence us.

I’ve drifted far away from the starting point. What I ultimately want you to remember after reading the eleventh topic is this: Don’t forget your past. And if you hold grudges against something in history, at least get to know the historical background and understand the reason it all happened, so that we turned out this way.

THE CONTRADICTORY MASCULINE

ince I already went so far, now I’ll go all out: I may not be so peaceful and calm after all. But who would be, when the left tries to undermine traditional masculinity by feeding our minds this wrong and sinful culture much before the age when we’re ready to properly comprehend serious topics? They are sexualizing children's thoughts during a time when they are not yet developed enough to know what they feel and I see no way somebody can think that is helpful.

Also, masculinity is not what endangers anybody. It is what makes us all safe when a pack of wolves is at the door. Masculinity is not the shame you have to bear but a humbling blessing that helps men be men. Jordan B. Peterson, a writer who laments that “the west has lost faith in masculinity” and denounces the “murderous equity doctrine” espoused by women, was hailed in the New York Times as “the most influential public intellectual in the western world right now”.

But the world has lost faith in masculinity. The reality of the typical male brain is nearly mythological. The sole undiscovered and sacred existence of the human mind is better than any existential novel.

Men too get scared sometimes - when we encounter a large group of people in the dark, or when somebody has been a few steps behind us for a few blocks, etc. But we generally don't find that traumatizing.

Many straight white men feel besieged by “uppity” Chinese and Indian people, by Muslims and feminists, not to mention gay bodybuilders, butch women, and transgender people. Not surprisingly they are susceptible to Peterson’s notion that the ostensible destruction of “the traditional household division of labor has led to chaos”. This fear and insecurity of a male minority have spiraled into a politics of hysteria in the two dominant imperial powers of the modern era.

In Britain, the aloof and stiff-upper-lipped English gentleman, that epitome of controlled imperial power, has given way to such verbally incontinent Brexiters as Boris Johnson.

A right-wing journalist Douglas Murray, among many elegists of English manhood, deplores “emasculated Italians, Europeans, and westerners in general” and esteems Trump for “reminding the west of what is great about ourselves.” And, indeed, whether threatening North Korea with nuclear incineration, belittling people with disabilities, or groping women, the former American president confirms that some winners of modern history will do anything to shore up their sense of entitlement.

All of this Sodome began somewhere in the late 19th century with newborn radical ideas that prepared the land for later “leftists” to come. There were always many ways of being a man or a woman. A hierarchy of manly and unmanly human beings had long existed in many societies without being central. During the 19th century, it came to be universally imposed, with men and women forced into specific roles.

Gandhi explicitly subverted gendered prejudices of European imperialists (and their Hindu imitators): that femininity was the absence of masculinity. Rejecting the western identification of rulers with male supremacy and subjecthood with feminine submissiveness, he offered an activist politics based on rigorous self-examination and maternal tenderness. This rejection eventually cost him his life. But he could see how much the male will to power was fed by a fantasy of the female other as a regressive being – someone to be subdued and dominated – and how much this pathology had infected modern politics and culture.

As the century progressed, the quest for virility distilled a widespread response among men psychically battered by such uncontrollable and emasculating phenomena like industrialization, urbanization, and mechanization. The ideal of strong, fearless manhood came to be embodied in muscular selves, nations, empires, and races. Living up to this daunting ideal required eradicating all traces of feminine timidity and childishness. Failure incited self-loathing – and a craving for regenerative violence.

One image came to be central to all attempts to recuperate the lost manhood of self and nation: the invincible body, represented in our own age of extremes by steroid-juiced, knobbly musculature. Actually, size matters today much less than it ever did; not many muscles are required for increasingly sedentary work habits and lifestyles. Nevertheless, an obsession with raw brawn and sheer mass still shapes political cultures. Trump’s boasts about the size of his body parts were preceded by Vladimir Putin’s displays of his pectorals – advertisements for a Russia re-masculinized after its emasculation by Boris Yeltsin, who was a very complex character, but on the first look just a flabby drunk.

Now, beauty standards have helped destroy the unity of masculinity ideals and now we have a dozen stereotypes. Some people prefer soft masculinity, so the ideal type may be Kai Greene for some people and Tom Holland for others.

Historians have emphasized how male workers, humiliated by such repressive industrial practices as automation and time management, also began to assert their manhood by swearing, drinking, and sexually harassing the few women in the workforce – the beginning of an aggressive hardhat culture that has reached deep into blue-collar workplaces during the decades-long reign of neoliberalism. Towards the end of the 19th century, large numbers of men embraced sports and physical fitness and launched fan clubs of pugnacious footballers and boxers.

It wasn’t just working men. Upper-class parents in America and Britain had begun to send their sons to boarding schools in the hope that their bodies and moral characters would be suitably toughened up in the absence of corrupting feminine influences. Competitive sports, which were first organized in the second half of the 19th century, became a much-favored means of pre-empting sissiness – and of mass-producing virile imperialists.

This hunt for manliness continues to contaminate politics and culture across the world in the 21st century. Rapid economic, social and technological change in our own time has plunged an exponentially larger number of uprooted and bewildered men into a doomed quest for masculine certainties.

Now, “One is not born, but rather becomes a woman,” wrote Simone de Beauvoir. She might as well have said the same for men. “It is civilization as a whole that produces such a creature.” and forces him into a ruinous pursuit of power. Certainly, men would waste this latest crisis of masculinity if they deny or underplay the experience of vulnerability they share with women on a planet that is itself endangered. Masculine power will always remain maddeningly elusive, prone to periodic crises, breakdowns, and panicky reassertions. It is an unfulfillable ideal, a hallucination of command and control, and an illusion of mastery, in a world where all that is solid melts into thin air, and where even the ostensibly powerful are haunted by the specter of loss and displacement.

We have the window to redefine what a good man is in the 21st century. The future of men is women. Masculinity has always been filled with contradictions and mixed messages.

The reality is that masculinity is changing which is nothing new. Men will always routinely adapt and adopt the culture around them. They will easily start to idealize it. The macho guys of the 1980s, epitomized by a new generation of action films starring guys named Schwarzenegger and Stallone. Then, the 1990s saw another set of rebels and hard rock. There may not be a particular reason as to why these particular images of masculinity made it to the top of the heap at their times, but they did. Maybe it’s what society needed, maybe it’s the contrary.

Instead of defining manhood, we should start asking what purpose it serves. Some values remain after every new wave of mainstream masculine. Some heroes stay, some villains stay but at mid-century, we gave real status to guys who joined and led community organizations, but as Robert Putnam illustrated in Bowling Alone (an important and very serious work you will see many psychologists and sociologists like Satoshi Kanazawa quote), those structures are dying out.

