The New Ethos:

Neo-Marxist Intellectual Terrorism and Its Culture of Perversity:

Living Free from God, the New Religion of the Left

Living Free from God,

The New Religion of the Left:

Constructing a Culture of Perversity and a New Ethos for Progressive, Neo-Marxist Intellectual Terrorism

One crazy public-school teacher tells you the truth about the lies you have been told your whole life.

by

Shawn Tickle

Unless otherwise noted, everything in this document has been authored by Shawn Tickle, and he

reserves all rights to those materials created by him, including all applicable copyrights. Do not

steal my stuff and try to sell it to anyone!

Copyright © 2012 by Shawn Tickle

 For Dana and Sylvia

who put up with all my moods, all my missions, and all the mad things

that I do for students and for my job where

I pretend that one devout, rational, Christian man can make a difference

in a very large, mean, stupid world

Deus Meus, Vivit!

 Preface

"The world is trying the experiment of attempting to form a civilized but non-
Christian mentality. The experiment will fail; but we must be very patient in
awaiting its collapse; meanwhile redeeming the time: so that the Faith may be
preserved alive through the dark ages before us; to renew and rebuild civilization,
and save the world from suicide.”
—T. S. Eliot, “Thoughts After Lambeth,” 1931.

This book constitutes my own personal and professional contribution to the grand public

debates of our time. My purpose is not to prove that I am always right and that everyone who

disagrees with me is always wrong. My purpose is to provide rational, thinking people with the

set of tools and resources that they need in order to navigate their own way in a world that has

been corrupted by selfish, mindless fools who have lied to themselves and to everyone else for so

long that they themselves have come to believe their own lies. This world is also largely

populated by people who are so poorly educated that they do not even realize that almost

everything that they have been taught throughout their lives is actually a lie, people who are so

poorly educated that they often take those same lies and pass them on to others, thinking that

they are teaching others the truth, instead of a well-organized pack of lies. The naïve, the

ignorant, and the willfully stupid lead other naïve, ignorant, and willfully stupid persons. The

blind do, in fact, lead the blind. In this case, it is not merely a cliché.

By saying this, I do not mean to insult anyone or to encourage any individual to blame

himself for these problems. These problems are mindlessly enshrined and embedded in our

society, in our institutions, and in our culture. This world can no longer blame any one person or

even one philosophical movement for the lies that started it all. The lies that have caused all

these problems are blindly accepted on faith with no questions and no arguments. Many even

call them common sense and basic wisdom. The people who believe the lies use them as sacred,
granted assumptions upon which they can base their arguments, and those same people do not

even have the ability to see that those assumptions are blatant falsehoods. The problem has been

allowed to fester for so long that many people who consciously and willingly embrace traditional

moral values have accepted the same lies on faith and have spent a lifetime trying to reconcile

those lies with their own traditional, Western ethos. They spend their entire lives in a wasted

effort to learn how the lies of the new morality can be true while their own cherished values can

also be true. The fact of the matter is these two entirely different sets of values are antithetical

and irreconcilable. It is not possible for both value systems to be true—a positively charged

particle and a negatively charged particle cannot attempt to occupy the same point in space at the

same time without annihilating each other.

This work constitutes my attempt to help any person who has been victimized by this

institutionalized web of lies and deceit. I want anyone and everyone who picks up this book to

be able to use it as a tool to consider and analyze the constant stream of rhetoric and information

with which they are bombarded. I want them carefully and rationally to analyze the evidence for

themselves and to differentiate the lies from the truth for themselves. They should never be

satisfied to let someone else do that for them. I want them all to do it for themselves.

To that end, I have designed the book to be a rhetorical primer for those in search of the

truth in a world where the greedy and the rich—not necessarily the same people—have passed

off sophistry for the truth and have branded an honest pursuit of the truth as a dangerous, radical

act of ignorance and selfishness. Those liars have successfully indicted their political opponents

for the very crimes of which they themselves are guilty. I have divided this primer into four

different but equally important sections.

The first three sections and the appendices at the end of the book are designed for the
absolute beginner who, through no fault of his own, has never been allowed to learn much of

anything about history, logic, rhetoric, or Western culture. Without some basic knowledge of

these matters, the later chapters might be tough going. So, in those first three sections, and in the

appendices, I have attempted to do for my readers what I always try to do for my students, to

give them the fundamental knowledge and skills necessary to sort through all the despicable lies

in this world and to look for and find the truth for themselves, independently. All the chapters in

Section IV are for everyone, the absolute beginner with no formal historical or rhetorical

education and for the intermediate to advanced student who already knows a good deal of the

history of western philosophy and rhetoric.

Some Good, Quick Advice to My Readers

If in the first two sections you feel that I have insulted your intelligence with matters too basic,

please move on to Sections III and IV, where I present my fundamental thesis and my ultimate

conclusion. If, on the other hand, while reading the first three sections, you feel that you need a

bit more help, then turn to the end of the book where there is a glossary and other items that may

help you better understand the inner workings of a crazed public school teacher’s mind.
 Book I

Political Correctness, the Primary Mechanism of

neo-Marxist Intellectual Terrorism:

Axiomatic, Ethical Assumptions,

New and Old

Reason, Argument, and Axioms:
Common Sense Can Die—
If You Let the Liars Kill It.

“...the highest form of generalship is to balk the

enemy's plans....”
—Sun Tzu, The Art of War (III.3)

“War is Hell!”
—General William Tecumseh Sherman

“Rhetoric is War!”
—Shawn Tickle

One of the most insidious rhetorical strategies used by the neo-Marxist intellectual

terrorist is the attack on basic, common-sense moral assumptions, assumptions that the rest of the

population simply take as granted, as given, in any discussion or debate between rational

persons. By relentlessly attacking these basic assumptions, decade after decade, the neo-

Marxists have managed to convince a large number of people that these assumptions are

questionable and open for debate. They have even managed to convince themselves and many

others that these assumptions are false—that they are destructive lies. There are some civilized,

well-educated people who actually believe and who will actually tell other people that there is no

such thing as truth. Everything is relative. There are no wrong answers. Logic is an ugly,

oppressive illusion created by the Man to repress everyone, especially women and minorities.

Logic is no better than any other method of analysis. Everyone’s opinion is of equal value.

There are no winners. There are no losers. Most sane people know that such ravings are foolish

and stupid, but the number who do not know it and who cannot even see it is growing every day.

Neo-Marxist intellectual terrorists have been using this tactic for so long that some
people cannot even see or understand what is happening. This scheme is particularly clever and

extremely effective in two very important ways. Number one, it allows the intellectual terrorist

to cavalierly dismiss any argument based upon traditional moral assumptions. Number two, it

makes it easy for him to bog down the discussion and debate with arguments about the

fundamental ideals that most people accept as axiomatic. Then, the fight over fundamental

assumptions goes on and on until everyone on both sides is so tired and worn out that the real

issues that need to be addressed disappear, never to be dealt with. This tactic is the neo-Marxist

propagandist equivalent of Mohammed Ali’s Rope-a-Dope strategy for the boxing ring. 1 Refuse

to engage until the opponent is so tired that he actually wants to be knocked out, just so the

whole thing can be over. Sad and pathetic, but very effective.

Some traditional assumptions about human nature and about the world in which humans

live are actually true. And, since those things are true, a person need not spend the rest of his life

trying to prove that they are true before he uses them as given premises in his arguments.

Regardless of what the neo-Marxists say, one need not acknowledge their challenge to the most

basic truths. By forcing people to engage in debate over the most simple truths—the truths upon

which most people build their lives, the neo-Marxist can completely avoid engaging people in

arguments concerning the genuinely important issues of the day. In an attempt to make the real

issues disappear from the table, the neo-Marxist intellectual terrorist tries to change his

opponent’s basic assumptions about truth and morality into issues of debate.

Regardless of how hard they attack them or how much they want to challenge these

assumptions, no one should let them do so. When neo-Marxists refuse to give up the attack on

any of these assumptions, turn the tables on the enemy. Stop the debate and force them to

1
For those not already familiar with Rope-a-Dope, the term actually has its own entry in the Oxford American
Dictionary, and more concerning Ali and Rope-a-Dope can be found at <www.ali.com>. Many rhetoric instructors
would also refer to this phenomenon as a red herring scheme carried out on a grand scale.
demonstrate to the whole world why the obvious truth in question is false or illusory. Nothing is

more humiliating for an opponent than to be seen grasping for straws while he tries to explain to

the world how he could possibly justify rejecting the most basic moral assumptions without a

second thought, a single care, or a rational argument. Willingly acknowledge that these simple

truths are at the foundation of all arguments, but never apologize for taking them as granted.

Force the opponent to explain how he himself can be so sure that the tried and true assumptions

of the past are false and unacceptable. Force him to show his argument to the world. In so

doing, force him to reveal to himself and to the world that he has none. For him, his rejection of

those values is a given, accepted on faith without any rational proofs. It is an a priori

assumption. It is—at an unconscious level—his own poor excuse for faith, a kind of quasi-

religion, a personal ethical point of view, an ethos. The fact that he may or may not believe in a

god does not make his ethos any more rational, modern, up-to-date, or sophisticated than anyone

else’s ethos.

The list below is by no means comprehensive; even so, I have tried to be as thorough as

possible in a work of this kind. All of the other arguments in this book are based upon these

assumptions. They are always taken by me as self-evident—whether my opponents like them or

not. It is not up to me to prove them to anyone. Anyone naïve enough to disagree with these

Moral Axioms has the obligation to prove them to be false, to demonstrate the incorrectness of

something that many, if not most, people accept without question. In so doing, such people will

only make themselves look foolish and strengthen their opponents’ arguments.
 Moral Axioms That People of Reason are Allowed to Take as Granted

While an intelligent person is under no obligation to accept these moral axioms, many people
have and will choose to do so. Surrendering these given principles will make many of your
traditional, common-sense arguments impossible in the face of neo-Marxist intellectual
terrorism.

1. God exists, and God Almighty Himself created the universe in which we live and

everything in it.

Only by God’s will is it sustained. This universe is the product of His Divine

Providence, and the course of everything—past, present, and future—is taken into

consideration as part of that Divine Providence.

Being a rational person does not require that one believe in God, but neither does

believing in God disqualify one from rational thought or logical debate. An argument

that assumes the existence of God is no more irrational than an argument that assumes

that God does not exist. No one participating in any kind of substantive debate is going

to stop and have a separate debate about the existence of God before engaging with the

specific issues under consideration. A person may try to question the truth of an

argument that assumes God exists. But, assuming that God exists, does not immediately

bring into question the validity or the logic of the argument, even if the neo-Marxist

attacks such an argument on that basis. If he does so, make him stop and produce his

evidence and his argument for the non-existence of God. At the very least, make him

demonstrate how one can be so certain that a belief in God is irrational. He will not be

able to do so, for his assumption that God does not exist is not based upon evidence or

reason. The non-believer’s assumption is just as much a faith-based assumption as the

believer’s.
2. An atheist is never going to offer an argument that does not include the assumption

that God is a figment of other people’s imaginations.

This fact does not mean that I must construct arguments that only work for those

who assume that there is no God. It is not my task to prove that God exists anymore than

it is the atheist’s task to prove that God does not exist. It is not up to me to challenge his

faith in the non-existence of God. In fact, all that I can do is offer pity to those who have

no faith in and have no experience of God.

While I must never back down on my assumption that God exists, I must still be

willing to treat with delicacy and diplomacy the atheist’s cherished belief that there is no

God. If I fail to do so, every debate and every discussion will degenerate into a debate

about God and Creation. All the same, this requirement is particularly problematic

because most neo-Marxist intellectual terrorists build their essential arguments on a

priori assumptions like “God is dead”; “There is no truth”; “Everything is relative”;

“There is no Transcendental Signified”; “That which advances my political agenda

defines that which is just, righteous, and true”; “The ends justify the means”; etc. In

other words, for the neo-Marxist Intellectual Terrorist, there must not be a God. Even so,

I must never forget that—from the perspective of the non-believer—all my axioms are

also a priori assumptions; therefore, I cannot just tell my neo-Marxist opponents to give

up their irrational assumptions, anymore than I can allow them to do the same thing to

me.
3. Evil is real. Evil exists.

Evil is not a social construct. It is not an invention of Mankind, and no one made

up the idea hoping to control people simple enough to believe in it. It is not an invention

of the Bourgeoisie designed to keep the Proletariat in its proper place—repressed,

controlled, and terrified to fight back. There are, in fact, forces in the universe, including

some human beings, who are filled with hatred, malice, bitterness, and self-obsessed

willfulness. Those forces are evil, and people can be evil.

4. Some human beings will substitute their own will for the will of God and for the will

of any and all authority.

They will privilege their own will over that of all other beings, human or divine.

This ultimate level of self-obsession is the true origin of evil. It is—in fact—the

definition of evil. Evil beings do whatever they wish without regard for the

consequences and without regard for the judgment of any other being. Still worse, some

evil creatures do whatever they wish because the consequences are obviously destructive

and otherwise negative and/or because they wish to spite and to defy the judgment of

others.

5. All people have Free Will to make their own choices for themselves.

No person and no thing in the universe can take that Free Will away from them,

and all people are responsible for their own choices and must suffer the consequences of

those choices and of the actions to which they lead. This Free Will is both a blessing and

a profound responsibility given to all human beings by God.

6. Life is sacred without exception. All creatures are God’s creatures, even Lucifer.

And, while—for good reason—we may privilege animal life forms over vegetable,

fauna over flora, that does not mean that vegetable life is not really life.

All life is sacred and must be treated with reverence, even when it must be

destroyed so that other life forms may live. All that lives was given life by God Himself;

all living things are His creatures in that He created them all, animal and vegetable.

Thus, one of the greatest mysteries of all is found in this paradox: every living thing must

consume something in order to live. Most living things, especially animal life forms,

cannot consume enough to live without taking life from other living things.

Regardless of what vegetarians would like to think, plants are actually living

things. Some plants compete with other plants for the same resources, and the survival

of those plants depends upon the destruction of the other plants competing against them.

This competition is a competition for survival. And, never forget that not all plants

survive by photosynthesis alone. There are even plants in this world that are themselves

carnivores. I wonder if these plants prefer to eat vegetarians? Or, perhaps, PETA

activists?

7. Every creature possesses an inherent, unalienable right to life.

Even if that creature must fight to do so, even if that creature must use deadly

force to do so, that creature still has the right of survival, the right to life. Yet, some

creatures will die, and some will live. Some creatures will even become food for others.

These facts are unavoidable and undeniable.

8. Every human being possesses inherent, unalienable freedom.

As long as his freedom does not threaten the lives and well-being of other human

beings, every human being should be free, even if that human being must fight to be free,

even if that human being must use deadly force to secure his freedom.

9. Physical violence is sometimes necessary.

Some conflicts cannot be resolved without the use of physical violence. Some of

those conflicts cannot be resolved without the use of deadly force. Unless both parties

involved in a conflict are willing to settle for a purely peaceful solution, then that conflict

is either irreconcilable, or its solution will involve violence. It is actually possible for a

peaceful, nonviolent party to become embroiled in a conflict with an opponent who will

not settle for anything other than violence. When involved in such a conflict, there will

be violence of some kind regardless of the choices made by the peaceful, nonviolent

party.

10. Some people have no room in their lives for the positive or the good.

These people choose to focus upon all things negative, including death,

destruction, and hatred. These people are evil. They see no positive value in their own

lives, and they are angry and filled with hate. Their only response to life itself is to deal

out violence, anger, hatred, and death to everyone else until they find death themselves.

11. Some people willfully employ deadly force.

Some people in the world will use deadly force to accomplish their own goals,

and those same people will plan and continue to plan the death and destruction of persons

whom they hate. Regardless of how peaceful, serene, and passive some people are, there

will always be people in the world who choose and even embrace the use of deadly force.
 They want to murder their enemies, and they will do everything in their power to carry

out those murders.

12. There are some people who completely refuse to negotiate.

Many people with murderous plans are inflexible, unwilling to compromise, and

not open to negotiation. There are, in fact, some people in the world who will not listen

to reason and who will not respond to any amount of talk or negotiation. Trying to

engage such people in diplomacy is a futile, useless endeavor that can often waste

valuable time and, in the long run, can make matters much worse than they need to be.

Such a waste of time and other resources can even result in the loss of human lives.

13. Preemptive use of force is sometimes necessary and justified.

When people know for a fact that other people are planning their destruction and

their murder, those people need not remain quiescent until they are attacked. The

definition of self-defense does not always require people to wait for murderers to attack

first before the defenders use deadly force. Waiting to be attacked, while the enemy

builds his strength, has been the undoing of many a people.2

2
Haig, Douglas, Sir, Field Marshal. “Haig’s Final Dispatch: Review of the Whole War as One Great and
Continuous Engagement—the British March to the Rhine.” Current History: A Monthly Magazine of the New York
Times: Vol. X (April 1919-September 1919). pp. 40-49. Concerned with WWI, esp. the British involvement.
Available online at <books.google.com>: “Moreover, the object of all war is victory, and a purely defensive attitude
can never bring about a successful decision, either in a battle or in a campaign. The idea that a war can be won by
standing on the defensive and waiting for the enemy to attack is a dangerous fallacy, which owes its inception to the
desire to evade the price of victory. It is an axiom that decisive success in battle can be gained only by a vigorous
offensive. The principle here stated has long been recognized as being fundamental, and is based on the universal
teaching of military history in all ages. The course of the present war has proved it to be correct” (245).
In 480 BC, what would have happened if all the Greek city-states had stayed at home and waited for Xerxes to
come to each of their cities individually? What would have happened if all the Spartans and all the Athenians had
stayed at home and waited for the Persians to come to them? What if 300 Spartans, including their King, Leonidas
I, had not marched off to meet the Persians and not chosen to stand their ground and to fight the massive Persian
army at Thermopylae? μολον λαβε!
While there were many other factors involved, one might even suggest that the choice to fight a largely
defensive war was one of the greatest mistakes made by the Southern Gentlemen in the leadership of the CSA and in
their military strategy during the War of Northern Aggression. In spite of that, even though I am born and bred a
Virginian, I am still glad the USA remained one united country.
14. There are, in fact, some no-win situations.

Sometimes a person finds himself faced with a set of circumstances in which

every course of action—including no action at all—will create a negative result or violate

some code or basic principle of right and wrong. In those circumstances, a person must

choose the course of action that does the least harm or that constitutes the smallest

transgression of code or basic principle. This is commonly known as "choosing the lesser

of two evils."

15. There is such a thing as Truth, and there is such a thing as absolute Truth.

The Oxford American Dictionary defines absolute as “not qualified or diminished

in any way; total.” The Oxford American Dictionary defines truth as the quality or state

of being “in accordance with fact or reality”; being “rightly or strictly so called;

genuine”; being “real or actual”; or being “accurate or exact.” The Oxford American

Dictionary defines relativism as “the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in

relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.”

Truth does exist. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that logic, dialectic, and the

pursuit of knowledge are pointless and futile. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that

there is no meaning to be found anywhere in life. Without the pursuit of Truth, the best

that rhetoric and dialectic can hope to achieve is sophistry, and sophistry is evil. The

truth is out there, and you can find it. The Pursuit of Truth is the Pursuit of God Himself,

for God and Truth are the same thing.

Absolute truth exists, and absolute truth is the ultimate goal of all academic

endeavors. The belief that Relativism can serve as a replacement for absolute truth is a

In the Second World War, what might have been if the English and the French had not tried to appease Hitler’s
Nazi regime and, then, not waited for him to attack them before they stood up to Hitler’s acts of aggression against
other countries in Europe, like Czechoslovakia and Poland?
 misleading, destructive illusion. Even if—in the end—one never finds Truth here in this

world, this world is a better place because that person looked for the Truth, and the

answers that that person found are better answers than the ones that might have resulted

from some other assumption, like “everything is relative.”

16. Logic and analytical skills are unnatural and must be taught.

Like language, these abilities are not acquired by accident, and they are not

instinctive. Like many products of civilization, logic, analysis, and critical thinking are

not things with which human beings are born. These abilities must be carefully nurtured

and developed over a long period of time, and they require practice, a great deal of

practice. If, in the course of a person’s education, the potential for these abilities is

neglected, then they will never develop, and that person will be cognitively handicapped

throughout his life. The current educational establishment in the USA, especially the

government-run, public schools, have largely neglected the development of these skills

for several generations. For this reason, a large percentage of its people—perhaps the

majority3—have never developed formal reasoning skills. Currently, most public schools

betray the majority of their students in this manner, and many have even suggested that

this failure is intentional. What utopian idealist or neo-Marxist intellectual terrorist

would not relish the opportunity to mold, reshape, manipulate, dupe, or just plain lie to a

massive group of people who are incapable of abstract thought, formal reasoning, or any

kind of logical analysis? The appeal to pathos is so much easier and so much more

tempting and tantalizing than the appeal to logos.

3
Huitt, W., & Hummel, J. (2003). Piaget's theory of cognitive development. Educational Psychology
Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved [18 February 2012] from
http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/piaget.html: “Only 35% of high school graduates in industrialized
countries obtain formal operations; many people do not think formally during adulthood.”
17. Knowledge is good, and the pursuit of knowledge, learning, and wisdom is good.

The pursuit of knowledge is essential to the pursuit of Truth. Worthwhile

knowledge and Truth are actually the same thing. Education, enculturation, training, and

all learning are to be celebrated and encouraged at every possible opportunity. You

cannot make the world a more terrible place by sharing knowledge and wisdom with as

many people as possible. Knowledge and Wisdon=Truth=God.

18. Ignorance and stupidity are bad, and the conscious avoidance of knowledge,

learning, and wisdom is evil.