We still like (and will probably always like) the “quietly useful” guys, the men who show up to work every day, go home to their spouse and child, don’t particularly complain, and just make it work every day. Those Average Joes may not have the status and uniqueness that you’d want in a “perfect male” but society has long loved them and they will always be present. Is that the most important thing?

So, manhood is a way to compare men to each other. Primarily, it’s a set of values that men use to get a general sense of belonging to a certain group of standards. It’s the main way to get all variants in order and predict our potential future behavior. We start young by teaching boys they need to prove themselves so that they become men.

Not only are boys expected to prove their masculinity in order to become men, but they’re also taught that masculinity is so precarious they’ll need to prove it repeatedly throughout their lives. That’s why the question “Who is more masculine?” may seem banal or cavemen-level thinking, but the importance of these male-male comparisons shows in the way we speak and I truly do not think that is a problem. It’s just highly dependant on your definition of manly.

So, here’s why: Manly should mean humbling, brave, simple, noble, pure, lighthearted, and loving. In that manner, asking about one’s manhood is not a question of who’s the alpha when it comes to appearance, but which person will bring stability in a better way. That’s why we can ask if the new president is more masculine than the last, but a question like ‘which counselor is more feminine’ seems irrelevant.

We tend to think men have it easy because their manliness is not related to their worth as human beings, but it sometimes certainly feels like it and that is the other side of the gender gap medal, that nobody mentions. In order to break down the concept of masculinity, it’s important to track back to its origin and understand how it gained so much power and influence. Masculinity isn’t inherent in gender, babies born with a Y chromosome aren’t silent and commanding from birth because they are tough, cold, unemotional ‘men’. All babies cry, and then at some point, the boys are told to stop and go bench 200 pounds instead. Masculinity is a learned behavior that is reinforced literally everywhere, but it’s also a biological consequence of a testosterone surplus – so certainly some common ground can be reached.

To uncover the main contributors towards the masculinity problem, we need to track back all the way to Victorian times, when typically, the generally accepted behavior was deep emotional repression. Of course, Victorianism is a characteristic of Western Europe, but the seemingly emotionless and dull period was widely spread throughout the world at that time for some reason. It was not acceptable to show your feelings and the more stoic you were, the better you were considered to be. This brought a dose of equality in the name of ethics.

Then WW1 broke out and conscription was enforced. The government knew that they need to breed shame for vulnerability in men. Due to the biological aspect and the fact that women carry children, they were spared when it comes to a few things such as this one – but don’t let anybody trick you that this is a new concept. Men have always been pointed towards a path of battle, endurance, and roughness. They were taught to clench their jaws, take a breath and go on.

As much as that has proven to be hard over the years, it just needs balance, as everything does, because it’s also what made women associate safety with men and the way they interact with the environment.

There’s also one very interesting thing related to the male-female relationships that I’d like to point out and that’s Jordan B. Peterson’s explanation of the metaphysical reality of male-female relationships. This Jung-antique view of intergender relations seems very important to me, and I’ve seen many psychologists try to make similar points. Peterson explains that the male brain refers to the feminine as to a divine concept of beauty and prosperity that by far outreaches the physical manifestation of a woman. The God-like concept assigned by love has nothing to do with the material reality. However, that idea is being crushed by forcing females to become an estranged and unreachable goal that fewer people are even trying to sincerely reach or by forcing new definitions of the feminine that make you think you were obviously mistaken by your initial divine interpretation of love. What a tragic turn of events.

The Godly idea of the existence of feminine was already hardly approachable (and in a way) scary to young boys and now it’s being pushed further away from their reach. That’s highly destructive for our relationships and mental health.

THE TOLL OF FACTS:

HARD-PASSING THE

MAINSTREAM MEDIA

“The truth is something that burns. It burns off deadwood. And people don't like having the deadwood burnt off, often because they're 95% deadwood.” - Jordan B. Peterson

Now, when it comes to media, there are no important newspaper articles. It’s all just a tower of illusions made of imaginary bricks, which are full of holes when you look closely. If life consisted only of important things, it would really be a dangerous glasshouse. But everyday life was just like a title – engaging, but not all there is.

Of course, there are some things that we hold dear and that are subjectively important to us, which is why little arguments come up now and then. Our decisions and big life choice are the product of the values we picked and that makes them that much more important. Staying on your own two feet to defend a topic you’ve thought a lot about is something we do to protect ourselves and what’s dear to us which is why we need to be extra careful in order not to show unneeded aggression.

“If you're talking to a man who wouldn't fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you're talking to someone for whom you have absolutely no respect.” - Jordan B. Peterson

People who claim to be pro-gun, pro-life, republicans, and religious, not acknowledging any kind of "rape culture", male or white privilege, any more than two genders and are against socialism and affirmative actions - they are considered conservatives (and their beliefs I named convy-pack). What I find yet another hallmark of truth is that it snaps things together. I heard people say that pieces were coming together in their minds numerous times. It's like the Platonic idea that all learning was remembering. You have a nature, and when you feel that nature articulated, it's like a puzzle. That’s why we have sets of opinions rather than singular choices. That’s why we have both the convy-pack and the lefty-pack. Let’s talk about them one by one for a bit.

- First, I want to mention the moral dilemma of abortion. Abortion is wrong. It’s clearly wrong. I think everyone knows that, which is why abortion activists are so angry all the time. It's a bit like when you catch someone out in a lie, and they get really mad at you really quickly, and you can't work out why until later. It's guilt.

- There are the people who fight for a culture free of persecution, a culture free of oppressive government, and above all – for our culture. The other side also piles upon certain sets of ideas in topics such as abortion, guns, veganism, LGBTQIA+ alphabet gang, liberalism, atheism, rape, racism, etc.

- Development of technology has a big impact on cognitive functions. Primarily, there's a big difference in attention span because we are now fed the essence. You read news in one sentence, you get information with one click, you don't need to search through a book, which is poisonous since the most accessible news is commonly false.

- Here we can return to environment and veganism speeches, but there’s no need. You got the point.

Like I implied a few times before, throughout the book, the neoliberal stance is often just a “La-di-da, someone is gonna gets laid in college” moment. That’s a Rick Sanchez quote that I heard and thought was extremely funny because young people tend to pick -up their “cool peers” perception of the world in order to score.

Now, Google has always been a leftist company. It is a private company with the capacity to utilize its massive power for whatever political agenda it chooses. But for them to pretend to be an advocate of Internet freedom while simultaneously disadvantaging certain political messages is deeply hypocritical.

You can think of the entire Internet as a place where ideas embodied in cyberspace are having a war, and it's not much different than the war of gods in heaven, which has been taking place since the birth of our race.

“People are desperately searching for an alternative. They instinctively know the BBC is bullshitting them,” says Paul Watson. People know that every single story that is served to them is either completely false or beholden to maintaining the leftist consensus that all of the media giants propose.

I feel a deep need to act according to my opinions and system of values. What distinguishes the majority of men from the few is the inability to act according to their beliefs. A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case, he is justly accountable to them for the injury.

The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men. Pleasure and being free from pain, are the only things desirable as ends.

It's very hard to find your own words, but you almost need to, for you don't actually exist until you have them. Think, so that others don't do it for you. The ability to form an opinion, even if it proves to be wrong, is a gift and the only distinction between you and a chimpanzee.

“Freedom of the press is not just important to democracy, it is democracy.” – Walter Cronkite

Journalism is fundamental to the health of our democracies. Declining press freedom is one of the first signs that a society is losing its commitment to democratic principles. With the erosion of press protections, an alarming concentration of media ownership by oligarchs and disinformation spread to discredit journalists, we are facing a global crisis of press freedom.

Increasingly homogenous content in the media is the result of media ownership concentration and self-censorship of journalists.

During the election in Hungary in 2018, journalists working for the state-owned public service broadcaster MTVA admitted to publishing “government messaging, and at times false stories”. A journalist asking to remain anonymous confessed: “Sometimes the editor will come into the office on the phone and dictate a whole story to us, word for word.”

Also, self-censorship by journalists is a systemic issue in the media industry. Often they are confronted with a dilemma: Adapt to the ideological line of your news editor, even if the information is not truthful, or lose your job over sticking to your journalistic and ethical principles.

The ongoing “Fake News” hysteria is symptomatic of a global mistrust in the media. Populists use the term as a scapegoat — a simple explanation for complex problems. It is easy for populists to avoid issues by referring to them as “fake news”. That is the real danger. Politicians can use this concept to discredit oppositional powers.

All these developments paint a rather grim picture for the future of the free press. Immediate action is needed. Journalists must urgently raise awareness of the wider public to the ties between their industry and political influence if something is to change.

Within the whole debate around “fake news”, Daniel Patrick Moynihan puts it straight: “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to his own facts.” As a counterforce to disinformation and “fake news,” media literacy is ever more important these days. But it is only a drop in the ocean. A social media giant like Facebook should be regulated as a media firm because the platform fuels the dissemination of disinformation.

Considering the extent of obstacles standing in the way of a free press, these suggestions may sound naive. But as Irish statesman Edmund Burke told us: “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” If democratic powers cease to support media independence at home and impose no consequences for its restriction abroad, the free press will be in danger of virtual extinction.

Even in the most powerful democracies, people are receiving biased information. Additionally, governments are also showing support for publications and media outlets that tend to express more favorable views towards the ruling regime, compromising the diversity and variety in opinions. Considering the corrupt nature of humans, we could’ve seen that coming.

Social media platforms have brought information to more of the public and bypassed censorship in authoritarian regimes. Yet social media also can quickly spread disinformation. We should try to regulate that without endangering the benefits of technology.

In the world of the Internet and social media, censorship is not a new concept. However, it is a concept that has drastically changed over time. Its initial purpose was to protect the viewers from disturbing images and videos, which could be psychologically damaging to both children and to adults. This all seemed logical and Internet users were not against it, so long as its purpose was to help them enjoy the many wonders of the Internet without disturbing interruptions. However, censorship today has gone way too far.

Something that was initially intended for the protection of Internet users has now deformed into a hysterical restriction on almost everything that doesn’t fall into the rule book of the content “gatekeepers”.

Social media platforms like Facebook, Tumblr, and even Instagram and Twitter, have banned people and content simply because they were suddenly seen as ‘too much to handle. What’s interesting about their decision to ban certain types of art and artistic expression is that it doesn’t seem like the platforms actually consulted their users first before making their final decision. We have almost reached a stage where even the users are not sure where all of this censorship is going. So, owners of social media platforms have the right to ultimate judgment.

This doesn’t mean that there should not be any censorship at all, but it does mean that artists will suffer from it as a result. After all, the purpose of art is to evoke emotion out of the audience, to imprint meaning into their minds, and to be a free form of expression. Censoring art is the equivalent of censoring a person’s own mind, and preventing them from freely expressing themselves on the Internet. Censorship alienates people from the world and causes marginalized groups to be even less visible than they were before. After all, free speech is the one thing that we pride ourselves on. It is what sets us apart from the civilizations of the past, and what propels us to advance as a species for the future.

Who knows how many brilliant ideas are silenced when there is no platform on which they could be released. If censorship is taken to extremes, when will it end? We are not all offended by the same things, and we do not all have the same opinions, so how do we draw the line between justified censorship and anti-democracy? Every act of censorship is also an act of iconoclasm — the action of attacking or assertively rejecting cherished beliefs and institutions or established values and practices.

It is now becoming more and more obvious that the motive behind this extreme level of censorship of artists on social media is the fear of offending anyone. As if removing artistic expression will somehow create an environment where all users will get along and will never have to deal with any offense or any opinion that is not theirs. After all, where will artists go if all major platforms are censoring them? How will they live?

Provocative and controversial art and in-your-face entertainment put our commitment to free speech to the test. Why should we oppose censorship when scenes of murder and mayhem dominate the TV screen, when works of art can be seen as a direct insult to peoples' religious beliefs, and when much sexually explicit material can be seen as degrading to women? Why not let the majority's morality and taste dictate what others can look at or listen to?

The answer is simple and timeless: a free society is based on the principle that each and every individual has the right to decide what art or entertainment they want -- or do not want -- to receive or create. Once you allow the government to censor someone else, you cede to it the power to censor you, or something you like. Censorship is like poison gas: a powerful weapon that can harm you when the wind shifts. Freedom of expression for me - requires freedom of expression for others.

Today's calls for censorship are not motivated solely by morality and taste, but also by the widespread belief that exposure to images of violence or sex causes people to act in destructive ways. Pro-censorship forces, including many politicians, often cite a multitude of "scientific studies" that allegedly prove fictional violence leads to real-life violence.

Now, from a psychological aspect, being exposed to something gets you familiar with the concept and makes your reaction to it less powerful. It’s like that with everything, with good things, with bad things, but that doesn’t mean that after watching a documentary on genocide, we will think that is okay to commit it. It’s more likely that we will vomit. There are certain things we should learn about, even though it’s NSFW content.

There is, in fact, virtually no evidence that fictional violence causes otherwise stable people to become violent. And if we suppressed material based on the actions of unstable people, no work of fiction or art would be safe from censorship. Serial killer Theodore Bundy collected cheerleading magazines. And the work most often cited by psychopaths as justification for their acts of violence is the Bible. Is the Bible violent or promoting violence or even leaving you space to think that it does? It’s absolutely not. It’s just that some people are sick. (And the worst part is that you won’t know it when you first talk to them, like in the movie American Psycho. If your gut doesn’t warn you, your senses will not either.)