Some people in the world choose to be ignorant and stupid because acquiring

education and using the brains that God gave them are difficult and time-consuming. It is

much easier to be lazy, ignorant, and stupid, so many people are glad to stay that way

throughout their lives. The choice to be ignorant and stupid is not only the lazy, sloppy,

easy choice, it is also the willing embrace of evil and death. As Diogenes Laërtius

reports in Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, Socrates was known to say,

“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” 4 While this was never a

universal assumption; not so long ago, it was an axiom accepted by many scholars

4
Diogenes Laërtius. Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Trans. Robert Drew Hicks. Book II: 31 (“Socrates”).
A Loeb Classical Library edition, Volume 1, 1925. This text is now in the public domain, and the entire book is
available online from Wikisource, <http://en.wikisource.org/wik i/Lives_of_the_Eminent_Philosophers/
Book_II#Socrates>.
This is much the same thing that Orwell is talking about in Politics and the English Language. There are also
interesting parallels in Orwell’s 1984, H. G. Wells’s The Time Machine, Goldings’s Lord of the Flies, Huxley’s
Brave New World, Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, and many others. In fact, this is exactly the same problem with
which Mankind is faced in the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and it is exactly the same problem
with which Plato deals in his “Allegory of the Cave” in The Republic. Obviously, writer’s from the dawn of time to
today have dealt with this dilemma, from the Old Testament tradition to Milton and beyond. Everyone must,
eventually, come to terms with the fact it is always easier to live in the paradise of ignorant bliss; while, at the same,
the only way to truly be more like God is to give up that ignorant bliss in return for knowledge and understanding.
If one is truly to reflect the image of God—because one is made in the image of God, then one must accept the
burden of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. It is not an easy burden to bear, but it is a necessary burden.
engaged in the search for truth.

There are people in this world who have physiological abnormalities that make

reading, writing, speaking, and learning virtually impossible for them. In spite of those

defects, many of them make a noble, heroic effort to learn as much as is humanly

possible for them. They desperately desire to share in the collected knowledge and

wisdom of Mankind. When I meet such people, I am inspired with awe and admiration

for them. They are heroic. They want exactly the same thing that I want, the same thing

that all thoughtful people want. They want knowledge, wisdom, communication, and

interaction with other thoughtful people. These people are not part of the problem.

On the other hand, there are people who have no real handicaps of any kind who

are simply too lazy to be bothered with reading, writing, and learning. It just does not

matter to them, not because they cannot do it, but because they will not do it. It is a

choice, an act of will. I am talking about the willfully ignorant, the consciously anti-

intellectual—the people who have made a choice to be stupid because it is easier and

more fun. For them, ignorance is such bliss that they will not give it up; they will not let

go of it for anything. This choice, like all evil choices, is a kind of selfishness.

These people care more about their own wants and desires than they do their

opportunity to understand and comprehend, the same kind of understanding and

comprehending that make it possible for a person to help fix problems and to come to the

aid of their fellow Humans in a crisis. They have chosen not to acquire any such

abilities, so no one can expect them to be able to help anyone with anything. I suppose

that such people will just have to let others do the helping instead. When no person in

our society has the ability to help anybody, including himself, then, perhaps, the
 government will have to help everybody with everything.

But, is the government not made up of individual persons? I am not sure, but I

think there might be a fallacy in there somewhere.

19. Differences between men and women are genetic and physiological.

These differences are sexual differences not gender differences. Gender is a

grammatical term co-opted by modern neo-Marxist thinkers who actually want people to

believe that all differences between men and women are the product of environment and

culture. They want everyone to believe that the differences between men and women are

socially constructed, and that they are arbitrarily and unfairly forced on men and women

by the cultures into which they are born. A brief moment of reflection is all that is

required to see that such notions are ridiculous, but there are people who believe them to

be true nonetheless.

20. Competition is not only acceptable, it is also a powerfully positive influence in a

person’s life experience.

Competition makes life better for everyone. It makes each species stronger, and it

makes the world a better place. Without competition there would be no evolution. Some

creatures will lose while others win. Some creatures will even die while other creatures

profit from those deaths, yet competition still makes the quality of life better for all

creatures.

21. Equality and fairness mean equality of rights and opportunities, not equality of

outcomes.

The Oxford American Dictionary defines Equality as “the state of being

equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities.” Every citizen of the USA is a human
 being with the same rights and opportunities, but each and every one of them is unique in

his or her gifts and talents. Everyone’s ultimate outcomes are necessarily different, and

whether one calls it luck, random chance, fortune, fate, wyrd, or Divine Providence,

something beyond the control of individuals or governments plays some role in

determining each unique individual’s outcomes in life.

22. Equality and Uniformity are not the same.

The Oxford American Dictionary defines Uniformity as the quality of “not

changing in form or character; remaining the same in all cases and at all times.” Human

beings are not uniform, nor should they ever be treated by their government as if they

were.

23. Uniformity is evil.

Treating all citizens as if they were unchanging in form or character and as if they

were all the same in all cases and at all times, that would be unfair, simple-minded, and

destructive. Even so, such uniformity is necessary for those who march down the road of

tyranny and socialist idealism. One size that fits all rarely means anything apart from one

size that fits no one.

24. Diversity actually means that it is alright to be different; that it is good to be

different; and that, from differences, come strength and power.

The Oxford American Dictionary defines diversity as the state of “showing a great

deal of variety”; the state of being “(of two or more things) markedly different from one

another.” Diversity is a powerful force for good and for progress. But, diversity does not

mean that we are all the same without any regard for our differences. In fact, the

opposite is true. Even so, many people and many governmental institutions act as if
 people are all exactly the same, and no context or ideal can ever allow for people to be

treated as if they were in fact different, even if their qualitative differences are inherently

obvious.5 It is necessary to treat people in this manner so that they can be easily

controlled by the government.

Neo-Marxist intellectual terrorists only consider diversity and individual

differences when it serves to advance their political agenda; otherwise, they will always

ignore those differences. They have no respect for tolerance and acceptance of individual

differences that might foster unity. They only care about diversity when it creates

discord, for discord serves their political purpose. 6 Keeping the people divided against

each other makes it much easier for the government to control them, and power and

control is the ultimate goal of all neo-Marxist movements. In order to construct their

Utopia, they must first control the masses. Neo-Marxists may call themselves American

patriots, yet—for the neo-Marxist—E pluribus unum, “Out of Many One,” is just as

outdated and useless as all other American traditions, like The Declaration of

Independence and The Constitution of the United States. The neo-Marxist has no regard

for unity or for the universal qualitites of human nature that help people to understand

that they have more in common than they have traits making them different and deviding

them, creating discord.

5
e.g. AYP, NCLB, SOLs that will eventually require that all students succeed; 100% of them will meet the
same high standard of achievement regardless of the differences amongst their levels of ability. The inability of the
educational system to reward teachers of merit or terminate teachers lacking in quality; regardless of their abilities,
they are all treated the same way and paid exactly the same.
6
Balibar, E., and P. Macherey. “Literature as an Ideological Form.” Oxford Literary Review: Vol. 3:1
(1978). 6, 8, 11-12. Reproduced in part in Modern Literary Theory: A Reader. 3rd Edition. Eds. Phillip Rice and
Patricia Waugh. London: Arnold, 1996. 61-69, esp. 62-63; Derrida, Jacques. “Structure, Sign and Play in the
Discourse of the Human Sciences.” Trans. Alan Bass. Writing and Difference. 1966. 278-95. Reprinted in
Modern Literary Theory: A Reader. 3rd Edition. Eds. Phillip Rice and Patricia Waugh. London: Arnold, 1996.
176-191, esp. 179-88; Foucault, Michel. “Truth and Power.” The Foucault Reader. Ed. Paul Rabinow. New York:
Pantheon, 1984. 88-89.
25. Merit has a place in a just society.

It is not something with which one is born. It is something one earns. The Oxford

American Dictionary defines merit as “the quality of being particularly good or worthy,

esp. so as to deserve praise or reward.” Merit was not dreamed up as an excuse for

exercising prejudice and bigotry. The only kind of merit that counts is the merit someone

earns. Some people will earn more than others; some will earn less. Some will actually

be satisfied to earn less than others. Some are better than others, and some are actually

best.

26. Some answers are actually wrong; while some answers are actually right, actually

true.

In reality, everything is not—after all—relative.

Most neo-Marxists will never pass up an opportunity to attack these basic, traditional

moral assumptions, and they will always refuse to engage any arguments based upon them. Yet,

the truth is neo-Marxists have their own set of cherished beliefs that they never stop to question

and about which they will suffer no discussion or debate. In fact, the absolute acceptance of

those cherished beliefs constitutes their one and only measure of a person’s intellectual ability.

By definition, the people who agree with their cherished beliefs are brilliant, god-like geniuses

who walk the Earth for the benefit of all mankind. By definition, those people who do not

blindly accept their cherished beliefs are idiots, morons, the lowest form of sentient life known to

Mankind. That is the full extent of the neo-Marxist’s analytical process. Nothing more complex

or sophisticated is ever really necessary.

As with the list above, the following list is not intended to be exhaustive or
comprehensive. These are just a few of the possibilities. Just remember that no one has any

more responsibility to accept these assumptions than does the neo-Marxist to accept traditional

moral values. Also, remember that this writer does not embrace these ideals. These are the ones

that I have rejected! In fact, I try to violate these principles as frequently as possible just to

irritate all the closed-minded neo-Marxists in my life.

 The Assumptions of Neo-Marxist Intellectual Terrorism7

1. Offending someone enough to cause that person to experience a powerful emotional

response is never acceptable and is one of the most heinous things a human being can do.

It is especially important to respect the cherished beliefs of the new ethos, the standards

adopted by those who have rejected traditional moral axioms and embraced the

mechanism of Political Correctness. To offend the sensibilities of the neo-Marxist

intellectual terrorist is taboo, is absolutely verboten. To do so can and should result in

severe punishment, including social ostracism, job loss, civil law suit, financial ruination,

etc. In these cases, some neo-Marxist terrorists try to justify, and even advocate, the use

of physical violence, including the ones who otherwise claim to be meek, mild-mannered,

and passive.

Even so, one must always remember that—by definition—it is not possible to hurt

or to offend the people of the old, traditional ethos. They do not matter because they are

not really people; they are sub-human morons whose argumentative positions have no

value and who deserve no respect or consideration. So, a real person can go right ahead

and attack, destroy, and dismiss the people of the old ethos. Their feelings do not matter.

In attacks upon the folks of the traditional ethos, the ad hominem argument is not only

acceptable, it is actually encouraged as the best possible approach. Attack the person

instead of the argument, thereby never having to engage the argument at all. Engaging

the argument might give someone the impression that the argument is worthy of

consideration.
7
For those who want to know more about the history of Marxism and Political Correctness, I strongly
recommend this article and its highly effective but manageable bibliography of sources: Rubin, Paul H. “The
Assault on the First Amendment: Political Choice and Political Correctness.” The Cato Journal: Vol. 14, No. 1,
Spring/Summer 1994. The Cato Institute. 13 August 2009. <http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n1-3.html>; I
also deal with this phenomenon from a more historical point of view in the next section, Book II, including
extensive references to historical and other documents.
 Never forget that the people of the new ethos have one set of rules for themselves

and another set of rules for everybody else. But, they are not hypocrites; they are merely

superior life forms. All hail the Übermensch!

2. There is no god of any kind, and even the mere suggestion that there is a God might

offend those who have a deep and profound belief that there is none. Such offence is

unacceptable. See neo-Marxist Axiom #1.

3. There is no such thing as Truth. In exactly the same way they are offended by God, many

neo-Marxist intellectual terrorists are offended and enraged by the notion of Truth.

Admitting there is Truth means admitting that someone might be wrong about something.

In spite of the fact that such people are absolutely certain that only persons who disagree

with them could actually be wrong, and regardless of how small the possibility of being

wrong, many neo-Marxists never, ever will allow for the merest possibility that anyone

might believe them to be wrong. So, they redefine all the terms and rules of argument so

that it is not even possible to suggest that anyone is wrong about anything.

With respect to Truth, what hurts neo-Marxists the most is that, consciously or

unconsciously, they know that Truth and God are one and the same. Saying that there is

no Truth is the same as saying that God is dead, or that there is no God. This fact also

helps to explain why so many church-going neo-Marxists do not much like talking about

God or about Truth. It takes an extra special kind of hypocrisy to go to church on

Sunday and to be a politically correct, neo-Marxist at the same time. Yet, somehow,

many of them manage to pull it off.

Therefore, suggesting that there is such a thing as Truth might prove to be

painfully, outrageously offensive to the neo-Marxist. Such offence is unacceptable. See

 neo-Marxist Axiom #1.

4. Logic is a lie. Logic is, in fact, an artificial construct forged my men posing as scholars,

philosophers, and statesmen to help them impose their own will upon anyone and

everyone who disagrees with them. Logic is a tool used to construct and to maintain the

rigid, inflexible machine of Caucasian, patriarchal, woman-hating, spirit-crushing

Western Civilization. Reliance upon Logic to help one find the right answers is a

horrible disease, the disease of logocentrism. Like its evil sibiling, ethnocentrism—

Eurocentrism being the worst kind—logocentrism is as dangerous and destructive as any

other kind of -ism out there, including racism and sexism. Blurring the distinction

between evils like sexism or racism and imaginary concepts like logocentrism is yet

another simple but powerful method of misleading everyone and of hiding the sophistry

and dishonesty of many neo-Marxist positions.

According to many neo-Marxists, logocentrism forces the male-dominated

thought processes and language of the oppressor upon the oppressed. Logocentrism

strangles the oppressed people’s creative energies, and robs them of their voice, robs

them of a language of their own. What could be more evil and destructive than forcing

women, and other victims of patriarchal persecution, to use the language and the

arguments of those who persecute them—the language and the logic of men! For those

who actually want to believe these assertions to be true, logocentrism becomes a very

convenient way to reject anything and everything they do not like, especially those things

for which their opponents have powerful, effective, logical arguments based upon sound,

objective evidence.

For these reasons, suggesting to people that they need be logical, rational, or
 logocentric might prove to be painfully, outrageously offensive to them, especially to

many neo-Marxist intellectual terrorists. Such offence is unacceptable. See neo-Marxist

Axiom #1.

5. Everything is relative. Seeing that there is no such thing as God or Truth and that

logocentrism is a disease that cannot be tolerated, everything must be relative. Right?

There really is no choice. No one’s argument is any better than anyone else’s. Even the

concept of better or best is itself an offensive lie. Everyone else’s point-of-view—

regardless of how perverse or heinous it may seem to others—must be respected, and no

one has the right to decide for anyone else what is right and what is wrong. Right and

wrong can only be decided by each individual person, one at a time.

Regardless of how bad the arguments for something are or how good the

arguments against it, suggesting to people that they might be wrong about that something

is intolerable. Doing so, and taking a stand against absolute relativism, might prove to be

painfully, outrageously offensive to many neo-Marxist intellectual terrorists. As always,

this is unacceptable. See neo-Marxist Axiom #1.

The only exception to this rule is made in those cases where the neo-Marxists

happen to disagree with anyone. In those special cases only, nothing is relative any more,

and the absolute, certain Truth based on sound logical reasoning verified by God

Almighty Himself is that those who disagree are very, very wrong. Never forget the

power of hypocrisy and unquestionable, axiomatic double standards. See neo-Marxist

Axiom #1. Thank God for neo-Marxist, Liberation Theology, both black and white.

Even so, only the neo-Marxist pseudo-intellectual elite is qualified to make such

touchy judgments. So, for mere mortals, this exception does not matter much, for mere
 mortals will not be making any of these judgments themselves. All hail the Übermensch!

6. No one should ever do or say anything that could possibly be interpreted by anyone on

Earth to be the least bit racist. No one apart from neo-Marxist members of well-defined,

protected minority groups is allowed to define what constitutes racism. Such action

might lead to offence of some kind. See neo-Marxist Axiom #1.

7. No one should ever do or say anything that could possibly be interpreted by anyone on

Earth to be the least bit sexist. No one apart from neo-Marxist women is allowed to

define what constitutes sexism. Such actions might lead to offence of some kind. See

neo-Marxist Axiom #1.

8. No one should ever do or say anything that could possibly be interpreted by anyone on

Earth to be the least bit homophobic. Homophobia includes any statement or behavior

that might in any way be interpreted as not enjoying, celebrating, and reveling in

homosexuality. It also includes any suggestion of any kind that homosexual marriage is a

contradiction in terms, might require the revision of every English dictionary ever

published, or might not be in the best interest of our society or our culture. In the end,

however, no one apart from neo-Marxist homosexuals is allowed to define what

constitutes homophobia. Such actions might lead to offence of some kind. See neo-

Marxist Axiom #1.

9. No one should ever do or say anything that could possibly be interpreted by anyone on

Earth to be in conflict with the official dogma of Man-made Global Warming. That

would be blasphemous. No one apart from neo-Marxist advocates of Man Made Global

Warming is allowed to define what constitutes valid evidence in this debate. In fact, only

people like Al Gore are allowed to tell other people what the real evidence is and what
 that evidence really means. Such actions might lead to offence of some kind. See neo-

Marxist Axiom #1.

10. No one should ever do or say anything that could possibly be interpreted by anyone on

Earth to be the least bit anti-abortion. Abortion is good. Abortion is right. Abortion

could never be wrong. The right to Abortion on demand is the one and only absolute

truth in all the universe. No one apart from neo-Marxist women is allowed to define

what constitutes that which is anti-abortion. Such actions might lead to offence of some

kind. See neo-Marxist Axiom #1.

As long as none of their basic assumptions are transgressed, any act—regardless of how

evil—that a person might want to commit is perfectly reasonable and justifiable as long that

person is absolutely sure that it is done for the good and righteous cause of advancing his own

personal, political agenda. After all, the ends do justify the means. Every right thinking neo-

Marxist intellectual terrorist knows that. This basic concept constitutes the essence of Political

Correctness in twenty-first-century America.

But, regardless of what the practitioner of neo-Marxist intellectual terrorism claims, this

argument, my argument attacking their most fundamental method, is not a Straw Man. Based

upon the sources that I have already cited and upon over twenty years of close engagement with

the neo-Marxists, I can say with confidence that this argument is both valid and true. The

college professors who have carefully trained the neo-Marxist intellectual terrorists have lovingly

imparted all the traditional jargon of classical rhetoric to their students, including the traditional

terms used to describe fallacies, logical and otherwise. They will attack their opponents with

long lists of wonderful words that they barely understand themselves, knowing that the failed
educational establishment in the USA has made it all but impossible for their opponents to have

any clue what they are talking about. What they do not want others to know is that they do not

know what they are talking about themselves. In fact, most of the college professors who taught

this jargon to their students have no idea themselves what they are talking about.
 Book II

Mankind’s Never-ending Pursuit of Power and Authority:

A Very Select History of Political Discourse in Western

Civilization

[Or, how in the Hell did we get into this mess in the first place?]
By Any Other Name, the Stench

of Socialism Would be the Same

“Back in 1927, an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six

times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said
that the American people would never vote for socialism but he
said under the name of liberalism the American people would
adopt every fragment of the socialist program.”

—Ronald Reagan

At the beginning of the summer of 2010, Barack Obama has been president for over a

year and a half. Greece is in flames. The value of the Euro has dropped through the floor.

Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Spain, and Portugal teeter on the brink of bankruptcy. The Russian

Federation has decided to eliminate their capital gains tax in an all out effort to stimulate the

Russian economy while, at the same time, my political leaders spend my people into bankruptcy

and contemplate raising taxes in order to prevent their spending spree from ending. Oil has been

gushing out of control into the Gulf of Mexico for over two months, and neither British

Petroleum nor the Obama Administration seems to be able to overcome bureaucratic sloth and

incompetence. Soldiers throughout the world continue to fight for the safety, prosperity, and

freedom of their people, and politicians who could care less about the causes for which those

soldiers shed their blood make decisions creating problems that could be solved by no one.

More people than ever are sure that the end of time has arrived.8 I used to dismiss, even

humorously, the predictions of all the prophets who tell the world that the end is nigh. But, I am
8
Report: August 24, 2006. The Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life. The Pew Research Center for the
People and the Press. Available on 5 July 2010. <http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Issues/Politics_and_
Elections/religion-politics-06.pdf > p. 21; Report: June 22, 2010. The Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life.
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Available on 5 July 2010. <http://people-press.org/
reports/pdf/625.pdf> p. 15. In 2006, only 20% of the American population admitted to believing that Jesus would
return during their own lifetimes. By 2010, 41% of the American population admitted to believing that Jesus would
return during the next 40 years.
not making any jokes any more. I quietly hope all the doomsday prophets are wrong, but I also

worry that I am the one who has been wrong throughout my whole life. In fact, if I had to bet on

it, I would have to bet that I am the one who is wrong now. How in the hell did my country and

my people find themselves in this mess? How did we reach the point that so very many people

were ready, willing and able to embrace an obviously socialist ideology without any objections?

The time has come to answer these questions.

That was then. Now, it is the beginning of summer 2014. Barrack Obama has been

President of the United States for six years. The economy has begun to contract again, actually

shrinking in the last quarter. One in three able-bodied, adult Americans have no intention of

participating in the work force any longer, making the government’s unemployment numbers

meaningless. The prices of basic food stuffs have reached all-time highs. Unprecedented, record

numbers of Americans are receiving Food Stamp aid. The same is true for the numbers who

have gone on Disability aid. Such forms of aid are the only reason that poor, hungry people are

not rioting in the streets as they are in other countries.