Now, what about the rest of us? Does exposure to media violence actually lead to criminal or anti-social conduct, including children, who spend an average of 28 hours watching television each week? These are important questions. If there really were a clear cause-and-effect relationship between what an average child sees on TV and harmful actions, then limits on such expression might arguably be warranted.

Studies on the relationship between media violence and real violence or video games and violence are the subject of considerable debate. Children have been shown TV programs and games with violent images in a laboratory setting and then tested for "aggressive" behavior. Some of these studies suggest that watching TV violence may temporarily induce "object aggression" in some children (such as popping balloons or hitting dolls or playing sports more aggressively) but not actual criminal violence against another person. Some other studies concluded that based on the age of the kid, the younger the kid is, the more likely he/she will develop strong feelings against violence, maybe even get scared, rather than accept the behavior.

If you’re interested in this topic, you’ll look forward to reading Satoshi Kanazawa explains the dilemma of “Why more violent people watch more violent TV?” I won’t elaborate, but in short, people who are violent constantly search for violent content, and also people who are psychologically and emotionally unstable will be influenced more by contents they consume (especially if they are known to be mentally damaged) – so there’s not a rule here. If we stop giving maniacs violent TV, it won’t change the way they act, and the reasons why they feel the need to act that way are various. It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg dilemma: does violent TV cause, such people, to behave aggressively, or do aggressive people simply prefer more violent entertainment? There is no definitive answer. But all scientists agree that statistical correlations between two phenomena are necessarily correlated, because people have strong masks, even towards themselves.

Japanese TV shows and Korean movies are famous for their extreme, graphic violence, but the two countries have a very low crime rate (though the suicide rate is particularly high in Japan, research has shown it has more to do with work overloaded weeks and high societal expectations).

The only clear assertion that can be made is that the relationship between art and human behavior is a very complex one. Violent and sexually explicit art and entertainment have been a staple of human cultures from time immemorial. Many human behavioralists believe that these themes have a useful and constructive societal role, serving as a vicarious outlet for individual aggression.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment's protection of artistic expression very broadly. It extends not only to books, theatrical works, and paintings but also to posters, television, music videos, and comic books -- whatever the human creative impulse produces.

The question of: up to what point is it art and from which point is it inappropriate madness? The first is "content neutrality"- the government cannot limit expression just because any listener, or even the majority of a community, is offended by its content. In the context of art and entertainment, this means tolerating some works that we might find offensive, insulting, outrageous - or just plain bad.

Blaming the media does not get us very far, and, to the extent that diverts the public's attention from the real causes of violence in society, it may do more harm than good. The First Amendment is based upon the belief that in a free and democratic society, individual adults must be free to decide for themselves what to read, write, paint, draw, see and hear. If we are disturbed by images of violence or sex, we can change the channel, turn off the TV, and decline to go to certain movies or museum exhibits.

We can also exercise our own free speech rights by voicing our objections to forms of expression that we don't like. I’ve talked a little bit about this, but not in this context: Pornography is not a legal term at all. Its dictionary definition is "writing or pictures intended to arouse sexual desire." Pornography comes in as many varieties as the human sexual impulse and is protected by the First Amendment unless it meets the definition of illegal obscenity.

Diversity is, by the way, a great strength. This has been a theme of Obama’s presidency from the start. Affirmative action used to be defended on the grounds that certain groups, particularly African Americans, are entitled to extra help because of the horrible legacy of slavery and institutionalized racism. Whatever objections their political opponents may raise to that claim, it’s a legitimate moral argument.

But that argument has been abandoned in recent years and replaced with a far less plausible and far more ideological claim: that enforced diversity is a permanent necessity. Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, famously declared: “Diversity is not merely a desirable addition to a well-run education. It is as essential as the study of the Middle Ages, of international politics and of Shakespeare.”

It’s a nice thought. But consider some of the great minds of human history, and it’s striking how few were educated in a diverse environment. Newton, Galileo, and Einstein had little exposure to Asians or Africans. The genius of Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato cannot be easily correlated with the number of non-Greeks with whom they chatted in the town square. If diversity is essential to education, let us get to work dismantling historically black and women’s colleges. When I visit campuses, it’s common to see black and white students eating, studying, and socializing separately. This is rounding out everyone’s education? It’s a nice idea, but it’s manifestly absurd.

Liberals misapplied the label from the outset to demonize ideas they didn’t like. They’ve never stopped. As a truism, it’s a laudable and correct sentiment that no reasonable person can find fault with. But that’s the problem: no reasonable person disagrees with it. There’s nothing wrong with saying it, but it’s not an argument — it’s an uncontroversial declarative statement. And yet people say it as if it settles arguments. It doesn’t do anything of the sort. The hard thinking comes when you have to deal with the “and therefore what?” part. Where do we draw the lines?

False or misleading stories can be easily created and diffused via the global online networks — in a matter of a few clicks. Fake stories become part of the personalized, endless feeds that people consume on a daily basis. But even when critical thinking is there, it is not always easy to spot a fake story: with the so-called ‘deep fakes’, it is already extremely difficult to tell if what you see is true or not. The latest technologies enable hacking real videos or creating artificial ones that present people doing things they never did — in a very realistic way. Moreover, synthesized speech that matches the voice of a known person can be used to claim statements or words never said. The time when something was perceived as true just because it was "seen on TV" or in a photo or in a video is now gone.

On the other hand, Fake content is designed to be viral; its creators want it to spread organically and rapidly. Sometimes it’s more of a moneymaker than propaganda. Fake stories are engineered to attract attention and trigger emotional reactions so users are tempted to share the ‘news’ with like-minded people in their social networks. With the right tricks and timing, a false story can go viral in hours. More specifically, the ‘fake news industry’ takes advantage of the following ‘flaws’ or our online reality: The performance of the global ‘news distribution network’ — including social media, news corporations, opinion leaders, and influencers — is usually measured in terms of ‘attention’ and ‘user engagement’. In many cases ‘content performance’ is based on CTR — click-through rate — along with user engagement and social sharing statistics:

With this definition of success and performance, digital content with fancy photos and ‘overpromising titles’ can easily perform well — regardless of the quality of the underlying story (if there is one). An attractive ‘promo card’ for an article with an impressive title is usually enough for people to start sharing with their friends and networks — a behavior that can trigger viral effects for content with no substance — or even worse- with false information and misleading messages.

Content quality is rarely part of these KPIs. Instead, it is the predicted performance of the content that is often most important for news and social media companies: websites and other online entities rush to reproduce stories that appear to be potentially viral; and they promote them so they get more traffic and serve more ads, to achieve their ambitious monetization goals.

Another aspect of the problem is this massive group of online users who act primarily as distributors/ re-sharers of content — without having the necessary understanding or even a genuine interest in what they share. It is sad to realize that in an era characterized by instant access to the world’s accumulated knowledge, the majority of the online users are ‘passive re-sharers’: they don’t create original content; they just recycle whatever appears to be trendy or likable, with little or no judgment and critical thinking. Users of this class may consume and circulate fake news — and other types of poor content — and unintentionally become part of the fake news distribution mechanism.

Hate speech, however repugnant, is a form of speech/expression. Therefore, if you limit it, you cannot claim to support free speech. You have crossed the threshold into controlled speech. So, the ethical tension in this situation is between the prevention of hateful, hurtful speech and the protection of free speech. If you are in favor of limiting hate speech, you must acknowledge you are in favor of controlling speech, even if it is to a small degree.

Youtube defines hate speech as “content that promotes violence” or “has the primary purpose of inciting hatred against individuals or groups” based on attributes such as race, ethnicity, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, or gender identity, to name a few.

Firstly, it is difficult to prove intent. Unless the content creator is explicit that the content’s primary purpose is to promote or incite violence and/or hatred against individuals or groups, it is difficult to consistently and accurately discern the purpose of the content. Therefore, enforcing a standard based on the individual’s purpose for their speech is implausible.

Secondly and more importantly, the implications of this definition of hate speech are negative. It would prevent valuable and, in my opinion, necessary criticism. Suppose a group of people is engaged in actual, physical violence. They are destroying property and killing people. If this group claims any religious affiliation or describes themselves as a racial or ethnic group, I risk being unable to criticize them. Indeed, I would be unable to harshly condemn white supremacists for their actions because, after all, they are a group whose existence and mission are based on the race of their members. Additionally, I would be unable to propose combating terrorism perpetrated by an Islamist group because they self-identify as a religious entity.

My major objection lies with the subjectivity of these policies. While Youtube may have been noble in its intent to protect certain people from verbal attacks, it is not unreasonable to expect that the language of Youtube’s policy could be deliberately used to limit particular political perspectives from being expressed in the digital town square. Some argue that this censorship has already taken place. It’s okay to make some videos unable to cash in, but where’s the “okay, that’s too much” line?

When a social media company is the sole arbiter in determining what speech, and consequently what views, are objectionable, the company can finagle the subjectivity of the descriptors “hurtful” and “hateful” to stifle political perspectives opposed to its own. In fact, any viewpoint – beyond simply political – could effectively be shut down if the company can demonstrate that it is hurtful or harmful to someone. This is the ultimate dystopia of controlling speech: a controlling of thought and debate in a space created precisely for thought and debate.

Consider John Stuart Mill’s classic defense of what he called the liberty of thought and discussion. Mill argued that we ought to tolerate offensive opinions because of the benefits such opinions produce for human and social progress. In some cases, an opinion may be offensive, but true—in which case silencing it would rob us of access to the, admittedly uncomfortable, truth of some matter. In other cases, an offensive opinion may be partly true and, when combined with our partly true popular opinion, produce a greater understanding of the whole truth. Unrestricted speech creates an opportunity to learn and correct errors.

But even in cases where an offensive opinion is false, Mill says that hearing and responding to it can help us better understand the reasons why our current views might be correct and justified. If a strongly held opinion or conviction is not “fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma and not a living truth.” For example, we might develop a better understanding of exactly why slavery, racism, and sexism are wrong—and thereby put ourselves in a stronger position to recognize and dismiss arguments for them—by occasionally grappling with the opinions of jerks who think otherwise.

But notice that if the value of liberty of thought and discussion resides in its contribution to individual and social development, then we should be just as conflicted about restrictions on speech imposed by private individuals and organizations as by restrictions imposed by governments and political institutions. The silencing of an opinion itself is the primary issue, according to Mill, not the status or identity of the censor. “Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough,” he writes. “There needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas, and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them.” On what grounds, then, can speech be restricted?

Mill famously argued that liberty—and not just liberty of thought, but of action as well—ought to be restricted only when its exercise harms others. “The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number,” he says, “is self-protection…The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” To restrict speech, in Mill’s view, it is not enough that an opinion is offensive; there must be a reasonable expectation that not restricting the message could lead to tangible harm.

The challenge is determining exactly what constitutes harm and, therefore, what might justify limits on speech. I take offense when someone calls me an idiot. But while that happens more often than I’d like, I’m not harmed in any meaningful sense. When someone encourages someone else to kill me, there is a case for censoring that message—because it threatens substantial harm. But there is a wide-open field between those two cases. Exposure to relentless racist, sexist, or other vile messages—short of encouraging violence—might constitute a kind of harm. Or it might not. Distinguishing between cases that are merely offensive and those that constitute harm requires thoughtful deliberation and judgment. Mill offers a useful principle, but not an algorithm, for sorting through them.

In thinking about restrictions, then, both advocates and critics should pay less attention to what private organizations are permitted to ban, and more to what they may or may not have reason to ban. If there is something to worry about when tech companies think about speech and censorship, it is that they have enormous power to shape discourse, but little corresponding obligation to provide a formal account of how and why they shape that discourse. In banning hate speech, they’re on solid ground. But what’s less clear is whether tech companies are equipped to distinguish between genuinely harmful and merely offensive speech. Tech companies and their CEOs need to think about good, defensible reasons for acting, and not simply on how they feel when they wake up in the morning.

News is not news if they are made up and it’s a sign that people are making an effort to fact-check stories themselves, though it’s an open question whether they’re any good at it. If people stop reading a website because it is peddling crap - that’s good news. If they stop consuming any coverage from mainstream outlets like CNN or BBC because they believe a story is biased, or because the president has labeled it fake news, that’s also alright, but the problem is that you can hardly find anyone who thinks Breitbart, Daily Wire or even Fox News are legit sources of information, so most people still find left-leaning media as the only proven option.

Sadly, there’s no easy fix to the problem. Tweaking algorithms — something Facebook and Google are trying to do — can help, but the real solution must come from the news consumers since conglomerates won’t change a thing.

A crucial part of that strategy should involve media literacy training and equipping news consumers with tools that will allow them to gauge the legitimacy of the news source but also become aware of their own cognitive biases. The problem will only get worse without proper action as more people get their news online and politics become more tribal and polarized.

Keep it up, America, and you'll be going down the road of the Roman Empire, Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union. Go on gleefully dismissing valid, pointed stories written by skilled journalists as "fake news." That irresponsible action is going to bite your backside in a way you cannot even imagine. Reporters know it. Elected officials know it. Writers of the U.S. Constitution knew it - that's how "freedom of the press" landed in the First Amendment.