The Russians under the leadership of Vladimir Putin have invaded Ukraine and taken the

Crimea for themselves, claiming to be protecting the well being of ethnic Russians and doing the

will of the majority of the people of the Crimea. The EU has done nothing to stop it. NATO has

done nothing to stop it, and the USA under Obama has done nothing to stop it. The whole world

is watching as the government of Iraq begins to crumble. All the gains made in Iraq by the

sacrifice of American blood have been lost to Sunni terrorists allied with the likes of Al-Qaida,

and the USA under Obama has done nothing. The Shia-led government of Iraq has turned to the

Shia-led government of Iran for help, and Iran has sent them help as the rest of the world sits and

watches. Tens of thousands of illegal alien children pour across the southern boarder of the
USA, responding to the news of Mr. Obama’s amnesty program designed just for them and at the

urging of officials in their own governments. US boarder patrol and immigration enforcement

officials have orders to let them in and to dump them in large concentrations into the hands of

local and state governments all over the country, local and state governments that have made it

clear that the uninvited hoards are not welcome and cannot be accommodated without great

hardship for all involved. There are no resources to care for them properly, and the Obama

administration has also made it clear that these young immigrants will not be deported. They

will not be going back home.

Throughout this book, the term neo-Marxist will be used to refer to all the people in

contemporary western society who have adopted the propaganda practices and some or all of the

political and economic principles of traditional Marxist dogma. The term new ethos will be used

throughout to identify the ethical and quasi-religious belief system of these same people. By no

means do I mean to suggest that they all have the same goals or that they all thoroughly embrace

traditional Marxism. Most of them have read very little Marx and very little Marxist philosophy,

and few of them would understand any of it if they had. The truth is that this very large group of

people has willingly and consciously divided itself up into many different factions with many

different—sometimes conflicting—political agendas. Nonetheless, what they all have in

common is their reverence for the traditional icons of Marxist revolution and their love for

Political Correctness and for the methods of Marxist propaganda.

They all admire the vicious efficiency and the economy of effort that those methods

promise. They are in love with the fact that, while the methods are so simple that even a moron

can use them, those methods do actually work. They work very well, and they work so well that
well-placed neo-Marxist morons have very nearly taken over the entire civilized world while

everybody else was paying them no attention. This sad reality is evidenced nowhere better than

in higher education, the traditional ivory tower of the academy. In the case of most colleges and

universities, the faculty “are overwhelmingly liberal in their political ideology, creating a strong

campus political culture,” composed primarily of dedicated, faithful, anti-American, anti-

capitalist, even openly Marxist professors.9 Those advocating this leftist, socialist political

ideology have taken over the management of most colleges and universities and taken over the

training and education of the vast majority of public school teachers in the USA. It is exactly

this socialist political ideology that I will continue to describe as neo-Marxism.

After clearly defining the basic terminology of this argument and briefly considering the

extreme urgency of the current state of world affairs, a short history lesson is absolutely

necessary. In order to understand the depth and gravity of the life and death crisis in which the

people of the United States are embroiled, in order to understand who is truly right and who is

truly wrong, and in order to properly identify exactly who the real evil doers are, everyone must

stop and consider a bit of the history of Western Philosophy. A careful, serious citizen of the US

must also explore the nature of the enemy's tools and how he collected them.

9
Tobin, Gary A., and Aryeh K.Weinberg. A Profile of American College Faculty. Vol. 1: Political Beliefs
and Behavior. San Francisco: Institute for Jewish & Community Research, 2006. i-iii; Sommers, Christina Hoff.
“For More Balance on Campuses.” The Christian Science Monitor: Monday, 6 May 2002. The American
Enterprise Institute. 13 August 2009. <http://www.aei.org/article/13863>; Horowitz, David. The Professors: The
101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. Washington, DC: Regnery, 2006; Balch, Stephen H. “The Antidote to
Academic Orthodoxy.” The Chronicle of Higher Education: 23 April 2004. Leadership U. 14 April 2005. 13
August 2009. <http://www.leaderu.com/university/acadorthodoxy.html>; Klein, Daniel B., and Andrew Western.
“Forget Stanford's cardinal red -- paint it (almost) as blue as Berkeley.” Palo Alto Weekly: 23 February 2005. Palo
Alto Weekly Online. 13 August 2009. <http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morgue/2005/2005_02_23.
guest23blues.shtml >; D'Souza, Dinesh. Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus. New York:
Free Press, 1991; Balibar, E., and P. Macherey. “Literature as an Ideological Form.” Oxford Literary Review: Vol.
3:1 (1978). 6, 8, 11-12. Reproduced in part in Modern Literary Theory: A Reader. 3rd Edition. Eds. Phillip Rice
and Patricia Waugh. London: Arnold, 1996. 61-69, esp. 62. The evidence of this phenomenon is clear, well
developed, and easy to find, and this author has experienced it himself with his own eyes and ears for more than 20
years.
 Thus, it is as vital as ever, that everyone learn how we arrived at this place in history.

The truth is that the enemies of reason and the mercenaries of self-interest have been eating away

at the fabric of Western Civilization since the beginning of Western Civilization. But, the forces

of Marxism and political Correctness have done more damage in the last one hundred years than

most people were willing to believe until very recently. If people of reason and common sense

do not act now, no one will be able to fix this problem, and Western Civilization as we know it

will be irrevocably changed. The first step in the solution is a crash course in the history of

rhetoric and philosophy.

Episode 1:

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Sophists, and Sophistry

The contest between those evil people who try to make lies sound like the truth and those

persons who seek the truth and who try to help others find the true and the good—this contest is

nothing new. In ancient Greece during the fourth and fifth centuries BC, Socrates, Plato, and

Aristotle denounced and demonstrated the dishonesty of what is still referred to as sophistry. As

defined by the Oxford American Dictionary, the word sophist is a noun and is defined as "a paid

teacher of philosophy and rhetoric in ancient Greece, associated in popular thought with moral

skepticism and specious reasoning.” In ancient Greece, there was— quite literally—a large class

of people who made a very good living teaching their students how to use the powerful tools of

rhetoric to trick the people in their audiences into believing that lies were the truth and into

supporting ideas and doing things that no rational, ethical person should support or should do.

While “it should be remembered that most sophists have believed that the orator should

be a good man, and their most consistent theme has not been how to make the worse seem the

better cause,”10 even during the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, many of the sophists, their

methods, and the schools of thought they developed came to be associated with dishonesty and

intentional deception. In modern English parlance, the word sophistry has become synonymous

with sophisticated, skillful, but dishonest rhetoric used to disguise one’s intentional deception, an

elaborate dissembling.

During his trial, Socrates himself was accused of atheism and of misleading and

corrupting his young students in much the same way that he himself believed the sophists had

corrupted their own students. Plato, Socrates’s most devoted student, went on to attack the

10
Kennedy, George A. Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern
Times. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1980. 40. Kennedy deals with this issue at length and in depth in
“Chapter 3: Sophistic Rhetoric,” pp. 25-40.
sophists himself with great passion, as he does in his Gorgias. Late in his career, he devoted an

entire dialogue to it. In The Sophist, Plato presents an extended definition and discussion of

exactly what a sophist is, and Plato’s Stranger, a visiting scholar, offers the reader a very clear

portrait. The sophist resides “among those who imitate but ... not among those who know,” and

he goes on to say “we cannot very well call him philosopher, ...he is ignorant; but since he is all

imitator of the philosopher, he will evidently have a name derived from his [from the

philosopher’s].” When all is said and done, Plato’s definition of sophistry comes down to “the

imitative kind of the dissembling part of the art of opinion which is part of the art of

contradiction and belongs to the fantastic class of the image-making art, ….and has been defined

in arguments as the juggling part of productive activity.” 11 Aristotle is often kinder and more

measured in his assessment, allowing that some who were called sophists were honest and some

were not. In his Rhetoric, Aristotle encourages his reader to judge each teacher and each speaker

individually “for what makes the sophist is not the faculty but the moral purpose.” 12 Aristotle

does not condemn a person because he is masterful in persuading people, he condemns that

person if he persuades others in a dishonest manner for dishonest, even selfish purposes. For

Aristotle, it becomes a question of motivations rather than method or ability. Some sophists

were honest and trustworthy; others were charlatans, cheats, and deceitful liars. Aristotle

believes that people can choose to practice honest rhetoric or choose to practice dishonest

rhetoric, and each practitioner should be judged objectively and fairly. Even so, in the twenty-

first century, the term sophistry has come to mean the careful, deliberate practice of dishonest

rhetoric.

11
Plato. The Sophist, Section 268d. Trans. Harold N. Fowler. Persus Digital Library. Editor-in-Chief
Gregory R. Crane. Tufts University. 23 June 2010. <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:
text:1999.01.0172:text=Soph.>.
12
Aristotle. Rhetoric, I.1. Trans. J. H. Freese. Persus Digital Library. Editor-in-Chief Gregory R. Crane.
Tufts University. 23 June 2010. <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0060>.
 Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle spoke out against many of the sophists of their day, and

they trained their own students to analyze the arguments of those people so that they could see

for themselves what those arguments really were, to see that they were often lies. They gave

their own students the same tools that the unethical sophists gave theirs, but they taught their

students to use those tools in an honest pursuit of the truth. They showed them the value and

importance of truth and showed them how to determine for themselves the difference between

the logical pursuit of philosophy and the irrational pursuit of sophistry, between honest rhetoric

and dishonest rhetoric, between truth and lies. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were no more able

to defeat the sophists of their day than I have been able to overcome the liars of my own time.

But, that does not mean that I have to give up, and it does not require that I should give up

teaching my own students to think for themselves and to discern the difference between a liar

and an honest man. I just pray to my Maker that what happened to Socrates never happens to

me.

The sophists of today often call themselves philosophers, literary critics, social theorists,

college professors, high school teachers, administrators, public relations officers, advertising

agents, journalists, social workers, priests, politicians, reformers, and crusaders. In no way, am I

suggesting that all people of those professions are sophists, but I do mean that the sophists in our

society today usually refer to themselves with some other label and that those labels are often

supposed to mean something other than "liar.” Ironically, these labels are often supposed to

mean something like "truth teller," "good deed doer," and "trustworthy leader.” Many of the

people in our society who are lovingly educated, carefully trained, and well paid to maintain

important positions of trust are actually liars, cheats, and stunningly effective manipulators.

They re-write the rules to suit their own political agendas and their own personal interests. They
will revise the rules of logic and argumentation, the details of history, the basic spiritual ideals of

their own religion, and the most basic laws and guiding principles of their own government so

that, when they speak to uneducated, poorly trained fools, those fools actually want to trust them

and to believe that these liars are actually guided by the important, fundamental truths of

Western Civilization. These well-disguised cheats and liars do all of these things with a clear

conscience because they have convinced themselves that they are doing these evil things for a

good reason, for a good cause. They have convinced themselves that the ends justify the means,

and most of them make a pretty good living while they are at it.
Episode 2:

Karl Marx and the Only Interesting Thing about Marxism

[And, yes, I do get to decide what is interesting! It’s my book.]

“There is no doubt that for Marx it was a real disaster to have been
transformed into the leader of a sect by his young enthusiasts; he
would have produced much more useful work had he not become
the slave of the Marxists.”
— Georges Sorel

Ironically, in spite of the fact that neo-Marxism is a good label for the enemy under

consideration here, in spite of the fact that Karl Marx is a key historical figure in understanding

this whole mess, it is not his interpretation of history, philosophy, politics, or economics that has

shaped our current situation. It is not really socialism, communism, or Marxist economics that

has spawned this problem. It is the method used by many Marxists to advance their agendas and

the remarkable effect of that method upon the masses that has caused this problem.

Every angry, passionate crusader and do-gooder looks back on the last two centuries and

asks himself the same awful question: "What method of rapid, radical change works best?” How

can I change the world right now, today and change it into what I want it to be? They look at the

other angry, passionate do-gooders of history and try to identify the standouts. Many of them

have found their guiding lights in the likes of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and Che

Guevara. They eagerly follow the will-o-the-wisps of revolutionary history, much like Eve

bobbing along behind Satan in Book IX of Paradise Lost.13 Current-day radical reformers are

drawn to such historical figures not because their philosophies were actually appealing or helpful

so much as they are drawn to them because of their energy, their charisma, and their startling and
13
Milton, John. Paradise Lost. IX.624-642.
appalling successes. Those same people ignore the painful sight and the inconvenient stench of

the millions of corpses created by their heroes.

Marx and Marxist experiments of the past are particularly appealing to those crusaders

who are willing to do anything—no matter how heinous—to get the job done, those people who

truly mean it when they say, "By any means necessary!” To them, the history of Marxist

propaganda and revolution offers near limitless possibilities. If a man or woman is willing to

equivocate, to lie, to cheat, to steal, to commit mass murder, then the tools of Marxism may

actually seem irresistibly appealing. All the radical liberal crusaders in the United States, they

all have their own special, sacred, beloved causes. In that way, all those crusaders are very

different and have their own unique agendas, but the one thing that they all have in common is

their use of the Marxist method—the slow, incremental, yet steady, relentless implementation of

Political Correctness, 14 of the Big Lie, and of the absolute, dictatorial control of the educational

establishment. Neo-Marxist commentators are absolutely sure that these are the mechanisms

used by the bourgeois class to maintain their repressive stranglehold on the working class, 15 and

traditional, old school Marxists like Gramsci were absolutely certain that education and learning

at every level are key to the success of a communist revolution:

It exists between intellectual and non-intellectual sections of the population,

14
Walter Benjamin. “The Author as Producer.” The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological
Reproducibility, and Other Writings on Media. Cambridge: Belknap, Harvard UP, 2008. pp. 79-95. This article
includes a fine discussion concerning the relative merit of Political Correctness in the production and consumption
of literature, especially Marxist Literature, not that Benjamin seems to be a big fan of slavish devotion to correctness
of any kind.
15
Balibar, E., and P. Macherey. “Literature as an Ideological Form.” Oxford Literary Review. Vol. 3:1
(1978) pp. 6; 8; 11-12. Reproduced in part in Modern Literary Theory: A Reader. 3rd Edition. Eds. Phillip Rice and
Patricia Waugh. London: Arnold, 1996. pp. 61-69. They refer specifically to the educational establishment on p.
62 and to the effect of writing and literature on pp. 66-68 of Rice and Waugh’s book, and their description of
education and literature as two of the Ideological State Apparatuses (ISA) of bourgeois Capitalist hegemony builds
on a basic foundation constructed by Louis Althusser in works like “Ideology and the State.” Trans., B. Brewster in
Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. 1969. pp. 136-38; 152-53; 154-55; 155-56; 160-62; 162-64; 168-69.
Reproduced in part in Modern Literary Theory: A Reader. 3rd Edition. Eds. Phillip Rice and Patricia Waugh.
London: Arnold, 1996. pp. 53-61.
 between the rulers and the ruled, elites and their followers, leaders [dirigenti] and

led, the vanguard and the body of the army. Every relationship of 'hegemony' is

necessarily an educational relationship and occurs not only within a nation,

between the various forces of which the nation is composed, but in the

international and world-wide field, between complexes of national and continental

civilizations.16

So, it should surprise no one to learn that the neo-Marxists of the twenty-first century willfully

employ the very same tactics themselves and feel perfectly justified in doing so. The ends justify

the means, especially if those means have already been used by the enemy. Plus, we know these

methods work because they are the methods of the capitalist pig. Whether the bourgeois class is

truly guilty or not makes no difference to anyone. The neo-Marxist intellectual terrorist

consciously works to make the people of the US stupid and ignorant, and, by means of the

ubiquitous, overwhelming press of their propaganda, they take advantage of the very ignorance

they themselves have fostered amongst the people.

Regardless of how strong and healthy it was at one time, these crusaders know that the

American Dream, a capitalist dream, can be dragged down, trampled, and destroyed as long as

its enemies are steady, graduated, and relentless in exercising their own will to power. These

itinerant do-gooders are thoroughly neo-Marxist in that they take a few basic ideals and

techniques from traditional Marxism and apply those to their own unique agenda, attempting to

transform the world into what they think it should be. The Church of Global Warming, The

Green Party, Open Border Lovers, Sponsors of Mexican Guest Worker Programs, Twentieth-

Century American Feminism, Queer Theory, New Historicism, Affirmative Action,

Gramsci, Antonio. “Xl Philosophy, Common Sense, Language and Folklore: '2 Language, Languages,
16

Common Sense.'” The Gramsci Reader. Ed. David Forgacs. New York: New York UP, 2000. p. 348
Multiculturalism, Deconstruction, and all other forms of radical, leftist social engineering have

one thing in common. They all embrace and use the rhetorical and philosophical tools of

Marxism to advance their own particular political agendas, regardless of whether or not those

political agendas have anything in common with any Marxist ideology. In spite of all their

differences and their conflicting aspirations, most—if not all—neo-Marxists seem to share Terry

Eagleton’s view that

the destruction of corporate and organicist ideologies in the political sphere has

always been a central task for revolutionaries; the destruction of such ideologies

in the aesthetic region is essential not only for a scientific knowledge of the

literary past, but for laying the foundation on which the materialist aesthetic and

artistic practices of the future can be built. 17

This intense, passionate desire to lay a new “foundation” and build a different kind of “future,”

that is the one irresistibly appealing element of the traditional Marxist world view, the one that

ultimately seduces the advocates of every variety of neo-Marxist change. Creating and seizing

the opportunity to change the world has taken the traditional place of God in their lives. This

imperative for changing the world has become their number one priority. It has become their

one and only a prioi assumption and their ultimate replacement for the transcendental signified.

They must change the world. It is their will, and no one is strong enough to steer their will in

another direction. They will change the world. They will do whatever it takes to change the

world into what they want it to be. They will construct their very own Utopia right here, right

now. I suppose—for me—it is a good thing that none of them can seem to agree upon what they

want the world to become. If they could, people like me would be in a great deal of trouble, and

17
Eagleton, Terry. Criticism and Ideology. New Edition. London: Verso, New Left Books, 2006. p. 161.
Originally published by NLB in 1976. Available, in part, online at Google Books. 25 June 2006.
<http://books.google.com/>.
the corpses would be stacked high and deep.
Episode 3:

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche Kills God, Transforms Himself into Superman, and Wills

Himself to Power—Leaping Tall Philosophies in a Single Bound. Nietzschean Nihilism

Becomes the Foundation Upon Which Most Bad Ideas are Constructed in the 20 th Century.

Admittedly, the most infamous ideas that Nietzsche offered the world are probably those

of the Übermensch and the “Will to Power.”18 But, only slightly less infamous is "Gott ist tot!

Gott bleibt tot! Und wir haben ihn getötet.”—God is Dead! God remains dead! And we have

killed him.19 This is the one assumption upon which Foucault constructs everything he has to

convey about will, power, and truth. 20 This is the genealogical root of Derrida's "it n'y a pas de

hors-texte"—There is nothing outside of or apart from the text. 21 This is the beginning of the

Deconstruction of Western Civilization. Quite peculiar considering that Nietzsche himself was a

product of a very refined, cultured, sophisticated civilization and had a deep and abiding love for

some of the finer things in life, including theatre and music.

Nietzsche also said that Truth lies beyond the distinction between Good and Evil and that

18
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. Thus Spake Zarathustra. Trans. Thomas Common. Available online from
Project Gutenberg. 7 November 2008. 25 June 2010. <http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1998/1998.txt>. The
original German text is available from The Nietzsche Source. <http://www.nietzschesource.org/texts/eKGWB/Za-
I>. This is a good source for all those who want to understand the importance of both these concepts in Nietzsche’s
philosophy. I will venture to say that, in my opinion, the acceptance and exercise of the Will to Power is one of the
most fundamental characteristics making the Übermensch a super-human creature. The Übermensch, himself,
seems to provide man with a reason for being now that man has killed God. The absence of God leaves a terrible
vacuum for the nihilist. Since there is no God and there is no real purpose in a normal man’s life any more, the
normal man needs a new reason for being. His new reason for being becomes ushering in the Superman. When this
useless, slave-man is no more, he will have served an important function in that he passed on to make way for the
only creature that really matters, the Übermensch.
19
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. Die fröhliche Wissenschaft [The Joyful Wisdom] [The Gay Science]. Trans.
Thomas Common. New York: MacMillan, 1924. p. 168; also Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. Die fröhliche
Wissenschaft. Third Book, Aphorism Section 125. Published 1882. 25 June 2010. Available on line at
<http://www.textlog.de/21289.html>.
20
Foucault, Michel. “Truth and Power.” The Foucault Reader. Ed. Paul Rabinow. New York: Pantheon,
1984. 59.
21
Derrida, Jacques. De La Grammatologie. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, 1967. 227; Derrida, Jacques. Of
Grammatology. Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1997. 158.
he who is not the Übermensch, he who is bound by notions of Good and Evil and by a dead God,

is a slave.22 In other words, there are two types of people in the world, the Übermenschen (the

Supermen, Overmen, or Masters) and the Untermenschen (the Lowermen, Undermen, or Slaves).

If you are not the master, then you are the master’s slave. There is no middle ground and no

other possibilities, and you have to choose to be the master or choose to be the slave. God is

dead to the people of this world—no longer relevant, no longer meaningful, no longer

threatening. Concepts of good and evil are meaningless and are for the weak and the inferior;

they are for the slaves. The morality of the master, the Übermensch, is not the same as that of

the slave. It is more complex and sophisticated, more deep and profound, and it is anything but

black and white. The master cannot and should not be bound by the same rules as the slave.