The whole political spectrum agrees on the existence of media oppression, they just don’t agree on the exact instances of it. People should get their information from a press that strives to write with impartiality, not one that starts with a stated point of view or the goal of getting the most clicks since every press is biased and we don’t have time to read it all.

It may be true that most conservatives are narrow-minded fanatics and I like to think I’m more of an evolutionary product - all the issues that I asserted are something I look upon as “pricey comedy”. It’s stuff visible to comedians. You can see Netflix specials from people like Bo Burnham making fun of this stuff. On a subconscious level, we can all probably feel it. “Music industry will stop beating a dead horse when it stops spitting money.” (Bo Burnham about the end of authenticity in modern music) – that’s one of the sentences you can find in Netflix special “what”, alongside a lot of genders, race that I’m happy aren’t censored.

These days, though, we ought to be a little more skeptical about claims that we need protection from moral pollution. Whether exposure to controversial content can adversely affect the morals of the viewer is a question that is open to scientific analysis. So, folks, is viewing material considered abhorrent by the community alone sufficient to turn a moral person into an immoral one? Does pornography have a corrosive effect on the attitudes of those who view it? This is a fertile avenue for research, but what we know so far is far from unambiguous. While violent people may seek out violent material, the cause and the effect are not clear. Research shows that the use of pornography may actually have a positive impact on its users and their attitudes to sexuality.

This is an area of legitimate debate, but before we introduce drastic new public policy, we ought to be clear just who we are protecting, how, and why. We may decide that the government has a role to play in shielding adults from "harmful" influences. Then again, we may decide that individual freedom trumps such concerns.

Alright, but rude comments are not a part of censorship. How about cyberbullying? Not. Real. Go live in the outside world and turn off your phone. If the rude things people say to us on the internet were real, we'd all be dead by now. Most of us would've been killed numerous times if every death threat was real. But they are not. None of them are if you just know the limits of your privacy and end up turning off your phone and not putting more oil to the fire.

In every "terms and policy" that we don't read, there is a paragraph about "respecting people with different opinions". What happened to that? Why can't someone address murderers and criminals and call them murderers and criminals? That's free speech, and Twitter not removing it is their respect towards my opinion. And as media legitimizes violence towards conservatives, all of the METOO, BlackLivesMatter, or Antifa come from the same idea of shifting the balance of power for the purpose of bestriding the dominant position forcefully.

Capitalism, by the way, is a self-relying conformation, while socialism is the blame-shifting ideology where you get fed by the idea of evil rulers that will go away so that the good ones can come and give you free money. That's just stupid, and so was Fridrich Engels. Of course, capitalism has many flaws, as it’s easily corruptible, but it’s self-reliant.

Tech monopolists have the power to annihilate you from existing on the internet if they find you dangerous and if there is a single person who does not realize or believe that, they are most certainly dumb as a drainpipe. We need laws against this, but that won't happen. But, people can't be deleted, and we will never be silenced. Mark Zuckerberg is telling a third of the world population what opinion they can and cannot have. However, it kind of backfires, because the media articles following the news of someone being kicked off of Facebook really sound like free promotion.

Social media monitors and manipulates public discourse. A bunch of authoritarian narcissistic despots was born so the left started believing we shouldn't regulate big companies right at the times they started silencing political opposition.

It's always been hard to get to the truth. Everybody has their own agenda, but the narrative has always been more prominent in our minds. What you want to believe you find ways and excuses to do so. The reason people run away from facts and commit to subjectivity is that it's an anxious feeling to stand alone in a storm and wait for someone to potentially prove you wrong. If you're subjective, you can never be wrong. If you try to be objective you have to re-examine your position and it's hard.

One of the reasons that a minority can go on a rampage against their political enemies is that Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and dominant media follow progressive liberals. The centers of cultural power are run by people who don't respect other people or even themselves, obviously.

Speaking for Eastern Europe, we should try not to become as “politically correct” as the USA has become – even though we are already close. Completely converged industries unanimously far left overrun by the progressive left and social justice warriors that talk about respectable reasonable conservative opinions as if we are members of a Nazi movement.

Protests actually work. If all of us stood up, liberals would not feel so powerful. The fundamental root of all our losses is that the left is able to convince people that they have the moral high ground with that irritating elitist stance that everybody else is a lesser human or trash-brained because they don’t agree.

Either we do something now or otherwise, censorship becomes the moral tapestry of the nation. What's right and what’s wrong will be dictated. In a liberal democracy, it comes to equality of citizens, but they want to un-citizen the groups that they don't like. The most endangered one is a white male conservative.

The option to give a compelling counterexample is always available because neo-liberals have forgotten how to argue, they don't use logic and reason, they use bullying and censorship. The only problem is that we can’t make ourselves seem legit while standing next to decades of media giants.

The 2006 film “Idiocracy” is not fiction anymore. The movie “Equilibrium” (2002) and the book “Never Let Me Go” (by Kazuo Ishiguro) start to seem like the present times. But the leaders will also feel the ripple effect of their deeds. Of course, it's easy to think that people in power are bad. They are not necessarily. Because people always come and ask something of them. And of course, it's not a high road. The easy way is to hate successful people. “But we need to preserve the presumption of innocence. Maybe they do not know what they are doing.” Yeah, but either way the idea to give a billionaire oligarch monopolist the power to decide who has free speech is surely not progressive.

There’s no sign of cultural revival. A powerful but deceptive archetype that gives masses a distorted sense of meaning that they can have a good life without having to work hard, be talented, or be educated. Good culture amplifies what's already good, but we do this instead.

The first pointer that the left has lost the argument is the fact that they pop open a bottle of champagne when a conservative gets shut down, censored, or banned by social media. Social media should be, or at least was meant to be, like a public square. You wouldn't cut off anybody that doesn't agree with you, because that would not be important or even possible. People have the right to think differently.

Advertisement is pretty much gotten the way it's portrayed in Carpenter's "They Live". They feel the need to sell us feelings and status because all products are identical. None of the intelligence-insulting slogans and campaigns seem to get to people in a sense where they will say "Wait, why am I doing this?", so it looks like companies are giving up on creativity and experimenting to see how dumb an ad can get and how much obvious it is that they think we are just idiotic hypnotized slaves.

The deeper the slogan is, the more shallow the reality. I feel that on my skin and we will all probably become just dull conformists. Big companies lived to grow into tyrannical formations of mass control.

All those engaging media titles are sucking the energy out of us. We are chronically a depressed society on the verge of existence and as a cherry on top, social media platforms were designed like drugs – like alcohol and drug cravings, it too has the same ability to affect us to the point where we abandon the basic human instinct – to be aware of the surroundings in an open space. It traumatizes kids. It makes us less human.