This is how many philosophers and politicians rationalize having one set of rules for themselves

and another set for everyone else. They are the masters, and everyone else is a slave to be ruled

over and repressed. Which group one will be part of is completely up to that individual. Does

he choose to be the master or choose to be the slave? Which set of rules will he choose? The

Übermensch chooses to be the master, chooses his own set of rules and standards, and,

exercising the strength of his will, he takes a position of power and influence for himself.

Nietzsche discovered that a man must not believe in God if he is going to define his own

morality for himself and for that morality to be fundamentally different from the morality that he

himself prescribes for other people, the people whom he has decided are not like him, the people

over whom he has chosen to rule. It is necessary for him to try and kill God and to replace God

with himself. In order to realize his own Will to Power, he must replace the Will of God with his

22
Friedrich Nietzsche. Section 260. “Chapter IX: What is Noble?” Beyond Good and Evil. Trans. Helen
Zimmern. Full text available online at Project Gutenberg. August 2003. 25 June 2010.
<http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4363/4363.txt>
own will.23

The final arbiter and mediator of right and wrong is supposed to be God in the form of

Jesus Christ. If, instead, a man makes himself into the final arbiter, then he has attempted to put

himself in the place of God. This is why a neo-Marxist cannot allow himself to believe in God,

for it is absolutely necessary for the neo-Marxist to be able to put himself in the place of God. If

neo-Marxists were to allow for the existence of God, they would never be able to do the terrible,

evil things that they do. This fact by itself explains why those of the radical left are so much

more likely to stay home from church on Sunday and to have no use for the Bible, for Jesus, or

for religion in general. If a man defines his own ethos by making his number one priority his

own will and his own political agenda, then God will certainly fade into the background of his

life. Those persons who place their own political causes ahead of everything else in life, those

persons have no room left for God.

It is not possible to serve the Green Party, to serve the Church of Global Warming, to

serve the cause of same-sex marriage, to serve those who pretend that terrorists, rapists, and

murders do not walk freely among the people and, then, to try and serve God at the same time.

This fact would also explain why those people in churches that have been fully co-opted by the

political agenda of the neo-Marxists, churches like The Episcopal Church (USA), tend to believe

that the Bible is a unique and beautiful cultural artifact filled with wondrous bits of literature but

not, necessarily, the Word of God. Many people who go to such churches do not even believe in

God themselves. For such people, going to church is still an important cultural tradition, but, due

to their political ideologies, there is no room in their lives for faith or for God. They are too busy

23
Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy. 4th Ed. New York: Simon & Schuster/Touchstone,
1967. p. 759: “In one form or another, the doctrine that will is paramount has been held by many modern
philosophers, notably Nietzsche, Bergson, James, and Dewey. It has, moreover, acquired a vogue outside the circles
of professional philosophers. And in proportion as will has gone up in the scale, knowledge has gone down. This is,
I think, the most notable change that has come over the temper of philosophy in our age.”
being all-inclusive, being as diverse as possible, and being so open-minded that they are not

actually allowed to believe in anything, not even God. Love and inclusion, not God and the

Bible, are the new orthodoxy for some persons who claim to be Christians. For many of these

people, going to church has become a social and cultural exercise, not a spiritual and theological

transformation.

According to the National Study of Youth and Religion conducted in 2005, within the

ranks of The Episcopal Church (USA), 28% of the youth between the ages of 13 and 17 either do

not believe in God or are not sure that God exists. Amongst all the youth in the same age group,

throughout the USA, including those youth affiliated with no church at all, only 15% of them

either do not believe in God or are not sure that God exists. This means that, if a teen happens to

attend an Episcopal church every Sunday, then he is almost twice as likely to doubt the existence

of God than is the average teenager. 24 Even the oldest of established, Christian traditions are not

immune to the ravages of intellectual deceit and spiritual bankruptcy, the hallmarks of neo-

Marxist, leftist political tactics.

24
Schwadel, Phil and Christian Smith. Portraits of Protestant Teens: A Report on Teenagers in Major U.S.
Denominations. Chapel Hill: National Study of Youth and Religion, 2005. <http://www.youthandreligion.org/
publications/docs/PortraitsProtTeens.pdf >. 23.
Episode 4:

Passionate, Romantic Idealism morphs into a Pragmatic Theory of Truth, making it ever

more easy for truth to disappear altogether and to be replaced by whatever useful,

convenient narrative or myth one might care to construct.

“The intellectual life of the nineteenth century was more complex

than that of any previous age.”25
—Bertrand Russell

“We [human beings] do not even have any organ at all for
knowing, for ‘truth’; we `know' ... just as much as may be useful in
the interest of the human herd.”26
—Nietzsche

Nietzsche, Rousseau, Coleridge, Byron, and their fellows help to foster a smoldering,

irrational passion that eventually set fire to European civilization. Then, trying to tame that

passion with a bit of reason, philosophers like Mill, James, Dewey, and many others are

responsible for laying down a pattern that some still refer to as the pragmatic theory of truth. In

the case of Mill, James, and even Dewey, these philosophers have no evil intentions. In the case

of the Romantic Poets and the Transcendentalists, they never think far enough ahead to consider

the outcomes. By the time one meets with philosophers like Georges Sorel, one discovers that

people are not even supposed to consider possible, future outcomes, for no one can ever know

from which development advancement and progress will come. It may actually come from some

25
Russell, Bertrand. “Chapter 35: Currents of Thought in the Nineteenth Century,” The Basic Writings of
Bertrand Russell. London: Routledge, 2009. p. 268.
26
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. Die fröhliche Wissenschaft [The Joyful Wisdom] [The Gay Science]. Trans.
Thomas Common. New York: MacMillan, 1924. p. 300; also Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. Die fröhliche
Wissenschaft. Third Book, Aphorism Section 344. Published 1882. 25 June 2010. Available on line at
<http://www.textlog.de/21289.html>; Quoted by Rorty, Richard in “Pragmatism as Romantic Polytheism.” The
Revival of Pragmatism: New Essays on Social Thought, Law, and Culture. Durham: Duke UP, 1998.
development that seems completely evil at first. 27 Nietzsche, of course, would have seen no

reason to care about evil outcomes. The master—from within his god-like perspective—worries

not what becomes of the slaves as a result of the master’s choices.

In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Romantic idealism with its

passionate faith in the individual and in the power of human imagination lead to a distrust of

well-established, conventional wisdom, including all its traditional institutions: the aristocracy,

business, government, educational methods, scholarly assumptions, and the like. It was time for

revolt and revolution, time for all individuals to be free and to have a voice. It was time for all

people to have a say in planning the future. The time of kings and queens was coming to an end,

so that—in this new age—all people could not only be free, but they could also be rational,

thinking, sovereign individuals, finding what is truly noble in human nature, a human nature

unspoiled by the burden of an ancient, decaying, perverse civilization. It was time for everyone

to have liberty whether they were ready for it or not. 28

Even poets and philosophers were ready for a revolution. Wordsworth and Coleridge

were, for a time, inspired by the French Revolution which itself drew much of it is inspiration

from Rousseau. Lord Byron actually mustered troops and commanded them himself on the

battlefield, fighting for Greek independence and liberty, fighting alongside rebels in Greece,

where he died at the age of 36 and where he is still considered a hero by many. Shelley was

considered an atheist and a dangerous political radical, a socialist before most people had ever

heard the word “socialist.” His mother-in-law was an outspoken feminist, and it was his father-

in-law’s political activism that brought him into contact with his wife for the first time. Then,

27
Sorel, Georges. Reflections on Violence. Ed. Jeremy Jennings of the University of Birmingham.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999. pp. 114-18.
28
cf. John the Savage in Brave New World, trying to force liberty upon the lower castes in Huxley’s dystopian
nightmare.
when Shelley died young, his wife Mary was forced to make a living for herself, writing Gothic

horror stories of all things. In the United States of America, they had their revolution very early

on in the era, so their revolution was not truly inspired by Romantic idealism so much as it was

inspired by the roots from which this idealism sprang. Nonetheless, Romantic Idealists,

including Transcendentalists, soon went to work in America, working industriously upon the

ideal of individual liberty and upon challenging conventional wisdom and established tradition.

Irving, Cooper, Hawthorne, Poe, and Melville, along with Emerson, Thoreau, and many others,

gave all the wise old men something to think about, especially the ones living in the ivory towers

of American colleges and universities.

All these and many other Romantic idealists helped to foster a smoldering, irrational

passion that eventually set Western civilization ablaze with energy. The challenges, the revolts,

and the transformations did not stop; they did not even slow down; they just got bigger and more

frequent: the advent of Darwin, Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, the American Civil War, the end of

Slavery in Europe, the Industrial Revolution, the struggle for female equality. Mankind might

have ancestors in common with other forms of life. It might be better for everyone to work as

hard as they are able, yet to receive in return only what they need to survive and to live a simple

life. The bloodiest military conflict in American history is fought by Americans against

Americans on American soil. People do not have the right to own other people. Machines

transform the way work is done and, thereby, transform the economic landscape of Western

Civilization forever. Women are able, and should be allowed, to do whatever men can do. God

is dead, and we killed him so that a few superior supermen can go wherever their own wills take

them, allowing those supermen to treat the rest of humanity like “clever animals.” 29 The sexual

29
Rorty, Richard. “Pragmatism as Romantic Polytheism.” The Revival of Pragmatism: New Essays on Social
Thought, Law, and Culture. Durham: Duke UP, 1998. ISBN: 0-8223-2228-5: “...Nietzsche's claim that human
based theory of psychoanalysis explains all human behavior without exception.

Many ancient institutions begin to crumble or to change fundamentally. Often this

transformation is profoundly good, especially the Abolition of Slavery and the establishment of

Women’s Rights. Just the same, some people begin to think of themselves and all other humans

as animals without a god and without purpose. The old ways of dealing with life in this world

are not good enough for many people anymore. Everyone feels an urgent need of some new,

more effective philosophical ways of dealing with the complexities of life. Ultimately, the ugly

truth is that everyday reality makes it very difficult to maintain a sense of Romantic idealism

forever. Whenever people have to deal with reality and with truth, reason becomes very

important again. At breakneck speed, Romanticism runs face-first into another age of reason and

logical, scientific analysis, but this age is a bit more complex, fuzzy, and flexible, less black and

white, less certain.

Right now, today, we are still living with the results of this amazing and terrible collision.

As has been effectively demonstrated by Richard Rorty in “Pragmatism as Romantic

Polytheism,” this complex phenomena has been expertly explained by René Berthelot: “In all its

different forms…pragmatism reveals itself to be a romantic utilitarianism: that is its most

obviously original feature and also its most private vice and its hidden weakness.”30

Utilitarianism, much like Literary Realism, develops alongside and as a reaction to what has

been going on during the revolutionary age of Romantic idealism. With the long-term, ongoing

rejection of conventional wisdom, people needed a new way with which to measure what is good

rather than evil, or wrong, and with which to measure what is best rather than merely good. How

do we do that when so much of what was taken as granted before has now been tossed out?

beings should be viewed, for epistemological purposes, as what Nietzsche called ‘clever animals.’ ”
30
Quoted by Richard Rorty in “Pragmatism as Romantic Polytheism.” The Revival of Pragmatism: New
Essays on Social Thought, Law, and Culture. Durham: Duke UP, 1998. ISBN: 0-8223-2228-5.
 For many philosophers, the clear answer turns out to be utility. These philosophers

decide to measure the goodness of a thing by its utility. By that, they mean that thing which is

best is that which creates the greatest benefit for the largest number of people. 31 This principle is

often referred to as the Greatest Happiness Principle. On its face, this seems to be perfectly

reasonable, and for many people, much of the time, the utilitarian method works very well. But,

in hindsight, the problem is actually obvious. How does one decide what is truly beneficial for

anyone? How does one decide whether one good thing is more beneficial than another good

thing? How do you count the number of people who benefit, and the number of people who do

not? In many ways all the utilitarians have really accomplished is changing the words people use

to deal with the same old moral dilemmas.

Furthermore, if one does use the term “happiness” as a way of defining what is beneficial,

then does that mean that something which contributes to the happiness of the majority might, at

the same time, contribute to the unhappiness and suffering of a smaller number of people. Worse

still, if the suffering of one would benefit everyone else, then does society have the right to force

that suffering upon that one person against his will?

Suppose that the United Nations could feed every hungry person in the world by turning

over one thousand newly born children to a group of nomadic aliens with superior technology,

then would they have a right to force one thousand families to give up their babies? What if the

United Nations knew in advance that those one thousand babies would be used to raise a self-

regenerating food supply for these aliens because, owing to past experience, they have decided

that they prefer human flesh to all other foods? Billions of people will be fed and never know

31
Bentham, Jeremy. Principles of Legislation. Ed. M. Dumont. Boston: Wells and Lilly, 1830. p. 119, 133,
195-98; Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy. 4th Ed. New York: Simon & Schuster/Touchstone,
1967. p. 774; Popkin, Richard H., ed. The Columbia History of Western Philosophy. NY: Columbia UP, 1999. p.
577.
hunger in the future, but one thousand infants must become breeding stock so that their

descendants can be devoured by creatures who see human beings as food. What if the United

Nations also knew that the alternative to this alien proposal happened to be continuing what

those aliens have been doing for thousands of years, harvesting thousands of human beings each

year, selecting them randomly and taking them secretly and untraceably? Philosophy is such

wonderful fun. The truth is that, for most people, no choice of this kind could ever be made by

simply applying the Greatest Happiness Principle. Most people would feel compelled to take

other moral principles into consideration.

Especially for the Romantic idealist, dealing with this Utilitarian principle is dangerous

enough from a collective, societal perspective—as will John Dewey in the future, applying his

pragmatic principles. But, what happens when Romantics do what Romantics do best, focus on

the individual perspective rather than the collective? Ultimately, the question must be what

happens when Nietzsche throws himself into the melee? In spite of the fact that it is virtually

impossible to classify him—as a Romantic or otherwise, Nietzsche has all the fire and passion of

any Romantic thinker plus a good bit more, and he certainly believes in the importance of the

individual, at least some individuals, including the individual will and the individual

imagination.

While having some important things in common with Romantic thinkers, Nietzsche is

also considered by many philosophers to be a Pragmatist. 32 But, his pragmatic theory is not

concerned at all with what benefits the greatest number of people. In the end, he is concerned

only with what is best for him and, perhaps, those like him. 33 The Übermensch, Nietzsche’s

32
Eagleton, Terry. Ideology: an Introduction. London: Verso, 1991. p. 187; Rorty, Richard. “Pragmatism as
Romantic Polytheism.” The Revival of Pragmatism: New Essays on Social Thought, Law, and Culture. Durham:
Duke UP, 1998. ISBN: 0-8223-2228-5
33
Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy. 4th Ed. New York: Simon & Schuster/Touchstone,
Ideal Overlord or Superman, has no concern for the welfare of others. His pragmatic principle

asks only what best meets his own animal needs and what best advances his own Will to Power:

Here one must think profoundly to the very basis and resist all

sentimental weakness: life itself is essentially appropriation, injury,

conquest of the strange and weak, suppression, severity, obtrusion

of its own forms, incorporation, and at the least, putting it mildest,

exploitation... Will to Power, it will endeavor to grow, to gain

ground, attract to itself and acquire ascendency—not owing to any

morality or immorality, but because it lives, and because life is

precisely Will to Power.34

Nietzsche’s brand of pragmatism helps to illustrate clearly the potential dangers of combining

passion for the rights and privileges of the individual with the cold logic of a utilitarian-style

morality. If every person had Nietzsche’s delusions of god-hood, humanity would not last much

longer, or—worse—humanity would become enslaved to Nietzsche and his small class of

overlords. I cannot help but wonder how many Übermenschen the world might be able to

accommodate. Fortunately, not all pragmatists are as obsessed with their own darkness and their

own fears as Mr. Nietzsche. 35

1967. p. 769: “He holds that the happiness of common people is no part of the good per se. All that is good or bad
in itself exists only in the superior few; what happens to the rest is of no account.”
34
Neitzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil. Trans. Helen Zimmern. New York: Macmillan, 1907. p. 226.
35
cf. Jung, C. G. Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. Trans. R. F. C. Hull. Bollingen Series
XX. New York: Pantheon, 1959. p. 53: “No amount of insight into the relativity and fallibility of our moral
judgment can deliver us from these defects, and those who deem themselves beyond good and evil are usually the
worst tormentors of mankind, because they are twisted with the pain and fear of their own sickness.”
Also cf. Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy. 4th Ed. New York: Simon &
Schuster/Touchstone, 1967. p. 767-8: “It never occurred to Nietzsche that the lust for power, with which he endows
his superman, is itself an outcome of fear. Those who do not fear their neighbours see no necessity to tyrannize over
them. Men who have conquered fear have not the frantic quality of Nietzsche's "artist-tyrant" Neros, who try to
enjoy music and massacre while their hearts are filled with dread of the inevitable palace revolution. I will not deny
that, partly as a result of his teaching, the real world has become very like his nightmare, but that does not make it
any the less horrible.”
 Other pragmatists have found less overtly narcissistic and psychotic expressions of their

ideals and have tried to construct principles that are more like, but not exactly the same as, the

Greatest Happiness Principle of such Utilitarians as Bentham and Mill. Yet, the endeavors of

those pragmatists are still fraught with similar dangers. Any set of principles based on vaguely

defined terms such as good, benefit, or happiness cannot, in the end, be entirely rational, no

matter how hard one tries. Without a doubt, try as one might to do otherwise, there will always

be some element of pathos and ethos involved, and these factors cannot be fully rational. Reason

cannot truly know or comprehend these factors.

Ultimately, with respect to the issues dealt with in this book, the brand of pragmatism that

has created the greatest difficulties philosophically and politically is that of William James. It

would actually be more accurate to say the interpreters of William James who, very

pragmatically, decided to take from him what they liked and to give back that which they did not

like. They liked the idea of redefining truth to be that which serves one best, morally,

emotionally, spiritually, and politically. In that way, they could keep reason out of the whole

business. What they did not like so much, and what they left behind was the potent logic of

James’s radical empiricism. James, of course, knew that people could not have one without the

other. Both these doctrines together were the foundation of James’s method, one complementing

and tempering the other. As is the usual way in philosophy and history, many would choose to

embrace James’s pragmatic theory of truth without bothering about that whole radical

empiricism thing. So, instead of a new and effective scientific method, what many people wound

up with was just another way of asserting that “the ends justify the means”; or “that which

advances my own person agenda is defined to be the truth.”

Without the application of radical empiricism to verify and validate the pragmatic theory
of truth, this theory of truth is pointless and of little help. Without radical empiricism, James’s

advice about the truth does little to prevent the truth from becoming whatever one wants it to be,

as long as it serves one’s own individual, immediate needs. Many who came after James have

exploited doctrines like the pragmatic theory of truth while ignoring the requirement of radical

empiricism. So what are these two ideas anyway: the pragmatic theory of truth and radical

empiricism?

Many commentators, including James, have credited Charles Sanders Peirce with the

development of pragmatism and its theory of truth. Such commentators often start their

explanations with Peirce’s pragmatic maxim: “Consider what effects, that might conceivably

have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception

of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.” Thus, a person’s understanding of

anything is composed only of these conceptions of the practical “bearings” produced by the

object, the practical effects the object has upon anything and everything that it touches. “Peirce

developed his theory of truth by applying the pragmatic maxim to the concept of reality. He held

that the truth is ‘the opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate . . .

and the object represented in this opinion is the real.’ ” 36 Thus, based upon careful observation

of experience, a person can discern that which is true by considering all that is known about the

practical effects of the object under consideration. Then, because all careful, intelligent, and

reasonable observers will ultimately observe the same things, the truth turns out to be the

“opinion” that will be “agreed” upon by all who carefully observe the object. They will

necessarily all come to the same opinion, and this agreed upon opinion will constitute that which

is “real,” that which is true.

36
Quoted in Popkin, Richard H., ed. The Columbia History of Western Philosophy. NY: Columbia UP, 1999.
594.
 In many ways, William James is applying these same principles himself, but James

characterizes pragmatism’s approach to truth in this manner: “The whole originality of

pragmatism, the whole point in it, is its use of the concrete way of seeing. It begins with

concreteness, and returns and ends with it.” Truth itself has precisely two clearly identifiable and

“practical” characteristics: “(1) relevancy to situation, and (2) subsequential utility.”37 James felt

that, if one were able to grasp the concreteness of this approach, and master the search for both

relevancy and utility, one could not make any major errors employing pragmatism.

James’s conception of truth is also unusual in that it really is a never-ending, ongoing

search through the infinite world of human experience and observation. One is never really

done, for there is always more to learn. James explains this portion of his theory of truth in the

following way: “The truth of an idea is not a stagnant property inherent in it. Truth HAPPENS to

an idea. It BECOMES true, is MADE true by events. Its verity is in fact an event, a process: the

process namely of its verifying itself, its veri-FICATION. Its validity is the process of its valid-

ATION [Emphasis added by James himself].38 A person’s conception of the truth is an always

changing, always evolving process. People, especially scientists, are always having new

experiences and always learning more about the universe around them. In this way, they never

stop adding to their understanding of what is true about the objects in that universe.

Of course, James also expects people to apply his method of radical empiricism during

this ongoing quest for new and meaningful experiences from which to learn more about the

objects around them. Like so many things that James tries to teach his readers, radical

empiricism turns out to be extremely complex and hard to summarize. In his Meaning of Truth,

37
James, William. The Meaning of Truth: A Sequel to ‘Pragmatism.’ Web Edition. Updated Sat Aug 28
18:55:46 2010. South Australia: University of Adelaide P, 2009. Position 248.6/337 [74%] in ebook.
38
James, William. Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. Web Edition. Updated Sat
Aug 28 18:55:45 2010. South Australia: University of Adelaide P, 2009. Position 204.5/306 in ebook.
he tries to summarize it this way:

…Radical empiricism consists first of a postulate, next of a statement of fact, and

finally of a generalized conclusion.