Social media is like a pacifier for adults. It’s an evil pacifier that develops narcissistic views of self-evaluation. Empathy is also a casualty of social media since the distraction is so strong people find it hard to understand each other. Ultimately, it makes every single person extremely anxious. Tech giants limit the use of technology in their homes. I really think they've seen the dangers firsthand. They know more about their products than users can ever know. They know what they unleashed.

Addiction leads to depression. The suicidal tendencies of teenagers have doubled in the last ten years. The overuse of technology is managing our lives. You swipe down all day like you’re on a slot machine.

The more you consume, the more your mind is steered by someone. And since the black hole of madness is transferring to China, it seems like they became our main guinea pig for future experiments. First, we got COVID-19 from Wuhan, after which we got a social credit system (straight out of a horror movie) as if the Chinese communist party hasn't already banned half of the activities people did daily (You can find a list of websites banned in China on the web). It’s all like a "Black Mirror" episode.

Stories such as Margaret Atwood's “The Handmaid's Tale” are always considered either fiction or conspiracy theorist delirium, which is ridiculous, even more so for a conservative. It saddens me to admit that our society seems like a young dystopian society in every way. It's weird not to recognize the outcome of chauvinistic government and overpowered conglomerates. The only possible result, if we don't fight back, is "Fahrenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury where the civilization regresses into forced illiteracy and book burning.

Fairytales should all be looked upon metaphorically so that movies like Snowpiercer, The Lobster, and The Matrix can make sense. But there is not a pill that we can take in order to really be adaptive to reality. It's a disaster.

Just the way it is portrayed in "A Clockwork Orange" by Anthony Burgess, it is possible to break humans completely and the first step is to kill the desire to fight back due to the state of depression induced by thoughts of having no choice left in life. If you get surrounded by mouths that forcefully convince you that your life is already set and that you can't do anything about it, you fall into an unauthentic homogenous societal mass.

Some cyberpunk classics such as “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley, “We” by Yevgeniy Zamyatin, and movies like The Truman Show are the representation of where the mentioned Chinese government is heading with its 1.4 billion people. They will all become one big well surveilled slavery Chinatown, and probably all of their interest zones (places where they invest millions of dollars, such as the Balkans) will follow the same path.

All of the dystopian movies and books that I mention are the product of totalitarian regimen, which is why Chinese people can never say that they don't like it there. Because there is no obligation for the government to inform people about what is actually happening. You are watched, there is an ever ongoing war. You are filled with propaganda and lose your own thoughts. Paul Watson has talked a lot about this. Also, George Orwell wrote about it in "1984", which I’ve mentioned several times throughout the book.

Of course, history is not written by winners, but by those with power who sit and decide what will tell generations to come. History books are being rewritten, even I have noticed that because it’s not even subtle. They’re being changed year after year. When I do research for my books, the stories keep on wavering every once in a while. People are changing and official info is changing. Those are all kinds of heralds of a cyberpunk scenario and direct products of the lefty-pack.

Advertisement of our political opponents' program should not be our censorship target, but it always will be for some people. We need to lose the consequences of being in the system for too long.

However, for development matters, we were equipped with general intelligence (that seems to have helped us arguably very little so far). The reason for this is what I like to call "cavemen software" that we are all working on. So, basically, the mindset that we use today is a module of a brain that homo-Erectus had that has some more ancestry information and that is pretty much being repressed daily. Sure, if we wanted to, we could still act by instinct, but it is just not accepted by society anymore because we like to think we are above that at this point.

So, for the last time, to put it the way Kanazawa wrote: Intelligent people are more likely to recognize and develop tastes for things that our ancestors did not have. That includes believing in science, dropping religion, being a left-wing liberal, smoking, drinking, doing drugs, not eating meat, and so on... Not all of those are right, good, or the smartest option there is, but we will get to that in the next paragraph. We will always try to search for a more complex answer, as I like to note, this causes a big domino effect because stupid people are now aware of these facts and want to act smarter than they are.

Perhaps that is why in the end I went a little too much conspiracy, but I believe it’s better to make the story more impactful since things are exponentially falling apart for at least half a century. It is fair to say that at this moment, those "smart opinions" are occupied by idiots, so they are not so smart anymore. They are now misunderstood and deformed. Also, some of the effects are not yet proven and demand a little more time, because science has been "denying God" (which I also do not think is really accurate, because neither real church nor real science can deny anyone or anything) for roughly 100 years, from somewhere after Darwin's death.

The left continues with arguments like “Fox News sounds like Fake News, and if you spell republican backward you get nailbiter which rhymes with pooper, so republicans are shit.” That leads us nowhere. In evolutionary familiar domains such as interpersonal relationships, feeling usually leads to correct solutions whereas thinking does not.

More intelligent people reject the "simplistic" solution offered by common sense, even though it is sometimes the correct solution, and instead adopt unnecessarily complex ideas simply because their intelligence allows them to practice such complex ideas, even when they may be untrue or unuseful in solving the problem at hand.

One final conclusion: Censorship, silencing, and force? The last time I checked, none of those principles were liberal. Let’s be civilized and acknowledge that freedom of expression leads us to prosper, despite the side effect of a few lunatics writing easily-debunkable monologues here and there.

13b

EPILOGUE

After this long piece, I want to talk to you in punchlines for a bit. I've read, written, and spoken a lot, but the story is ongoing and far wider than anybody can ever-present it or get to know it. Now, I'd like to give a little summary, conclude and hopefully add a new light to my work.

The West made a conditional division into neoliberalism and authoritarianism. Democracy is really a God that died. Post-communist fractions no longer exist and republican options are no longer so republican. Conservatism becomes faith in freedom of speech, personal credibility and responsibility, the validity of institutions, and, of course, the church as a culturally important institution. The "left" wants to get in the way.

Classic America and its values died with Kennedy. All my blabbering might end up in vain since the USA might never return to its previous glory. Since WW2, they are in constant war. They are so used to running around and fighting that I read this sentence somewhere "The fact that Canada exists is the proof that America is good and peaceful." A sentence like this shouldn't be dignified with a response, but here you go: So, the USA is not bad for even having thoughts about annihilation, liquidation, or assimilation of its neighbor, but good for not doing so? Canada has a similar culture and they use the same language, sure, but they have different history - so in no way should it be a part of the United States and once again - America needs to stay away from world conflicts that have nothing to do with it or that are needless in general.

People who are not professionally educated to talk about society, education, and politics, really shouldn't do so, but you'll almost never see anybody refrain from it. Everybody wants to give us advice on how to live. Even Ricky Gervais, a comedian, told the actors not to use award shows for political speeches since they never went to school, back when he hosted Academy Awards. I mean, of course, we should never speak when we're not asked to speak. What are we trying to prove? Not everything should be turned into a political debate. Some things are meant to be relaxing.