The postulate is that the only things that shall be debatable among

philosophers shall be things definable in terms drawn from experience….

The statement of fact is that the relations between things, conjunctive as well

as disjunctive, are just as much matters of direct particular experience, neither

more so nor less so, than the things themselves.

The generalized conclusion is that therefore the parts of experience hold

together from next to next by relations that are themselves parts of experience.

The directly apprehended universe needs, in short, no extraneous trans-empirical

connective support….39

Experience is everything, and everything can be explained by the careful observation of tangible

human experiences. So, more than anything, radical empiricism becomes a way of explaining

just how carefully one must be in the evaluation of one’s experiences of the objects encountered

in the universe. If one fails to be as meticulous as should be a scientist, then one will fail at any

application of radical empiricism and the pragmatic theory of truth.

The adoption of the this method requires a willing relinquishment of formal deductive

logic for a highly focused, finely-turned, scientific reliance upon observation, sensory

experience, and the application of inductive proofs. Due to the nature of the kind of evidence

with which a person is forced to work, the syllogism is no longer of much value—at least not in

the traditional sense. Radical empiricism truly becomes a test for the accuracy of one’s

39
James, William. The Meaning of Truth: A Sequel to ‘Pragmatism.’ Web Edition. Updated Sat Aug 28
18:55:46 2010. South Australia: University of Adelaide P, 2009. Position 17.0/337 in ebook.
identification of the truth:

…To be a satisfactory candidate [for truth], it must give some definite sort of a

picture of what forces keep the process going. On the subjective side we have a

fairly definite picture — sensation, association, interest, hypothesis, these account

in a general way for the growth into a cosmos of the relative chaos with which the

mind began.40

Within the process of radical empiricism, testing for accuracy never ceases. Every new moment

provides new opportunities for new experiences that may provide more evidence for the truth or

the falsehood of a particular idea that has been accepted, in the past, as truth based upon the past

evidence of its usefulness. So, at any moment during this constant testing, the usefulness and,

thereby, the truth of an idea can change radically, based upon the new evidence of experience.

This theory provides a wonderful method to be used by scientists making scientific observations

about the scientific usefulness of a conclusion based upon observable evidence. 41

But, for those who are not scientists like William James, this method of verifying the

truth has a least one serious problem that bothered people then and continues to cause a great

deal of trouble today. For radical empiricism to work outside the realm of science, people are

forced to assume that the individual applying the method is a person with decent, upright moral

values. William James never acknowledges that this assumption could, in the case of certain

individuals and certain issues, present grave moral problems and dangers. James himself seems

to assume that anyone smart enough to apply both the pragmatic theory of truth and radical

40
James, William. “Humanism and Truth Once More.” Essays in Radical Empiricism. Web Edition.
Updated Sat Aug 28 18:55:46 2010. South Australia: University of Adelaide P, 2009. Position 291.1/314 in ebook.
41
It is remarkably similar to Stephen Hawking’s description of what makes a scientific theory accepted and
influential. When reading Hawking, he himself seems to be explaining what makes a theory useful in pragmatic
terms: "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of
observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite
predictions about the results of future observations." Hawking, Stephen (1988). A Brief History of Time. Bantam
Books. ISBN 0-553-38016-8.
empiricism is also going to be a person of good character.42 I myself believe this assumption is

what makes the defense of religion and values taught by religion so very important to James, the

reason that he needed to write The Will to Believe and The Varieties of Religious Experience. He

knows that, without the logical rigor of radical empiricism and the check of traditional morality,

pragmatism is nothing more than a way of explaining why we go ahead and do whatever we

please whenever we like, a kind of rationalization for evil.

The sad fact is that there are other kinds of usefulness, other ways of defining what is

useful. If one defines “useful” in a very different way than would a scientist, then the pragmatic

theory of truth becomes a terrible weapon for the amoral, evil intellectual terrorist. It becomes

the irresistible, staple weapon of the neo-Marxist statist, by definition a person with no respect

for traditional morality. Many of those concerned about James’s method have noticed the same

thing: “Since James equated truth with what works, they took him to be arguing that what gives

private emotional satisfaction is true and thus to be opting for a subjective account of truth.

James’s broad interpretation of practical effects contributed to the misunderstanding.”43 From

the beginning, his critics were passionate and outspoken about their concerns, especially

concerning the potential shortcomings in other people’s interpretation and application of James’s

theories.

James defends himself and his theories in many places, trying to focus everyone’s

attention upon the truth-verifying function of radical empiricism, including the following:

“…One of pragmatism’s merits is that it is so purely epistemological. It must assume realities;

42
James, William. Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. Web Edition. Updated Sat
Aug 28 18:55:45 2010. South Australia: University of Adelaide P, 2009. Position 112.3/306 in ebook: “This need
of an eternal moral order is one of the deepest needs of our breast.”; Position 113.5/306 in ebook: “Religious
melancholy is not disposed of by a simple flourish of the word insanity. The absolute things, the last things, the
overlapping things, are the truly philosophic concerns; all superior minds feel seriously about them, and the mind
with the shortest views is simply the mind of the more shallow man.”; The whole, long passage 111.5/306 to
115.3/306 is extremely helpful with this matter.
43
Popkin, Richard H., ed. The Columbia History of Western Philosophy. NY: Columbia UP, 1999. 597.
but it prejudges nothing as to their constitution, and the most diverse metaphysics can use it as

their foundation. It certainly has no special affinity with solipsism.”44 Here James clearly knows

that he has been accused of enabling and encouraging “solipsism.” He knows that he has been

accused of the most extreme kind of subjectivity, implying that a person might justify anything

using this method, regardless of how terrible or how self indulgent.45 Yet, his standard response

is to remind people that the application of radical empiricism is a rigorously logical process, a

kind of scientific process that can be applied to most any facet of life, including philosophy. 46

Frequently, James even seems insulted by how difficult it is for his critics to see the logic,

validity, and usefulness of his method. It almost seems like he has become annoyed by the

intellectual inability of his readers to fully comprehend the honesty, the rigor, and the truth of his

method.

William James, and later John Dewey, had very good intentions, and both contributed a

great deal to the development of twentieth-century philosophy, especially with their development

and advocacy of pragmatism. At the same time, they both naively want to believe that their

philosophical theories could not, if applied honestly, be used to justify the wholesale rejection of

traditional values or to justify evil. Sadly, they both seem to have be wrong about that.

According to Bertrand Russell, Dewey was even offended when people associated his methods

with those of communists and statist, collectivists of other kinds, actively trying to distance

himself from those political ideas that were, in his own day, very unpopular with both the

44
James, William. The Meaning of Truth: A Sequel to ‘Pragmatism.’ Web Edition. Updated Sat Aug 28
18:55:46 2010. South Australia: University of Adelaide P, 2009. Position 248.1/337 in ebook.
45
James, William. Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. Web Edition. Updated Sat
Aug 28 18:55:45 2010. South Australia: University of Adelaide P, 2009. Position 237.3/306 in ebook.
46
Perry, Ralph Barton. “Editor’s Preface.” Essays in Radical Empiricism. William James. New York:
Longman, Green, and Co., 1912. vii-viii and ix-xiii. Available in HTML form at Project Gutenberg. 26 May 2010.
26 June 2014. <http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32547/32547-h/32547-h.htm>; James, William. “Humanism and
Truth Once More.” Essays in Radical Empiricism. Web Edition. Updated Sat Aug 28 18:55:46 2010. South
Australia: University of Adelaide P, 2009. Position 283.5/314 in ebook, position 289.5/314 in ebook, position
291.1/314 in ebook.
intellectual elite and the mainstream population. 47

47
Bertrand Russell, "Chapter 30: John Dewey," A History of Western Philosophy. 4th Ed. New York: Simon
& Schuster/Touchstone, 1967. 827-28.
Episode 5:

Truth is the Enemy: My Narrative is Just as Good as Your Narrative: Mythology and

Lying Become the Same Thing: Georges Sorel and His Marxist and Fascist Friends Help

Everyone to Understand that Honesty is Just Another Obstacle to be Overcome by Means

of Violence and Mythology: one man can travel, in one lifetime, from Marxist to

Syndicalist to Fascist.

“...The general strike is a Romantic symbol, distilling in one flash

of intuition a whole complex reality; it is a pre-reflective,
prediscursive image which allows for what Sorel, following his
mentor Henri Bergson, calls 'integral' rather than analytic
knowledge.
Sorel thus represents the point at which a Nietzschean
pragmatism irrupts into the Marxist tradition.”
—Terry Eagleton48

48
Eagleton, Terry. Ideology: an Introduction. London: Verso, 1991. p. 187.
Episode 6:

Hitler and How He Came to be Known as the Father of the Big Lie (Die Große Lüge)

In 1925, while imprisoned, Adolf Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, “My Struggle.” In his

manifesto, he identified and labeled the mechanism of political propaganda, calling it “Die

Große Lüge”—The Big Lie. He used this label for any political discourse that was not anti-

Semitic.49 This appellation caught on very quickly with many people around the world, and—

more than anything—it has been used by them to identify the propaganda of their enemies. Even

as I write this, many of the most high profile and influential products of neo-Marxist

indoctrination, also known as journalists, are themselves writing about George Bush and his

newest “Big Lie” concerning the war in Iraq, writing about how the war against Islamic terrorism

is a “Big Lie” used by evil warmongers to justify whatever terrible desire pops into their heads,

writing about the “Big Lie” of free market economic theory, or writing about the “Big Lie” told

by close-minded red necks concerning the illegal-alien menace.

As the years passed, though, this mechanism of political propaganda was so very

successful and so simple and easily implemented that the temptation to use the Big Lie for their

own selfish reasons was more than some people could handle. Joseph Goebbels, the Third

Reich’s propaganda minister, uses the term himself in a 1941 article attacking Winston

Churchill.50 Since then, many scholars and analysts—including members of the intelligence

services of the US government—have also operated upon the assumption that Hitler and

49
Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. Trans. James Murphy and pub. 1939. Project Gutenberg of Australia.
September 2002. 12 September 2009. <http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt>.
50
Goebbels, Joseph. “Aus Churhills Lügenfabrik.” Die Zeit ohne Beispiel. Munich: Zentralverlag der
NSDAP, 1941. 364-69. Available in English trans. as “Churchill’s Lie Factory.” German Propaganda Archive at
Calvin: Minds in the Making. 1998. 12 September 2009. <http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb29.htm>.
Goebbels quietly used the technique themselves without ever publicly acknowledging it. 51 There

have also been many in the neo-Marxist realm who decided that the unavoidable reality of this

phenomenon could be exploited to advance their own political agendas. Like Hitler, the neo-

Marxists realized that the “Big Lie” works both ways. It can work for you as well as against

you. For people who are willing to use the Big Lie themselves, it works in two very different but

equally important ways: (1) they use the term “Big Lie” whenever referring to the ideas of

people who disagree with the lies that they tell themselves, doing so often enough that people in

general get used to associating the ideas of their enemies with the word “lie”; and (2) they

deliver their own lies with the kind of conviction which ensures that simple-minded people

believe that they are surely telling the truth, and they do so often enough that most people get

used to associating their ideas with the word “truth.”

This simple technique employed skillfully enough can have a huge impact on a

worldwide scale. Hitler used it, and the result was World War II and genocide. Al Gore and

company have used it, and the result is the Inconvenient Truth of the Church of Global Warming.

Hillary Clinton has been using it for many years. So far, the result has been Senator Clinton and

Secretary of State Clinton. In the end, the final result was very nearly President Hillary Clinton.

For many years, I felt certain that no one could rival the Clintons in their expert use of the Big

Lie, but that was before I had the opportunity to watch the ultimate practitioner, Barack Obama.

Having refined his technique into an amazingly effective science, President Obama’s sophistry

has an awe inspiring, nearly magical quality. Before he is finished telling his Big Lies, Mr.

Obama may well have quadrupled the annual deficit of the US, doubled the National debt, made

51
Langer, Walter C. “A Psychological Analysis of Adolf Hitler: His Life and Legend.” Washington, DC: M.
O. Branch. Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Declassified 12 March 1968. Photographic facsimiles of all pages
available at the archives of The Nizkor Project. 12 September 2009. < http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/ hitler-
adolf/oss-papers/text/profile-index.html>.
energy prohibitively expensive for a large portion of the population, and seized control of the

entire medical establishment by creating a government-run, universal healthcare system. In fact,

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are hardly alone in their use of the “Big Lie.” When people

in the USA complain about the fact that most elections seem to boil down to who spends the

most money on advertising, what they are really complaining about is the fact all people on both

sides have given up any pretense of conducting a real debate and about the fact that all people on

both sides know that the only thing they have to rely on is the power of the “Big Lie” and its evil

effect upon the poorly educated mass of the population.

It is also important to remember that the “Big Lie” and Political Correctness are closely

related. The “Big Lie” is the weapon used by the neo-Marxist Übermenschen to bully the rest of

the world into a Politically-Correct state of submission, a combination of mental stupor and

spiritual terror that makes it impossible for most to stand up and be heard when they want to

shout out, “Liar, liar! Evil, despicable liar!”—when they all want to shout, “The truth will set

me free!” The “Big Lie” helps to keep the enemy quiet and keep the enemy on the defensive.
Episode 7:

Political Correctness: A Great Evil of Our Time

Use of the concept of political correctness as a tool by the radical statists can be traced to

the earliest applications of Marxism in real-world politics.52 As early as the WWI era, political

correctness was used as a tool to measure people's choices and to measure their loyalty to the

political agenda of Marxist movements and to the greater cause of Communist world domination.

It was certainly practiced in the earliest days of the Soviet Union, and, under Stalin, the

concept was enshrined in strict laws controlling every form of artistic expression, making

Socialist Realism the only legally sanctioned form of artistic expression in the Soviet Union. 53

Under this kind of repression, every artist's work was reviewed by agents of the government, and

censorship was the fate of any work that did not support and advance the political agenda of the

ruling government and celebrate the greater cause--the world-wide spread of the Marxist,

Communist way of life. Artists who refused to cooperate with the program of state censorship

were often forced into exile settlements in Siberia, and some even found themselves in the

liminal, wasteland world of the Gulag system. 54

52
Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich. “II: The Spontaneity of the Masses and the Consciousness of the Social-Democrats.”
What Is To Be Done? BURNING QUESTIONS of our MOVEMENT. From Lenin’s Selected Works, Volume 1, pp.
119 - 271. First published as a separate work in March 1902. Trans. Joe Fineberg and George Hanna. Available
online at Marxists Internet Archive. 2008. 28 June 2010. <http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/
1901/witbd/ii.htm>.
53
Radek, Karl. “Contemporary World Literature and the Tasks of Proletarian Art.” Soviet Writers Congress
1934. Available online at Marxists Internet Archive. 2004. 28 June 2010. <http://www.marxists.org/
archive/radek/1934/sovietwritercongress.htm#s7>; Stetsky, A. I., Manager of the Culture and Leninist Propaganda
Section of the C.C. of the C.P.S.U. “Under the flag of the Soviets, Under the Flag of Socialism.” Soviet Writers
Congress 1934. Available online at Marxists Internet Archive. 2004. 28 June 2010. <http://www.marxists.org/
subject/art/lit_crit/sovietwritercongress/stetsky.htm>; Lukacs, George. “Critical Realism and Socialist Realism.”
The Meaning of Contemporary Realism. Trans. John and Necke Mander. London, 1963. pp. 93-127. Reprinted in
Twentieth Century Literary Theory: A Reader. London: MacMillan, 1990. pp. 89-92.
54
The most famous example being Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn who took great care in documenting his experience
in his justly celebrated and amazingly detailed The Gulag Archipelago, and his initial crime was not even artistic
really. He wrote some politically incorrect and less than kind things about Stalin in private letters. That experience
turned him into a writer with something powerful to say in a country that was not going to let him say it. An
impressive one volume edition of this work was published in 2002: Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr. The Gulag
Archipelago: 1918-1956. Ed. and Abr. Edward E. Ericson, Jr. Trans. Thomas P. Whitney and Harrly Willets. New
 Political Correctness also became an important philosophical ideal in many other Marxist

movements, including the cultural theory of the Frankfurt School, the members of which lived

and worked in Germany before the rise of Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers’

Party (the Nazis). When Hitler came to power, many people from the Frankfurt School were

forced to flee Germany, and they brought their Marxist, Communist ideals and political agenda

with them to the United States. There, they enjoyed comfort, safety, and sanctuary in the loving

and warm embrace of the college and university system, especially Columbia University in New

York City.55

As time went on, many bizarre and disturbing schools of social theory and cultural

criticism began to take shape in the United States, all of them either openly Marxist or, slyly,

neo-Marxist at their core and all of them sprouting up within the realm of higher education. One

of the most important ideals that binds all these groups together is their conscious or unconscious

use of this basic Marxist concept of political correctness.56 They all operate on the assumption

that it is beyond doubt and beyond any need for debate that their core political values are actually

true. Therefore, anything is justified, righteous, and celebrated as long as it helps to further the

cause of those core political values and the programs based upon them. Whatever does not

threaten those values is probably alright, but anything that threatens those core political values is

the essence of evil and must be stopped at all costs. Traditional notions of right and wrong are

completely thrown out, and this new, basic principle replaces them all. And, apart from those

core political values, this is the only principle that matters. For this reason, many neo-Marxist

York: Harper, 2002. Much of this edition is available online from Google Books. <http://books.google.com>, and
an inexpensive paperback volume is available from Amazon.com.
55
Jay, Martin. “Chapter One.” The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the
Institute of Social Research 1923-1950. Little Brown, 1973. Chapter One is available online at the Marxists
Internet Archive. 28 June 2010. <http://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/jay/ch01.htm>.
56
Rubin, Paul H. “The Assault on the First Amendment: Political Choice and Political Correctness.” The
Cato Journal: Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring/Summer 1994. The Cato Institute. 13 August 2009. <http://www.cato.org/
pubs/journal/cj14n1-3.html>.
causes like New and Revisionist Historicism, Radical American Feminism, Green Party

Environmentalism, and many others are able to rationalize the most bizarre, obscene, inhumane

programs the human mind could possibly dream up.

These groups use the fear generated by their neo-Marxist tactics as a weapon to beat their

opponents into submission. This fear is the same fear that I have mentioned previously. This is

the fear that makes people shut up and pretend that they do not see the dirty, ugly mess in front

of them and makes them pretend that the obvious cause of that mess is some super mysterious

secret beyond the reach of even the most brilliant minds. It is the very same fear in both cases.
Episode 8:

Foucault Drives Another Nail into the Coffin of Ethos: Everyone’s ideology is wrong.

Ideologies themselves are wrong. But, my ideology is alright, and I’m alright—as long as I

am the one who owns and runs the academic establishment. Thank you again France!

Foucault does what some thought to be impossible. He is just as charismatic, moving,

and interesting as Nietzsche. He sets out to prove very rationally, with flawless logic, that truth

is defined by power and that, essentially, “truth is already power.”57 Power is the key to

everything. Power is finding and conveying the Truth. Of course power is also will,

determination, rhetoric, politics, money, prisons, looney bins, and bullets. He who wields power

establishes and defines the Truth. At the same time, genuinely effective philosophers, historians,

and authors discover the Truth by means of careful, meticulous analysis, and that Truth

contributes to the development, control, and maintenance of power structures. So, for good or

for ill, if Foucault’s conception of Truth is correct, there is—for all intents and purposes—no

such thing as Truth in its transcendent, metaphysical sense. Yes, Truth exists, and it is

fundamentally important to understanding Foucault’s interpretation of Nietzsche and of the Will,

including the Will to Power in which Power and Truth are the same. But, this is not the same

Truth to which some refer when they argue that God and Truth are the same or when they argue

for the existence of an absolute, transcendent Truth. There is no place for God or transcendence

in Foucault’s definition of Truth.

While I personally believe that Foucault had both “positive” and “negative”

consequences in mind,58 for many intellectual terrorists of the twenty-first century, Truth has

57
Foucault, Michel. “Truth and Power.” The Foucault Reader. Ed. Paul Rabinow. New York: Pantheon,
1984. 74-75.
58
Foucault, Michel. “Truth and Power.” The Foucault Reader. Ed. Paul Rabinow. New York: Pantheon,
1984. 62-64.
become what the guy with the fattest wallet and the biggest gun says that it is. Even so, as

bizarre as it sounds, reading Foucault—even in translation—is a joy, a terrifying, painful,

crippling joy. That is the scariest thing about Foucault. As a philosopher and a craftsman of

language, he does a very good job of it, leaving only one possible way out for people like me—

the evidence. Either his evidence is false or his evidence is insufficient; otherwise, he is right.

The fact is, Foucault’s evidence is both false and insufficient. When all is said and done,

Foucault’s most basic, fundamental premise is wrong. He is absolutely certain that God is dead.

He has a supreme and abiding faith in Nietzsche59 and in the a priori assumption that one must

construct a philosophy “without having to make reference to a subject which is either

transcendental in relation to the the field of events or runs in empty sameness throughout the

course of history.”60 For Nietzsche, Foucault, and their fellows, the real problem is that God is

not dead; God lives; and no force in the universe can kill him. In spite of that, some of what

Foucault says is undeniably true and genuinely inspiring. He dismisses slavish devotion to

Marxist ideology as thoroughly as he does slavish devotion to traditional Judeo-Christian

ideology, and he is scrupulously honest about everything, about his premises, about his evidence,

and about the careful, painful, meticulous analysis of that evidence.

With flawless logic, Foucault goes on to transform our notions of author and text. As in

the case of Transcendent Truth, they both seem to vanish into the ether of philosophical

discourse.61 He makes them disappear, just like David Copperfield made that big statue

59
Foucault, Michel. “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History.” The Foucault Reader. Ed. Paul Rabinow. New York:
Pantheon, 1984. 76-100.
60
Foucault, Michel. “Truth and Power.” The Foucault Reader. Ed. Paul Rabinow. New York: Pantheon,
1984. 59; Foucault, Michel. “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History.” The Foucault Reader. Ed. Paul Rabinow. New
York: Pantheon, 1984. 88-89.
61
Foucault, Michel. “The Order of Discourse.” Untying the Text. Ed. R. Young. 1971. 52-64.
Reproduced in part in Modern Literary Theory: A Reader. 3rd Edition. Eds. Phillip Rice and Patricia Waugh.
London: Arnold, 1996. pp. 239-51; Foucault, Michel. “What is an Author?” The Foucault Reader. Ed. Paul
Rabinow. New York: Pantheon, 1984. 101-120.
disappear from New York Harbor. In their places, he attempts to drop the Author Function and

the Discursive Space, two very powerful ideas that profoundly changed many people's notions

about what happens when we write and what happens when we read. The most difficult thing

about this is that the Author Function and the Discursive Space are quite real and operate exactly

as Foucault describes them, yet there is, in fact, still an author and still a material artifact created

by that author. There still is a text. Regardless of whether or not we ever meet the author, see

him creating the text, or know for sure that he wrote it, we do still know that someone wrote it

and that it does in fact exist. We can touch it. We can see it, and we can read it. So, just as in

the case of the Statue of Liberty and of Transcendent Truth, the Author and the Text never

actually disappear. 62 They may become more difficult to see, but they are all still very real and

very much there—just like God.

That is, of course, the whole point. The history of modern, post-modern, and

contemporary philosophy is the history of a war on God and a war on the Word, the Text that

God has authored. What Nietzsche, Foucault, and all others of their kind want to do is kill God,

make Him disappear, go away, and leave them alone. He makes them feel bad about the fact that

they have spent so much of their lives and their precious time lying to themselves and lying to

the world, that they have wasted so much time and effort building something that allows them to

do without God when they actually have no reason, no requirement to do without God. In truth,

God reminds them of the fact that, while they have set out to do everything on their own without

any help from Him, all they have accomplished is proving that, regardless of how hard one tries,

one cannot possibly accomplish anything without God. The monumental effort required to

62
Foucault, Michel. “The Order of Discourse.” Untying the Text. Ed. R. Young. 1971. 52-64. Reproduced
in part in Modern Literary Theory: A Reader. 3rd Edition. Eds. Phillip Rice and Patricia Waugh. London: Arnold,
1996. pp. 246. Foucault readily admits this fact himself: “It would, of course, be absurd to deny the existence of the
individual who writes and invents.”
remove Him from one’s philosophical system does nothing more than cry out to the world that

removing God from one’s life is not actually possible. This fact in itself is one of the greatest,

most effective arguments for His existence—not that such arguments are all that hard to come by

or to advance.

All the philosophers following in the footsteps of Nietzsche seem to have forgotten what

happens when someone declares war on God. Perhaps, they never got the Word about Lucifer.

Perhaps, the text of Lucifer’s story is too painful for them, and they have blocked it from their

conscious minds. Perhaps, that is the real reason that so few people even remember Milton’s

name, and even fewer read him.

While based on a fraudulent premise, Foucault’s intriguing, brilliant tower of logic

requires him to dismiss the whole concept of God, the Word, ideological assumptions, traditional

moral values, the entire realm of ethos. The whole mess goes out the window. If power decides

which ideology will be the dominate one, then one ideology is as good as another. Right? The

winning ideology is simply the ideology of those with the most power and the strongest will, so

it is alright to have any ideology one likes and to fight in any way that one likes, using any

method that one chooses to further that ideology. To win the cause of one’s ideology, by any

means necessary, is all that matters. Whether or not that ideology is right, or is the best, does not

matter. Because that which is best is merely what one defines it to be, what is best becomes

meaningless; therefore, what is best cannot matter—to anyone. To determine that which is best

and that which is right is against the rules because those concepts have been defined out of

existence. Whether Foucault intended for it to turn out this way or not, this is the place to which

he has led everyone in Western Civilization, right into the abyss, into the deepest, darkest pit of

Hell.
 But, do not bother to worry! Do not forget the sweet, peaceful, comforting embrace of

nihilism! Nothing really matters anyhow. For Nietzsche, Foucault, and their minions, it is all

really meaningless in the end. They never allow themselves or anyone else to forget that there

ain’t no God. There ain’t no afterlife. Punishment is only a thing of this world, a part of some

power structure. And, before too long, mankind will have gone the way of the Dodo anyway. 63 I

suppose that Zarathustra might say that one must make way for the Übermensch!

63
Foucault, Michel. “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History.” The Foucault Reader. Ed. Paul Rabinow.
New York: Pantheon, 1984. 88-89; 96.
Episode 9:

With Delusions of Nietzsche-hood, Derrida and His Faithful Tribe Deconstruct Reason,

Truth, and Sanity, Giving Birth to Modern Moron Culture. Thanks again for a third time

France!

Realizing that there were pure, pristine, unexplored depths of perversity contained within

Nietzsche’s famous assertion—“God is Dead! He remains dead! And we have killed him.”—

Jacques Derrida, in his infinite wisdom, decided that we actually needed to take the whole “God

is Dead” thing a step or two further. At that moment, Derrida decided to advance his own thesis,

"it n'ya pas de hors' texte." 64 There is nothing apart from or outside of the text.

Like Foucault, Derrida forces one to consider the text and to consider reading and

meaning. When a person reads, that person cannot know anything for certain that is outside the

text itself. There is no valid evidence to help one understand the text that is not already inside

the text itself, or at least inside the language from which the text is constructed. No one can

assume anything about anything before the reading of the text begins. No one can assume that

he knows the mind of the author, and no one can assume that the words on the page in front him

can actually be trusted to be the words selected by the original author of the text. No one can

assume that he knows or understands any truth or any purpose that exists before the text existed

or that exists outside of or independently of the text.

As a method of teaching people to read a literary text and to interpret it themselves

without relying on someone else to do it for them, this basic assumption works pretty well. It

can produce some extraordinarily powerful, effective readings of and responses to a writer’s

work. But, when you decide to apply that same principle to human nature and life in general, it

64
Derrida, Jacques. De La Grammatologie. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, 1967. 227; Derrida, Jacques. Of
Grammatology. Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1997. 158.
can cause much more trouble than it is worth. If a person asserts, as does Derrida, that language

is not just how human beings communicate and that it is, in fact, the way in which people

perceive themselves, each other, and everything in the universe around them, then the assertion

that there is no universal knowledge of any kind and that there is nothing apart from or outside of

language and text—that assertion becomes overwhelmingly problematic.

For Derrida, language is the way in which people understand everything, including needs,

desires, and passions. It is how a person begs and pleds, and it is how a person asserts his will,

and even how a person reaches out for power. There is no way that people can escape this reality

or to get outside of it:

la lecture … ne peut légitimement transgresser le texte vers autre chose que lui,

vers un référent (réalité métaphysique, historique, psycho-biographique, etc.) ou

vers un signifié hors texte dont le contenu pourrait avoir lieu, aurait pu avoir lieu

hors de la langue.... [reading … cannot legitimately transgress the text toward

something other than it, toward a referent (a reality that is metaphysical,

historical, psychobiographical, etc.) or toward a signified outside the text whose

content could take place, could have taken place outside of language....] 65

People live inside that which is described, circumscribed, and defined by the languages and the

texts that they use, the texts of which they partake, the texts in which they participate. And, that

65
Derrida, Jacques. De La Grammatologie. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, 1967. 227; Derrida, Jacques. Of
Grammatology. Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1997. 158. Derrida means
much the same thing when he says, “From then on it was probably necessary to begin to think that there was no
center, the the center had no natural locus, that it was not a fixed locus but a function, a sort of non-locus in which
an infinite number of sign-substitutions came into play. This moment was that in which language invaded the
universal problematic; that in which, in the absence of a center or origin, everything became discourse....” He may
as well of said the moment we killed God, there was nothing left for anyone to worry about other than language and
text: Derrida, Jacques. “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discouse of the Human Sciences.” The Structuralist
Controversy: The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man. Eds. Richard Macksey and Eugenio Donato.
Baltimore: 1972. 247-65. Reprinted in Twentieth-Century Literary Theory: a Reader. Ed. K. M. Newton. London:
Macmillian, 1990. 151.
is the end of it; that is all people will ever know or be able to know. Perhaps, I had better say

that linguistic interaction is all that any person will ever be able to talk or to write about.

Anything outside or beyond the experience of language or text is not possible, cannot and should

not be considered, and, therefore, has become irrelevant.

Even though, at first glance, those conclusions may not seem too bizarre or problematic,

they do create insurmountable difficulties when anyone tries to place into a text or tries to find

anything in a text that is assumed to exist outside of people’s experience of this world as it is

perceived by them through the medium of language and text. For Derrida, there is, in fact,

nothing outside of language and text. There is no person and no thing that can transcend that

boundary. To do so is not possible in the human world defined for people by their use of

language and text. Nothing—nada—can be signified in language if it somehow has an existence

outside of, independent of, before language itself. For those who believe in nothing—nada—

outside the realm of their own human experience, 66 this a priori assumption has become very

convenient. It allows them all to reject anything in which they do not want to believe. It allows

Derrida to proclaim the complete and total “absence of the transcendental signified,” 67 to

proclaim to the world that there is no metaphysical, absolute truth. In fact, Derrida explains that

the primary function of Deconstructive philosophy is to “resist” such things, to resist theories,

absolutes, a priori assumptions, ideals, universal, transcendent, metaphysical things of any

variety.68 Of course, this argument becomes a very fancy philosopher’s way of saying “Not only

is God dead; there is no God!” Oh, if Nietzsche had lived to see it, I am certain that Derrida’s

66
There’s got to be a Hemingway joke in there somewhere! Cf. “A Clean, Well-lighted Place.”
67
Derrida, Jacques. “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.” The Structuralist
Controversy: The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man. Eds. Richard Macksey and Eugenio Donato.
Baltimore: 1972. 247-65. Reprinted in Twentieth-Century Literary Theory: a Reader. Ed. K. M. Newton. London:
Macmillian, 1990. 151.
68
Derrida, Jacques. “Some Statements and Truisms About Neo-Logisms, Newisms, Postisms, Parasitisms,
and Other Small Seismisms.” Modern Literary Theory: A Reader. 3rd Edition. Eds. Phillip Rice and Patricia
Waugh. London: Arnold, 1996. 372-73.
argument would have given him a warm, fuzzy feeling down deep inside—perhaps down deep

where that chronic, agonizing pain in his gut never stopped chewing away at his innards.

Even worse, Derrida has transformed language—that which defines everything and the

way in which we perceive it—into a plaything. In his own words, he has extended “the domain

and the interplay of signification ad infinitum.” 69 Regardless of whether he intended for it to

happen or not, many writers have decided that, now, language can be manipulated, equivocated,

and twisted into anything one wants it to be, and unscrupulous persons do and will continue to

define their own reality for themselves using the language that they redefine and reconstruct for

themselves. Now, their own imaginations define the only restrictions and limitations upon the

wondrous constructions they can build with their new language. They can now imagine a new

social world order of utopian scope that contains all of their own hopes and dreams.

Then, they can, do, and will use that new language to belittle their enemies, to manipulate

the masses, and to force their own wild fantasies on everyone else including the people who

would rather die than live in their version of utopia. Thus, the very philosophical solution sold to

the world as the remedy for hegemony, tyranny, and fascism has succeeded only in creating

many, many tiny, petty, fascist philosopher kings who all want to force their own grand yet

conflicting and contradictory brand of utopian idealism upon the unwilling masses. This chaos is

the obvious and inevitable result of the conscious rejection of the traditional ethos of Western

Civilization, a traditional Judeo-Christian ethos.

Once again, by manufacturing their own faith-replacements, these persons who claim that

there is no God and that human beings are better off without religion, they themselves have

69
Derrida, Jacques. “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.” The
Structuralist Controversy: The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man. Eds. Richard Macksey and
Eugenio Donato. Baltimore: 1972. 247-65. Reprinted in Twentieth-Century Literary Theory: a Reader. Ed. K. M.
Newton. London: Macmillian, 1990. 151.
proven that humans are born with an innate need for faith and morality. By forcing themselves

to give up faith and religion, they have forced themselves to manufacture a replacement for faith

and religion. While trying to remove God’s presence, they have screamed out his existence,

focusing all of their attention on creating His absence. This startling absence and the

philosopher’s obvious, overwhelming, Byzantine efforts to do without Him, both shout to the

world Mankind’s inability to do without God. By trying to erase God from the text, placing God

under erasure, all they have succeeded in doing is turning God and His Word (the Divine Logos)

into a palimpsest. Nonetheless, His story is still there, and the story of all stories is still true.

Deconstruction eliminates any concern for truth and eliminates the need for meaning and

understanding. Those things do not really matter because genuine meaning and understanding

are impossible, and those who believe that they can glean anything from any text are merely

venturing out onto a playground of their own construction with no way of ascertaining verifiable

meaning or understanding. Anything one thinks he understands after reading a text is still

subject to challenge and is more than anything a product of the reader’s own imagination.
Episode 10:

Post-Colonialism, Anti-Americanism, and the Hegemonic Boogeyman:

Turning Hate into a Virtue: Power and Authority are Evil until Power and Authority

Belong to You and Your Friends

“Since the shadow [which includes a person’s desire for power and
authority, a person’s quest for hegemony], in itself, is unconscious
for most people, the snake [serpent] would correspond to what is
totally unconscious and incapable of becoming conscious, but
which, as the collective unconscious and as instinct, seems to
possess a peculiar wisdom of its own and a knowledge that is often
felt to be supernatural. This is the treasure which the snake (or
dragon) guards, and also the reason why the snake signifies evil
and darkness on the one hand and wisdom on the other. Its
unrelatedness, coldness, and dangerousness express the
instinctuality that with ruthless cruelty rides roughshod over all
moral and any other human wishes and considerations and is
therefore just as terrifying and fascinating in its effects as the
sudden glance of a poisonous snake.”70

—Jung, Aion

“The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over

another or others.”
—“Hegemony” as defined by the
American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition

Is there an alchemical formula that brings every strand of neo-Marxism together in an

unholy union and focuses all of that energy upon one, ultimate “us versus them” confrontation?

Is there a way to give every single neo-Marxist cause what it truly, desperately wants—a

common enemy, a communal font into which it might pour all of its hatred? Bringing all those

elements together requires a pure, simple, yet powerful catalyst. This alchemy calls for a target

that can be hated with equal intensity by every ongoing neo-Marxist campaign. Of course, the

70
Jung, C. G. Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. Trans. R. F. C. Hull. Bollingen Series
XX. New York: Pantheon, 1959. p. 234.
perfect target must also be a thing of perfect political incorrectness. As of today, the only perfect

target ever found is hegemonic power and authority itself. The greatest, most overwhelming

hegemonic power of all time is that of the United States of America. Using the USA as his

primary target, the ultimate, most reverend practitioner of this alchemical wizardry is Edward

Said. As has been true with so many of the historically significant thinkers dealt with in this

book, he is actually right in many ways, saying things with which no one could possibly

disagree:

There is nothing mysterious or natural about authority. It is

formed, irradiated, disseminated; it is instrumental, it is persuasive;

it has status, it establishes canons of taste and value; it is virtually

indistinguishable from certain ideas it dignifies as true, and from

traditions, perceptions, and judgments it forms, transmits,

reproduces. Above all, authority can, indeed must, be analyzed. 71

Authority and the powers that exercise it are very real, very important, prone to corruption and

evil, and must be watched and observed carefully. A person would have to be crazy to disagree

with that. Yet, as always, people never seem to be able to agree upon what kind of analysis to

preform or upon what to do with the results of that analysis. Mr. Said has crafted an overtly neo-

Marxist and Anit-colonialist kind of analysis and lovingly passed it on to his faithful followers,

most of whom put into everyday practice without fully understanding what they are doing or

saying.

So, upon what source of power and authority could people, should people, focus their

hatred and their will for change? What is really needed is an especially scary yet irresistible

boogeyman, and the ultimate boogeyman in the world today is the hegemonic power of Western
71
Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Vintage, 1979. 19-20
Civilization.72 From A to Z, the leaders of all neo-Marxist causes can come together on this

idea. Everyone must hate the West, especially the USA, even if “everyone” includes citizens of

the USA themselves. “Everyone” from Code Pink to the Muslim Brotherhood—yes, even if it

sounds like a contradiction in terms, there are Islamic-Socialist-Facists in Egypt, the United

States, and around the world. “Everyone” from Militant Christian Liberation Theologians to

Greenie Weenie Environmentalists to Radical American Feminists to Obamacare Crusaders—

anyone and everyone who wants to destroy the established, traditional social order and replace it

with one of their own making—they all hate Western Civilization, even if they are Westerners

themselves. Nothing could possibly be more politically incorrect than the extravagantly wealthy,

powerful, capitalist, Imperialist, Colonialist powers of America and Europe, and everyone knows

that, within that group, the USA is the very worst offender of them all. Certainly, the rest of the

world can get together on that idea. All the politically correct powers of the world can agree that

the current, established world order must be destroyed73 and that they themselves must have a

big piece of the new world order that will have to be constructed as a replacement.

When a person defines the entire world as an ongoing struggle between the West and the

rest of the world; adopts the neo-Marxist propaganda techniques of the Big Lie and Political

Correctness; adopts the theory of power offered by Nietzsche, Gramsci, and Foucault; and adopts

the critiques of language and reason offered by Derrida and Spivak—well, then, where does he

go from there? Of course, the answer is simple; one must do what Edward Said did so well

himself. With enviable and sophisticated style and class, one must celebrate the non-Western,

downtrodden peoples of the world, attack Western Civilization, and rewrite all the culturally

biased, phallogocentric histories constructed within the institutions established by rich, dead,

72
Said discussion of burden of Colonialism, including Culture and Imperialism, pp.8-9.
73
a la Terry Eagleton; Gramsci; Marx; Lenin; Mao; Said; etc.
white guys. At the same time, one must also get rich, fat, and happy oneself, teaching the

offspring of the rich, dead, white guys while actually working at the rich, dead, white guys very

own institutions of higher learning, especially at Columbia University—the hot, throbbing nerve

center of Political Correctness and neo-Marxism in academia. [Remember, sometimes

sophisticated sarcasm is quite subtle.]

All this works out very well in the ivory-tower world of academia, making Saidian Post-

Colonialism the ideal incarnation of the never dying, always evolving, always creeping, always

amorphous demon of neo-Marxism. This world view is all about victim-hood and hatred of the

oppressive industrialized world of Western Civilization, the United States of America being its

leading power and, therefore, leading target for that world view’s enemies. Ultimately, the pure

essence of all varieties of neo-Marxism is hate, but hate is only acceptable as long as one hates

the right things: money, capitalism, business, the United States, Europe, Western Civilization,

etc. In fact, the coolest, most wonderful things that a great philosopher or great professor can

possibly do are to choose to live in an industrialized, first-world country—ideally the USA; to

have huge heaps of money himself; and to enjoy the privileged life of a wealthy first-world

citizen while, at the same time, preaching hatred for all those things that must be hated—ah, neo-

Marxist Nirvana.74

As long as one hates all the right things, it is acceptable to make hate into one’s god, no

big deal really, seeing that the real God is dead and all. Is it actually possible for people to make

themselves feel better by turning hate into their god while, at the same time, convincing

themselves that they are advancing the cause of acceptance, kindness, and love? But, of course it

74
Do not forget what has already been said about the neo-Marxist’s overwhelming desire to control the
educational establishment. See above, “Episode 2: Marx and Marxism,” pp. 41-44, especially footnotes 15 and 16.
Antonio Gramsci and many others have made the importance of education and learning absolutely clear to their
readers. See also page 35, especially footnote 9.
is. Because when people hate all the right things, then they must also lie to everyone including

themselves in order to realize their goals. People like Said are much too intelligent and

sophisticated to come right out and advocate lying to everyone. That would not work at all. Said

just goes ahead and lies with great style and panache, creating a very convincing illusion of

sincerity.

The Big Lie rarely fails when implemented with great skill and careful practice, and Said

is a master. The vast majority of what he says is subtle, sophisticated, thoughtful, and utterly

true. He saves the lying for when it is absolutely necessary, and the lies are thoroughly and

completely integrated with his truthful observations and literary insights, making it very hard to

shift out the lies. When he does lie, he is clearly and carefully advancing his own special

political agenda:

...The life of an Arab Palestinian in the West, particularly in

America, is disheartening. There exists here an almost unanimous

consensus that politically he does not exist, and when it is allowed

that he does, it is either as a nuisance or as an Oriental. The web of

racism, cultural stereotypes, political imperialism, dehumanizing

ideology holding in the Arab or the Muslim is very strong indeed,

and it is this web which every Palestinian has come to feel as his

uniquely punishing destiny. It has made matters worse for him to

remark that no person academically involved with the Near East—

no Orientalist, that is—has ever in the United States culturally and

politically identified himself wholeheartedly with the Arabs;

certainly there have been identifications on some level, but they

 have never taken an ‘acceptable’ form as his liberal American

identification with Zionism, and all too frequently they have been

radically flawed by their association either with discredited

political and economic interests (oil-company and State

Department Arabists, for example) or with religion. 75

Judgment, power, authority, and military force are always destructive, evil, and unjustified when

exercised by the leaders of traditional Western Civilization, yet judgment, power, authority, and

military force are always perfectly understandable, good, and justified when exercised by the

leaders of those peoples victimized by Western colonization, especially Middle Eastern and

Asian peoples, most importantly Middle Eastern, Islamic peoples, very most importantly those

Islamic peoples of the Middle East who have been oppressed by the Zionist Jews of Israel and

the terrible Zionist-Jew-Loving people in the USA—damned Christians. In this way, just as in

the case of Nietzsche’s Übermensch who is beyond good and evil, Said artfully implements one

set of values for himself and everyone who agrees with him and another set for everyone else,

the people who disagree with him.