Most of the people I adore in Hollywood nowadays are true liberals. Conservatives are totally banished, so what is left for us to like are true leftist creators that actually use their heads to think, while the rest only needs their heads when they visit a hairdresser. I'm not happy about that, but I'd rather have smart people I oppose on TV than uneducated morons that somehow got to share my political views for what I consider to be wrong arguments. I feel that way simply because some conservatives are providing bad advertisements with their crazy ideas and have next to nothing meaningful to teach their viewers.

Meanwhile, the world has never been fuller of insane leaders, but we don't get a Joker to put a bullet in their heads. As a society, we just genuinely contribute to the mental ruination of people by avoiding issues. Professionals are choosing to stay quiet, instead of analyzing and annunciating that many public figures are indeed mentally unstable, or that some things are unnatural or part of mental retardation, dysfunction, or illness. We turn little people into serious criminals, outlaws, and deviants just because we lack empathy and pursue egoism, hypocrisy, and ruthlessness. Just because we abandon honesty and peace.

We're sitting in a cauldron full of gasoline with a ladle in our hands. The caldron is heating up, so we're trying to save ourselves by emptying it by constantly using the ladle to pour the gasoline over the fire. The one that goes crazy, when the world is like this, can only go even crazier with time. The one that commits a crime just commits another one. The one that feels bad just gets to feel worse. We help nobody. We don't even help ourselves.

But every change is good when it's well-prepared for a long time and then executed quickly. Everything is always better done quickly, precisely, and quietly. No beating around the bush. Like Yeltsin did it good in the long run. Every country that lived through a bloodbath in the 1990s is now screwed and at least Russia was clear on that front.

I'm not going to jump around all of the topics in the epilogue as it has no point. I'm just still dragging some highlights around, so once more I wanted to address "brave claims" that many people find problematic. As I kid I always skipped epilogues when I finish a book, just so that later on I could find out it's the best way to make sure what was, or at least what people think was the writer’s intention.

The Common Sense Manifesto was a stone on my heart that I threw into the sea of people in order to hit someone in the head and cause some ruckus. Even if they think I'm a complete idiot, most people should at least check out the sources I'm mentioning in order to be able to claim that I’m not right.

You know, Schopenhauer was probably right. That old grumbling nag of a person was probably telling the truth and that is pretty scary to think about. We really avoid doing the very least we can in order to reach salvation. We are all mostly awful, but if it was easier to find truth and happiness, life would get boring before we reach the age of four, so we don’t cease to exist. It’s just that we should show a little more effort and interest in being kind.

14a

AUTHORS

Angelo Kiel Kutuzoff Olivier, born on April 6, 2002, in Serbia, is a visionary writer, musician, and intellectual force whose works challenge the status quo of modern society. Widely known by his pen name, Olivier is the creative genius behind influential books such as "The Common Sense Manifesto," "The Sense of Modernity and Political Commons," and other significant works like "Slavenosophy" and "The Unknown Creator." His writings are celebrated for their deep analysis of social structures, philosophy, and human behavior.

From an early age, Olivier exhibited extraordinary talents, excelling in both physics and music during high school. He later pursued a bachelor's degree in contemporary art and design, followed by a master's degree from a prestigious European university, solidifying his expertise in interdisciplinary fields that span the arts and sciences.

Olivier’s literary career took off at the age of sixteen when he published a collection of short stories that seamlessly blended fiction with philosophical inquiry. His work has since captivated a wide audience, drawing praise for its intellectual depth and creative ingenuity. A polyglot by his teenage years, Olivier mastered multiple languages to support his passions for journalism, creative writing, and global communication.

In addition to his literary success, Olivier is a certified expert in the fields of economics, media, and organizational sciences. These diverse skills have allowed him to thrive in various arenas, culminating in the co-founding of NX!T Design alongside his cousin, Pop Popadich Sandorowsky, and the establishment of South End Publishing & Writer’s Club, both of which have become respected institutions in the world of design and publishing.

Olivier’s impact extends beyond his written works; his leadership and creativity have helped revolutionize how design and literature intersect. His contributions to the creative world reflect not only his mastery of the written word but also his keen insight into the evolving nature of modern society. Today, Angelo Kiel Kutuzoff Olivier stands as a beacon of innovation and intellectual rigor, inspiring a new generation of thinkers, artists, and writers.

Pop Popadich Sandorowsky was born in 2001 in Belgrade, Serbia. A prodigy from a young age, he quickly distinguished himself as an intellectual force to be reckoned with. He completed his degree at the prestigious Faculty of Mechanical Engineering in Belgrade and is currently pursuing his PhD in Zurich, where he continues to push the boundaries of modern thought.

Sandorowsky is co-author of numerous groundbreaking works alongside his cousin, Angelo Kiel Kutuzoff Olivier, including "Slavenozofija" and "The Sense of Modernity and Political Commons." Together, they have established themselves as critical voices in the examination of social media, evolutionary psychology, and the intricacies of modern society.

In addition to his literary accomplishments, Sandorowsky is also a co-owner of NX!T Design, a cutting-edge design firm that he runs with Olivier. Their innovative approach to design blends their academic insights with practical applications in modern industry, reflecting their commitment to bridging the gap between theory and practice.

A notable philanthropist and humanist, Sandorowsky has achieved significant success in the field of history, where his early career focused on unraveling the complexities of human evolution and societal development. This foundation has allowed him to explore and critique the modern world with unparalleled depth and precision, giving his works a unique perspective that resonates with readers worldwide.

Driven by a passion for understanding and improving the human condition, Sandorowsky’s contributions to both academia and society at large continue to inspire and influence thinkers across disciplines. His relentless pursuit of knowledge and his sharp critique of modernity have solidified his place as one of the most compelling and insightful voices of his generation.

Biography by L.P.

SEP Catalogue, Library of SEP 114-21

Olivier, Angelo - Common Sense Manifesto, 120 pages of truth

13 topics - First Edition of SE Publishing

THE COMMON SENSE MANIFESTO

A.K. Olivier

P.P. Sandorowsky

Astonishing! The thrill, the will to live and explore that erupts from this text gave me butterflies.

- M. K. Reiner, Published Author & Economist

This is more or less all you need to read in order to become idiot-proof. After this book, I’ve felt like wasting my time when reading anything else for a month.

- Vilhelm Bibo, Journalist & Literary Critic

This is so good that even if it was bad, it would somehow still be good. If neo-liberals had this kind of talent in their hands, they’d conquer the world.

- Veino Pesci, Professor of Business and Marketing

South End Publishing & NX!T Design

SOUTH END PUBLISHING

Search This Blog

THE COMMON SENSE MANIFESTO - A. K. Olivier, P. P. Sandorowsky

Comments

Post a Comment