A person must be willing to look everyone firmly and squarely in the eye and to lie to

them all about what is being done while, at the very same moment, that person is actually doing

what he claims he could not be doing and would never do.76 The current President of the United

States has taught the entire world that this practice can be carefully perfected and transformed

into a high art, making the lying ways of Bill and Hillary Clinton seem like those of rank

amateurs. After all, the truth is whatever one needs it to be as long as it serves the proper cause

and leads to the desired outcomes. In such cases, anything goes, and everything is justified.

75
Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Vintage, 1979. pp. 27. Please note the date here. This work was
published 22 years before 9/11/2001.
76
Importance of lying.
 Ultimately, if you make a living as a philosopher by attacking the hegemonic power and

influence of Western Civilization, and the basis of your attack is the fact that such overwhelming

power is—in and of itself—morally unacceptable and must be destroyed, then with what do you

replace that hegemonic power and influence once it has been destroyed? One would be justified

in wondering whether any person actually believed that there were any circumstance in which it

might be possible that such a replacement would not happen? Yet, some people, including

Edward Said, do actually seem to think it possible. At least that is what they say:

... No one can deny the persisting continuities of long traditions,

sustained habitations, national languages, and cultural geographies,

but there seems no reason except fear and prejudice to keep

insisting on their separation and distinctiveness, as if that was all

human life was about. Survival in fact is about the connections

between things; in Eliot’s phrase, reality cannot be deprived of the

‘other echoes [that] inhabit the garden.’ It is more rewarding—and

more difficult—to think concretely and sympathetically,

contrapuntally, about others than only about ‘us.’ But this also

means not trying to rule others, not trying to classify them or put

them in hierarchies, above all, not constantly reiterating how ‘our’

culture or country is number one (or not number one, for that

matter). For the intellectual there is quite enough of value to do

without that.77

This utopian vision of what the world—at least the world of the scholar and the intellectual—is

77
Said, Edward W. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage, 1993. p. 336. Here, Said suggests that we can
just stop fighting, stop policing the world, stop pursuing authority.
extremely appealing, and I do include myself here. I, too, find it fascinating and seductive. All

my adult life, I have been saying, writing, and teaching that human beings must focus on what

makes them the same rather than upon what makes them different. For this reason especially, I

am a practitioner of the archetypal method of literary analysis, a method based upon the

psychological theories of Carl Jung and his followers. This method is itself based upon the

notion that there are certain psychological constructs that all human beings share and that one

can find evidence of these archetypes in works of art throughout human history, independent of

considerations for geography, ethnicity, or time. As long as one’s work is focused upon textual

artifacts and other works of art, this idealistic concept works out very well. But, if a person tries

to apply this utopian worldview to international relationships between countries and cultures,

there is no historical president suggesting that this kind of utopia is even possible. And, Said’s

own fame arises from his discussion of a world divided into Occident and Orient, into the

colonizers (the imperialists) and the colonized, suggesting that the elimination of such

distinctions might lie very far in the future. It might also be helpful here to remember that Sir

Thomas Moore’s Greek place name, Utopia, literally translated, means “No-Place.”

If people were to destroy the current hegemony of Western Civilization and those same

people had no desire to replace it with any other kind of hegemony, then how might they go

about keeping others from stepping in to fill the void? Gramsci himself—one of the preeminent

early twentieth-century Marxist intellectuals, the Grand Poobah of the theory of cultural

hegemony, and an important influence upon Said and many other anti-Colonialists—does not

hesitate to provide an answer, and his answer is quite simple. One does nothing to stop that

replacement from being made. One has no choice; one must replace the original overwhelming,

guiding force with another overwhelming, guiding force of his own creation, of his own shaping,
a new hegemony:

... So an unprecedented concentration of hegemony is necessary,

and hence a more “interventionist” government, which will take

the offensive more openly against the oppositionists and organize

permanently the “impossibility” of internal disintegration with

controls of every kind, political, administrative, etc., reinforcement

of the hegemonic “positions” of the dominant group, etc. All this

indicates that we have entered a culminating phase in the political-

historical situation, since in politics the “war of position,” once

won, is decisive definitively. 78

Gramsci understands very well that there is going to be a predominate, leading influence. As far

as he is concerned, that predominate influence should be of a Marxist, Communist variety. He

knows there will be a hegemony of one variety or another. This fact will never change. The

nature of the hegemonic power can change, but there can never be a time or a place with no

hegemonic power at all. So, in order to put an end to the current hegemony of Western

colonialism and imperialism, its opponents must build their own power base and increase their

own influence and authority until the balance of power shifts in their direction until they

themselves become the hegemonic power by overwhelming and collapsing the power and

authority of their opponents.79

Everyone except Mr. Said himself, even old-school Marxists, seems to understand that

there will be an overwhelming exercise of power and authority by some agency of some kind.

78
Gramsci, Antonio. “VII The Art and Science of Politics: '3 Transition from the War of Manoeuvre (and from
Frontal Attack) to the War of Position in the Political Field as Well.'” The Gramsci Reader. Ed. David Forgacs.
New York: New York UP, 2000. pp. 227-28
79
Compare with the now infamous Cloward-Piven Strategy.
The only real question is what kind of agency will that be. Who will control and exercise that

power and authority, and what value system guides their choices? If Western Civilization, the

old hegemony, must fall, then what new hegemony will take its place, the place of the USA?

What new cultural, social, economic, political power structure would be able to move in and take

over? Communist China, the Thug-ocracy of Russia, the One World Wet Dream of the Greenie

Echo-weenies, the self-loathing, politically-correct European Union, a new Islamic Caliphate of

Pan-Arabian and Pan-Asian scope, a whole new world order—some powerful, unassailable

wielder of overwhelming economic might, military force, and moral authority will move in and

take on the role of the United States of America. Will that new world order do a better job than

the US has done? Will it be more cultured, more sophisticated, more civilized, more humane,

more just, and less oppressive than the US has been. I submit to the whole human race that

whatever this new world order is that it will not be any better. It will not be more

compassionate, more just, and more humane. The USA has wielded its overwhelming and

unquestionable power more compassionately and more justly than any other super power in the

history of Mankind. Any force currently present in the world that is also sufficiently powerful

enough to replace the USA will most certainly be more ruthless, inhumane, barbaric, and

oppressive. I know that I am really looking forward to learning Chinese and submitting to some

central planning commission that has the authority to tell me how much food I can eat and how

many grand children I am allowed to hope for.

When one constructs a new god for himself, and constructs it out of wealth envy and hate,

then it is necessary to consider types of governments and political systems. Forcing oneself to

consider the problem from a god-like perspective, it makes perfect sense to select a government

with all-powerful and god-like authority. Thus, dictatorship often turns out to be the form of
government implemented. Real Marxists, such as Antonio Gramsci, love a dictatorship:

Dictatorship is the fundamental institution guaranteeing freedom, through its

prevention of coups de main by factious minorities. It is a guarantee of freedom,

since it is not a method to be perpetuated, but a transitional stage allowing the

creation and consolidation of the permanent organisms into which the

dictatorship, having accomplished its mission, will be dissolved. 80

Most twenty-first-century Americans do not associate the word “dictatorship” with words like

“freedom.” Not so for Marxists. The dictatorship will guarantee the freedom of the people and

protect them from “factious” minority interests. Like Gramsci, when talking about the about

necessity for dictatorship, most other Marxists also use words like “transitional” or temporary,

and they all talk of futures in which the dictatorship “will be dissolved.” But, the truth is that no

Marxist government has ever be established without a totalitarian dictatorship, and, to my

knowledge, none of those dictatorships have yet been “dissolved” without dissolving the whole

nation itself.

80
Gramsci, Antonio. “Socialism and Marxism 1917-1918: '5 Utopia.'” The Gramsci Reader. Ed. David
Forgacs. New York: New York UP, 2000. p. 50)
Also note the historical, real-world examples of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc.
Episode 11:

The Tribes of Nietzsche, Foucault, Derrida, and Said Have a Four-way Shack-up, Settle

Down, and Give Birth to All Manner of Deformed, Twisted, and Monstrous Offspring.

“Tho wrapping vp her [the dragon of Errour’s] wrethed

sterne arownd,
Lept fierce vpon his shield, and her huge traine
All suddenly about his body wound,
That hand or foot to stirre he stroue in vaine:
God helpe the man so wrapt in Errours endlesse traine.

His Lady sad to see his sore constraint,

Cride out, Now now Sir knight, shew what ye bee,
Add faith vnto your force, and be not faint:
Strangle her, else she sure will strangle thee.” 81

--Edmund Spenser
The Faerie Queene
Book I, Canto I, Stanzas 18 & 19

There is no God. There is no truth. Language and text are everything; even though, there

might not be any such thing as author or text. That contradiction, though, is no problem because

it is all meaningless anyway. All language is subject to construction and deconstruction.

According to the new rules, I am, after all, allowed to make everything up as go—remembering,

of course, that I must be clever and playful as I do so. It is actually important to be entertaining.

Nonexistent, transcendent signified forbid that anyone would ever waste anyone else’s time by

boring him and wasting his precious time by being anything other than entertaining. This newly

constructed playground of infinite possibilities has attracted, even helped to create, all manner of

81
In Book I, Canto I, of The Faerie Queene, Spenser pits his Red Cross Knight, an elven, faerie warrior, the
embodiment of purity, perfection, and wisdom against the monstrous dragon Errour and her twisted, malicious
offspring. In this allegory, the monster herself, her inky, black blood, and her nasty offspring represent the
destructive nature of sophistry, of false learning, and of reckless, self indulgent, substance-free writing and
publication. The Red Cross Knight must destroy Errour before he himself is destroyed by her. I can think of no
better metaphor that one might borrow from anyone for the kind of neo-Marxist, intellectual terrorism upon which
this section—this entire book—is focused. Whenever facing off with this kind of sophistry, I often feel like the Red
Cross Knight myself, or even like Beowulf, fully engulfed in the coils of evil and deceit.
wacky assumptions and even new schools of thought, both philosophical and literary in nature.

The following are just a few of the many examples that I might have chosen.

New Historicism

With a hot and bloody lust for the neo-Marxist ideal of political correctness, with a

profound understanding of the bitterness and resentment welling up amongst the angry followers

of the civil-rights movements and the feminist movements--whose members had all been

promised something by their leaders, something that never materialized, and with the icy-cold

calculation of a Wall-Street investor, Stephen Greenblatt and his angry, self-righteous, self-

important followers gave us New Historicism and its related ideals, once and for all time, the

history truly written by, for, and according to the winners.82

The Attack on “Logocentrism”

Derrida and Spivak convince all their wacky friends that logos is just another kind of

bigotry and prejudice.83 Reason, itself, is just another unacceptable, a priori assumption that

people have no right to make, an ideological assumption, used by dead, fat, white guys who

wanted to push all their own personal, random, arbitrary values on other people in an effort to

preserve their own comfortable position in the hierarchy of the class structure.

82
Greenblatt, Stephen J. “Invisible Bullets.” Contemporary Literary Criticism: Literary and
Cultural Studies. Ed. Robert Con Davis and Ronald Schleifer. New York: Longman, 1994. 474-506; Habib, M. A.
R. “New Historicism.” A History of Literary Criticism From Plato to the Present. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005. 760-
771; Abrams, M. H. “New Historicism.” A Glossary of Literary Terms. 9th Ed. Boston: Wadsworth, 2009. 218-
25.
83
Habib, M. A. R. “Deconstruction.” A History of Literary Criticism From Plato to the Present.
Oxford: Blackwell, 2005. 649-666; Abrams, M. H. “Deconstruction.” A Glossary of Literary Terms. 9th Ed.
Boston: Wadsworth, 2009. 70.
The Attack on “Phallogocentrism”

Logocentrism develops penis envy. 84 Derrida, Irigaray, and Spivak make Logocentrism

sound even worse by giving it a penis. Thank you, Sigmund! Of course, the implication here is

that logocentrism is the product of a patriarchal, repressive, male-dominated society and that it

has actually been used as a way of excluding women from the vast market place of ideas. After

all, we all know that logos is a man thing, especially a fat, white, heterosexual, European and

American guy thing.

Queer Theory

Not only is it alright to be gay, it is better to be gay, and--even though you did not know

it--in the past, everybody was gay, especially Jesus. 85

Remember, thanks to Foucault and Derrida, it is now perfectly reasonable for me make it

up as I go along, as long as it advances my political agenda and as long as I have the will and the

power to make it happen. The truth is, after all, what I define it to be and, then, whatever I have

the cleverness and the power to maneuver people into believing.

84
Habib, M. A. R. “Feminist Criticism.” A History of Literary Criticism From Plato to the Present.
Oxford: Blackwell, 2005. 667-707; Evans, Dylan. An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis.
London: Routledge, 2006. 146; Abrams, M. H. “Feminist Criticism.” A Glossary of Literary Terms. 9th Ed.
Boston: Wadsworth, 2009. 114.
85
Smith, Morton. Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP,
1973; Smith, Morton. The Secret Gospel: The Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel According to
Mark. New York: Harper & Row, 1973; McNally, Terrence. Corpus Christi. New York: Grove, 1999; Jennings,
Theodore W. The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives from the New Testament. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press,
2003; Brown, Scott G. “The Question of Motive in the Case against Morton Smith.” Journal of Biblical Literature:
125, 2 (2006): 351–383; McGowan, John. “Nussmaum v. Butler: Round One.” Framing Theory's Empire. Ed.
John Holbo. West Lafayette, Indiana: Parlor Press, 2007. 194-200; McGowan, John. “Nussmaum v. Butler:
Round Two.” Framing Theory's Empire. Ed. John Holbo. West Lafayette, Indiana: Parlor Press, 2007. 201-205;
Abrams, M. H. “Queer Theory.” A Glossary of Literary Terms. 9th Ed. Boston: Wadsworth, 2009. 296-99.
The Final Product

There is no Truth. There is no Author. There is no Text. Power is everything. Anything

I do to advance my cause is just, because my cause is just. While I know there is no such thing

as Good and Evil and there is no Truth, I know my cause is truly just because, after all, it is my

cause. Economics, Politics, and Power define everything. In other words, I am only as

important as my bank account, and anything I do to make my bank account bigger is just because

I am just, because I am me and I am always right. For such people, God is truly Dead. Yet, they

want to think themselves gods in this world, in my world, in my text!

What we are left with is a nation in which even the most traditional, logical, and truth-

oriented students and scholars have been thoroughly infected and ravaged by the diseases of

absolute relativism and political correctness. The worst part of all—these people who have made

us vulnerable to our enemies actually have less in common with me than do Islamic terrorists.

At least the Islamic terrorist, who very much wants to murder me, is a person who believes in

something and is a person who has identified the secular, neo-Marxist, materialist as the real

problem. The neo-Marxists are—simultaneously—the reason that Islamic terrorists want to kill

me and the reason that those terrorists will eventually be able to kill me.

We now live in a society in which a large percentage of the population uses lies and

deceit to advance its own collection of causes. Since these people see truth to be an illusion, and

since they feel that they have everyone’s best interest in mind, they have been able to convince

themselves that what they are doing is right and just. And, in that same society, there is an even

larger percentage of people who actually believe that the lies of these people are true, are right,

are just, and that rational, thinking, scholarly, objective people are false, deceitful, and evil.
 Book III

My Central Thesis

and

Supporting Arguments
Chapter 1:

My Thesis Concerning the Perverse Priorities of This Age:

What is Your #1 Priority?

Of course, That Depends on Your Ethos.

Iran is manufacturing weapons-grade uranium, pursuing ballistic missile technology, and

may soon have nuclear missile capability. That same Iranian government denies that the

Holocaust ever happened, blames the Jews in Israel for all of the problems of the Islamic world,

and vows to erase Israel from the face of the earth. Some people think that, if the people and the

government of the USA were to ignore the terrorist powers of the world and to try hard not to

make them mad, then those terrorist powers would leave the people of the USA alone. Green

activists are currently bolder, stronger, and more confident than ever. Many Greens would

rejoice if the cost of crude oil and refined fuels were to climb higher than ever. Some Greens

seem to think that high fuel prices and economic slowdowns would be good for the environment

and for the American people in the long run. Some Greens even seem to think that no one

should be concerned about how the other industrial powers of the world are going to find a way

to take advantage of the dubious economic choices of the US. Throughout Western Civilization,

homosexual marriage is less shocking and more popular than ever. Those who oppose

homosexual marriage are easily marginalized and rejected by those in positions of influence and

power—in spite of the fact that the majority of people in the US oppose the legalization of

homosexual marriage. Seventeen teenage girls in Gloucester, Massachusetts get pregnant at the

same time, and the young ladies celebrate, while others stand by and tell everyone that they need

not be shocked. As impossible and stunning as it seems, all of these matters are tied closely
together. They are all prime examples of how—for many people in the US—traditional America

priorities have been radically altered by their unspoken, implicit, yet bizarre and novel

ideological assumptions.

The activists and do-gooders of the world are currently emboldened by the fact that it is

easier than ever to make everyone who disagrees with them look like close-minded, prejudiced

bigots. These people are now asserting themselves in ways that make their true motivations and

ideological assumptions clearer and more obvious than ever. Add to this phenomenon that,

because of the total collapse of the public school system in the USA, the bulk of the American

people are as ignorant and stupid as they have ever been, and those who care about such things

find themselves in an unprecedented situation. It is easier than ever to observe the process of

public debate as it unfolds and to understand why activists on both sides do and say the things

that they do.

This moment in time provides everyone with an opportunity to understand better how

political rhetoric and its outcomes actually work. In twenty-first-century American society, all

of the competing cultural and political factions are separated into two distinct groups: (1) the

people of the established, reliable, Western ethos who have learned to trust in traditional, well-

established ethical value systems; and (2) the people of the new ethos who have decided to free

themselves completely from traditional value systems, freely constructing their own new ethos—

a new ethos for a brave, new world. These two groups now embrace such radically different

ideological assumptions that their basic priorities are no longer compatible, and, for many, no

compromise is possible. In order to understand how some people erect towering controversies

that seem to have no resolution, this analysis must include careful consideration of how the

ideological assumptions of those people have transformed the basic, fundamental priorities that
most other people have taken as granted for time immemorial.

It might also help to remember that a person’s number one ethical priority has a tendency

to take the proper place of God in that person’s life. Especially when one has also actively

attempted to remove God from one’s life. This empty place left in a person’s life by the

rejection of God demands a replacement. That hole must be filled, and those desperate to ward

off the presence of God will fill the agonizing, gaping void with anything that comes handy. For

many, it seems easy to fill the emptiness with some new ideological assumption. Some may

even be able to lie to themselves well enough to convince themselves that their new ideological

assumption is God or issues from God. “Love is the new orthodoxy,” as one obscure priest of

my acquaintance in The Episcopal Church (USA) has been known to say, and this love and

acceptance transcends everything, even the inspired, revealed Word of God and the divinity of

His Son Jesus Christ, the Saviour of Mankind. As always, Mankind is more than capable of

constructing all manner of new idols to worship.

It is nothing new to suggest that people’s choices are largely determined by their moral

values, but to do so openly today has become taboo. This taboo is essential, and wonderfully

convenient, for the people of the new ethos—the people who reject traditional, ethical value

systems. It allows them to conceal and to ignore the fact that they have constructed their new

ethos from whole cloth. Currently, many Americans live in a world of their own construction, a

realm where they actually believe that the need for traditional moral values has been eliminated,

where witty philosophers refer to value systems as ideologies, and where most people do not

admit that they even have strongly held beliefs and values. Add into this miserable circumstance

the fact that the educational establishment has consciously and systematically made morons of

the mainstream population. Add in the fact that their teachers and professors have pressed that
population into the kind of submissive obedience that can come only from total, abject

ignorance. Then, those who wish to reorder and usurp the traditional institutions and value

systems of the United States find their task easier than ever. In such circumstances, only crazy,

right-wing conservatives will dare to speak of moral value systems, and very few such

conservatives are so foolhardy as to think they can be public school teachers, and fewer still to

think that they should write books about it.

Even so, the truth is simple: whatever one calls them—ethics, moral values, or

ideological assumptions, everyone has some. Everyone has an ethos, whether it is an old one or

a new one. Everyone’s choices are shaped by it, yet it is not the ideological assumptions of that

ethos that are so important in understanding the current state of politics and political rhetoric.

The most important factor is understanding how the shifting ideological assumptions in

American society have fundamentally reordered many people’s priorities in ways that they

themselves do not even see or understand. Fortunately, this situation also makes it easier than

ever for those who know what they are doing to reveal the truth to those who are willing to

listen.

It is necessary to carefully analyze how the clash between the old ethos and the new

creates incompatible, competing, and irreconcilable priorities and how the newly reorganized

priorities produce results that even the most well-intentioned persons could never anticipate.

Those conflicting priorities create violent clashes that seem to surprise and shock people on both

sides. The people of the old ethos tend to have traditional priorities that guide them in making

their choices each day, yielding predictable results. Some people may not be satisfied with those

results, but those results are predictable. The people of the new ethos, especially the people who

tell themselves that morals and values are a burden and a waste of time, they are forced—
consciously or unconsciously—to construct their own value systems from scratch. For this

reason, those same people necessarily end up with unusual, nontraditional priorities that guide

them in making their choices each day, yielding unpredictable, bizarre, even dangerous results.
Chapter 2:

The New Green Ethos:

The War on Fossil Fuels, the Quest for Alternative Energy, and Cap and Trade:

The Lives of Real People are Less Important than the Global Warming Bogeyman

Without an example to which it may be applied, though, all that ethos and priority stuff

remains nothing more than cold, abstract theory. So, let everyone suppose that I am a Green

environmental activist. As such, it would not be unusual if I were to assume the number one

priority of all good people to be the health and well-being of the planet upon which they live. It

only makes sense to assume that, if I were to allow the Earth to become polluted and despoiled

of all its resources and other riches, I would have participated in the destruction of the only place

that I have to live. Without a place to live, all the other things in life about which I might care

become meaningless and pointless. Sounds reasonable enough; does it not? Yet, when

safeguarding the environment becomes a person’s number one priority, every other priority in

life must become subordinate to it. That means that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

are—at best—number two, three, and four. This choice of priorities is not going to produce the

results that most people want.

Once the environment becomes the number one priority in my new ethos, I am forced to

make choices that make no sense to the people of the old ethos, nor do they make any sense to

any persons who have chosen some other, non-environmental priority for themselves and their

own new ethos, such as fair distribution of wealth, diversity and inclusion, a woman’s right to

choose abortion, etc. The first and only question that must be answered every time I make a

choice must be “Is this what is best for the environment?”

 Gas prices have soared as high as $4.00 per gallon and may well soar higher than that in

the future. When gas prices are that high, some people literally cannot afford to drive to work

anymore; the amount of money produced by their jobs does not justify the expense of driving the

necessary distance to get to work. Burning fossil fuels in order to produce energy creates toxic

chemicals and other byproducts that are harmful to the environment. Burning less is good.

Burning more is bad. So, high gas prices are good; they force people to burn less fuel.

Increasing supply would mean burning more fuel, so drilling in this country is wrong, and asking

other countries to produce more is wrong. It must not be done. Supply must stay low, and, after

a long and painful transition process, demand will go down because we will have to burn less

fossil fuel. People will be forced to develop new options that are better for the environment

because they will have no choice. They will be forced to help me advance my political agenda.

They will have to walk more. They will have to ride bicycles, buses, and trains. Those are the

changes that are best for the environment.

“Wait a minute!” everyone shouts to the people of the new, Green ethos. Everyone else

asks, “What about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?” “What about economic

prosperity?” As an advocate of the new Green ethos, I remind everybody that the number one

priority must be the environment and that life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and economic

prosperity must come second. Freedom to transport myself where I want, when I want, that is

less important than the environment. The happiness and joy that results from the freedom of

movement, that is less important than the environment. If people die because making a living is

harder than ever, because the food they need to eat has been transformed into very expensive

forms of energy, because the food they need to eat is more expensive to transport, because the

people who provide their emergency services can no longer afford to do so, then they will just
have to die.86 Their lives are less important than the environment. If China, India, and all of

America’s other economic competitors take advantage of our environmentally motivated

economic choices, and they continue burning that fossil fuel as fast as it can be pumped out of

the ground, while the US sits idle, waiting for pointy-headed intellectuals to invent a car that runs

on good intentions, then everyone in the US will just have to accept that as a given, unavoidable

reality. It is just a fact. We will have to accept economic defeat, becoming poorer and less

content with our standard of living while the people of other countries work as hard as possible

to ensure economic prosperity for themselves. That will have to be alright because economic

prosperity and quality of life are less important than the environment.

Of course, that argument makes perfect sense to people whose priorities have been

fundamentally reordered by their Green transformation. But, for everyone else, it seems absurd

and ridiculous to suggest that human lives and the quality of those lives are less important than

making the environment safe from the ravages of Mankind. For people who place the sanctity of

human life as priority number one, this Green ethos is truly perverse and dangerous. The fact is

that, if the entire country continues down this Green path, a significant number of people will die

needlessly, in our country and around the world.

Unfortunately, the fossil fuel crisis is merely one small example of the perverse

implications of the Green ethos. The other examples are endless in number, but two of them

must be considered carefully: nuclear power and global warming. If electricity is going to play a

vital role in transforming Mankind’s relationship with the environment, then providers are not

going to be able to generate that electricity by burning fossil fuels like oil and coal. And, if man-

86
Monckton, Christopher, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Letter to Representatives Ed
Markey and Joe Barton, Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce.
SPPI Reprint Series. Haymarket, VA: Science and Public Policy Institute, 30 March 2009. Page 59.
<http://scienceandpublic policy.org/monckton/markey_barton_letter.html>. Much more evidence for this position
can be found in the Monckton Collection at the same web site: <http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ monckton/>.
made global warming (aka Climate Change) is going to be eliminated by Mankind, then the good

people of the world will have to find a way to force all the people of the world to reduce their

greenhouse-gas emissions.

Currently, most electricity in the US is generated by burning fossil fuels, but the burning

of fossil fuel hurts the environment because it is a major source of green house gas emissions,

especially carbon dioxide. So, the Green activist demands that the US turn to other methods of

generating electricity in order to meet the needs of the people. But, solar, wind, hydroelectric,

and all the other alternative methods combined will not produce enough electricity to meet those

needs. What method will resolve this problem? There is only one possibility, Nuclear Energy.

Given our current state of technology, that is the only method capable of filling the vast gap that

will be left when the nation stops using fossil fuels for the generation of electricity.

According to the official government statistics kept by the US Department of Energy, in

2008, over 70% of all electricity in the US was generated by burning Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, or

other fossil-fuel products. Conventional Hydroelectric, Solar, Wind, and all other renewable

sources added together accounted for less than 10% of all electricity generated. Almost 6% of

electricity from renewable resources was from Conventional Hydroelectric power alone,

meaning that Solar, Wind, and all other renewable resources accounted for less than 4%; while,

at the same time, Nuclear power generation, by itself, accounted for nearly 20% of all electricity

generated in 2008.87 According to the Nuclear Energy Agency based in Paris, in 2008, France

generated over 76% of all its electricity by means of nuclear power, 88 and, in the recent past, it

has been as high as 78%.

87
“Net Generation by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors).” Independent Statistics and Analysis.
US Energy Information Administration. 16 December 2009. 17 January 2010. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/
electricity/epm/table1 _1.html>.
88
“NEA Annual Report 2008.” Nuclear Energy Agency. 27 April 2009. 17 January 2010.
<http://www.nea.fr/html/pub/activities/ar2008/AR2008.pdf>. 6.
 With numbers like that, it would be hard to suggest that any method other than nuclear

power could possibly satisfy the nation’s electrical power needs. So, the Green activist who

wants the US to stop using so much oil, to rely less and less on fossil fuels to power cars and

homes, to use electrical energy for transportation, that person has no where else to turn but to

nuclear power.

What about the #1 Green priority, though: “Is this choice what is best for the

environment?” Maybe it is. Maybe it is not. Nuclear power generation has a very small carbon

footprint. It produces virtually no Greenhouse Gases and, therefore, makes virtually no

contribution to Global Warming. Even so, nuclear power plants produce toxic, radioactive waste

products that are lethal to most forms of life on this planet. Yet, it is possible to contain, store,

and warehouse that waste without doing any harm to the environment. But, does the Green

activist trust the government and private industry to manage these waste products safely? And, if

they cannot accept Nuclear Power, what option do they have? None.

The people of the old ethos might expect the Green activists to compromise or to wait for

technology and the public will to evolve enough to be compatible with their own objectives—no

such luck. Like angry, irrational children, they will have their way now, right now, even if it is

clearly impossible. Everyone must drastically reduce fossil fuel use and must change their

transportation habits. They must rely more on solar, wind, and other renewable resources and

must use electricity generated by means of those resources. And, we may have to do all that

without any help from nuclear power generation. Just how am I going to find a nice, Green

electrical outlet into which I might plug my new, extraordinarily expensive, extra-Green, all-

electric vehicle?

But, if nearly 90% of the nation’s electricity is currently generated by fossil fuels or
nuclear power, then how can people possibly do that? There is only one other option: use less

energy, a great deal less. People must stay at home unless they can walk or ride a bicycle. They

must turn off the air conditioner and open the windows in the summer time. They must use those

new, corkscrew, mercury-laced light bulbs. During the winter, they must get used to being

colder, wearing more clothes, and praying that they do not freeze to death. They must consider

quitting their jobs or working from home. They must raise their own food and be more self-

sufficient. And, while settling comfortably into their new post-modern, Stone-Age lifestyle, the

people of the United States must do all that as the rest of the world seizes control of the

international economic system that the USA is largely responsible for creating.

As terrible and ridiculous as the Green obsession with Fossil Fuels and Alternative

Energy seems, when all is said and done, the ultimate Green issue is undoubtedly Global

Warming. Within the Green ethos, the only acceptable solution for Global Warming is the

regulation, control, and reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions. In order for the government to

accomplish such a thing, it must craft and build a whole new bureaucratic establishment to

oversee and regulate the emission of CO2, and the Green lobby has christened their new creation

“Cap and Trade.” This system establishes a quantitative cap on the level of carbon emissions

and a new market allowing for the trade in carbon emission allowances, allowances being sold

by those who do not need them and bought by those unable to live within the allowances

allocated to them.

To really understand this idea a person has to have a vivid imagination. So, imagine

this! We will create a very complex, elaborate market place in which we force people and

institutions, especially businesses, at sword point to pretend to have a demand for a very
expensive product that, itself, is purely imaginary and, being imaginary, has the virtue of

indefinite supply measured by and restricted by neo-Marxist, environmentalist bureaucrats

whose one and only priority is to do only that which is best for the health and well-being of the

whole planet, regardless of what happens to human beings in the process. People who can

imagine that have a very good idea of the meaning and the mechanism of the various proposed

Cap and Trade systems, including the one President Obama and the Democrat dominated

Congress are—as I write this—trying to sneak past the American people without anyone even

noticing that it is embedded and hidden within other very complex legislation.

The key to unraveling this very complex and controversial problem is understanding that

the hysteria over Global Warming, the hysteria that has led the initiates of the new Green ethos

to lobby for these cap and trade systems has absolutely nothing to do with science, objectivity, or

logic. Global Warming, like all irrational belief systems requires only faith. But, unlike many

other beliefs systems, this one does not stand up well to careful scrutiny.

As Al Gore says the science on this issue is in, and more than 31,000 of the best scientific

minds in the world agree, there is no such thing as manmade Global Warming. 89 There is no

evidence nor any rational reason for believing that carbon dioxide emissions have any significant

effect on the world’s climate or weather patterns. 90 In fact, some scientists are saying that—

89
“Purpose of Petition.” Global Warming Petition Project. 5 April 2009. <
http://www.petitionproject.org/ purpose_of_petition.php >; Robinson, Arthur B., Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon.
Of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon
Dioxide.” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007) 12, 79-90. 5 April 2009.
<http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php>; “U.S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International
Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims: Scientists Continue to Debunk ‘Consensus’ in 2008 &
2009.” 5 April 2009. <http://epw.senate.gov/public/ index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-
d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9>.
90
Monckton, Christopher, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Letter to Representatives Ed Markey and
Joe Barton, Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce. SPPI Reprint
Series. Haymarket, VA: Science and Public Policy Institute, 30 March 2009. Page 9. <http://scienceandpublic
policy.org/monckton/markey_barton_letter.html>. Much more evidence for this position can be found in the
Monckton Collection at the same web site: <http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/>.
while mankind has very little to do with the rise and fall of the Earth’s temperature—the world is

currently at the end of a very long-term warming period.91 Some even suggest that the Earth is

actually entering a new, long-term cooling period and that the next Ice Age has already begun. 92

The truth is that the world-wide political movements motivated by fear of Global Warming have

no foundation in science or reason. More than anything, fear of Global Warming has been

manufactured by neo-Marxist propagandists as a secular, yet quasi-religious faith replacement

for real faith, real religious experience, and real religious practice. On an instinctive level, all

humans need something in which to believe, so Global Warming and being Green give many

neo-Marxists something in which to have faith without threatening their passionate rejection of

God and religion.

As with all the other subjects in this book, this is a matter of priorities and a matter of

ethos. For the true and faithful Global Warming believer, science is of no consequence. The

only science that enters into the analysis and discourse of the self-righteous, faithful Green is the

mere assertion that all real scientists support their position. They do not need to read the

published work of any real scientists or interview any researchers or engineers who actually

know what they talking about. The Green, Global Warming crusaders are already absolutely

certain that their assertion is true and that any person who does not believe this assertion has

closed his mind to the scientific reality already proven by all the honest, rational scientists in the

world. They blindly accept whatever their ideological leaders have to say. Following on the

heals of those leaders, they enthusiastically march right off the nearest cliff.
91
Easterbrook, Don J. “Solar Influence on Recurring Global, Decadal, Climate Cycles Recorded by
Glacial Fluctuations, Ice Cores, Sea Surface Temperatures, and Historic Measurements Over the Past Millennium.”
Abstracts of American Geophysical Union Annual Meeting, San Francisco, December 2008. 5 April 2009.
<http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/29/don-easterbrooks-agu-paper-on-potential-global-cooling/>. See note #52
above; Monckton also provides ample evidence for this phenomena in his substantial research into these matters.
92
Fegel, Gregory F. “Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age.” Pravda. 11 January 2009.
<http://english.pravda .ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0 >. See note #14 above; Monckton also provides
ample evidence for this phenomena in his substantial research into these matters.
 Once the neo-Marxist, Global Warming crusader has been able to dispense with God,

truth, reason, and science—while at the same time convincing himself that he can, somehow, still

be intelligent, well-read, and well-educated—it becomes easy to define one’s entire ethos by

making the Earth and the environment priority number one, the priority of priorities. Imagine it.

It would not be unlike having one’s brain removed; then, declaring oneself the greatest genius in

the world. Given such circumstances, it should surprise no one when the Green crusader fully

embraces the Global Warming doctrine and the Cap and Trade system intended to control

everyone’s carbon emissions. All that really matters is the environment. Right?

Who cares if the new Cap and Trade system drains hundreds of billions of dollars per

year from our economy while the annual budget of the USA contains in excess of one trillion

dollars in deficit spending, while the Big Three US auto makers sink slowly into oblivion, while

the US Federal Government takes 17% of our GDP and turns it into a government-run, universal

healthcare system, while the real unemployment rate in the US is at least 10%, and while the US

Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank seem to be determined to create double digit inflation

lasting for many years to come and reducing the value of the US Dollar to nothing? Who cares

if—by the Environmental Protection Agency’s own estimates 93—all this effort will make little or

no difference in the average temperature of the Earth? Who cares that many scientists actually

believe that the Earth is cooling? The Earth is our number one priority. The environment is all

that matters. Cap and Trade might actually make a difference, perhaps, maybe. If it bankrupts

every civilized country in the world and destroys Western Civilization, then everyone will just

have to accept that. Mankind and the happiness and comfort of Mankind is of little consequence.

93
“EPA Analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008,” March 14, 2008, 193.
<http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/downloads/s2191_EPA_Analysis.pdf.>; Monckton, Christopher, 3rd Viscount
Monckton of Brenchley. Why Waxman/Markey won’t work: A cost-effectiveness metric for CO2 mitigation policies.
SPPI Original Paper. Haymarket, VA: Science and Public Policy Institute, 18 May 2009. Page 6. <http://science
andpublicpolicy.org/monckton/markey_barton_letter.html>.
The health of the environment is more important than the Human Race. Perhaps, the

environment would actually be better off if Mankind disappeared from the face of the Earth.

Perhaps, the universal destruction of the Human Race would be for the best. For some people,

the Green ethos does not even allow for the continued existence of Mankind. 94

In reality, there are not very many people in the world with the mindset necessary for

advocating the annihilation of the human race, but the mere fact that there are such persons in the

world at all emphasizes once again the fundamentally important role of ethical priorities in this

overall discussion. If the environment is truly priority number one and if it truly is more

important than the life of any one human being, then, logically, it is not many steps from there to

the obvious assertion that Humanity as a whole is less important than the environment and less

important than the Earth. For the good of the Earth, for Gaia herself, all Mankind might need to

die. Even though the advocate of the new Green ethos probably does not believe in any kind of

real, higher power, it is certainly acceptable to personify the Earth in the form of a Greek

goddess. For people who think like this, the human race has only three real choices: (1) It can

completely give up the benefits of modern science and technology and revert back to a non-

technological, stone-age lifestyle; (2) It can develop technologies that require very little energy

and/or that have virtually no impact upon the environment; or (3) It can willingly embrace death

and extinction for the good of Gaia, sacrificing itself for Mother Earth. Perhaps, Mother Earth

and the Übermensch are relatives, or at least in-laws.

94
With the inclusion of organizations like The Church of Euthanasia, <http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
index.html>, and The Gaia Liberation Front, <http://www.gaialiberationfront.org/>, some who advocate for human
extinction are obviously doing so in a satirical and polemic fashion in order to make people laugh and to draw
attention to more serious matters. However, there are some individuals and organizations who truly believe that the
ultimate solution to Earth’s environmental woes is the total elimination of the human race. VHEM.ORG and Alan
Weisman, <http://www.worldwithoutus.com/index2.html>, are merely two examples among many.
This not entirely unlike the kind of sacrifice that Foucault muses upon, speculates about, in his own
philosophy. Foucault, Michel. “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History.” The Foucault Reader. Ed. Paul Rabinow. New
York: Pantheon, 1984. 88-89; 96.
 Right or wrong, most US citizens do not seem to be ready to give up their current

technologically-oriented lifestyles. Technologies that use little or no energy and that have little

or no effect on the environment are, at best, many years away. At worst, they are impossible.

And, most US citizens are not going to willingly choose death and the extinction of the human

species.

The truth is that many of the grandest future technologies promised by today’s scientists

require huge amounts of energy, and all current technological wonders, including current

medical miracles, require energy. Many of the most sophisticated pieces of medical equipment

and much of the equipment used by experimental physicists require large quantities of energy,

some of them vast quantities of energy. Scientific and technological progress actually require

that we continue to use energy, that we continue to find more and more efficient ways to use that

energy, and that we continue to find new, vast sources of energy. If the population of the Earth

is going to continue to grow, and if those billions of people are to live an advanced,

technologically-oriented lifestyle, then it is absolutely necessary that everyone embrace this

quest for new and better ways of obtaining and using energy.

The only other possible alternative is to go backward in the direction of a non-scientific,

non-technological society, in the direction of the stone age. Fire is energy. Steel is produced by

fire. The wheel is produced by exploiting energy, and using the wheel requires the continued use

of energy. Particle accelerators use vast quantities of energy. Manipulating and transforming

matter, opening doorways to other dimensions, and folding two points in space together into one

will use amounts of energy for which humanity currently has no sources. Energy is

advancement. Energy is freedom. Energy is the future. Those who struggle against this

absolute certainty are either consciously Luddites, or they are intellectual incompetents and
mental defectives who believe that they can advance the cause of science without energy and

without having an impact upon the environment around them. Such people will fail utterly

because they do not understand the most fundamental laws of nature.

The relationship between matter and energy is the basis of creation. It is the power of

God manifest in our universe. When people attempt to understand and manipulate this

relationship, they attempt to understand the mind of God Himself. Attempting to understand and

manipulate this relationship is an attempt at communion with God by means of understanding the

mind of God. Done reverently, it is an act of worship and prayer. Done irreverently, it is

blasphemy.
Chapter 3:

The Collapse of the World Economy and the Neo-Marxist Economic Ethos:

How FDR, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton Helped the Rich and the Poor to do

What They Have Ever Done, Rape the Middle Class

Suppose my number one priority was equalizing the economic disparities amongst all the

people of the United States. Suppose that, down deep inside, I were absolutely certain that it is

cruel and unjust that some people have so much, while others have less, and still others have

none. In that case, I would also be absolutely certain that my life's work should be to transform

my society so that everyone is as close as possible to being on the same level financially. This

priority will require the construction of a new, economic-based ethos. All other priorities must

come lower on the scale, below economic equalization. Every other concern is, at best, of

secondary importance, including national security and economic stability. Who could possibly

care whether there is a future for the country if, in that future, there is any possibility for any

economic disparity amongst the people? While that may sound bizarre and ridiculous, this

simple-minded philosophy has been quietly, slowly, and surely chipping away at the economic

well-being of the United States for decades.

Upon the neo-Marxist landscape, it is here that one finds the kind of economic ideals

commonly associated with traditional Marxist doctrine, and it is here that the American left has

been able to construct the fictional narrative that currently allows them to get away with telling

the whole world that they are not socialists, that redistributing wealth is not socialism. It is

kindness and compassion for the poor and the disadvantaged. They are not socialists; they just

want to help people, just as FDR wanted to help people during the Depression era.
 This perverse ideology has been embraced by many of the greatest leaders of the

twentieth century, including those listed below.

I) FDR: crusader and do-gooder extraordinaire, a progressive, social-justice idealist, father

of the twentieth-century liberal mentality, the foundation upon which the current liberal-

dominated Democrat Party has been built: created Fannie Mae, Social Security, all but

completely ended the Dollar’s linkage to the gold standard in 1933, etc.

II) Richard Nixon created Freddie Mac and eliminated the last vestiages of the Gold

Standard, effectively destroying all the intrinsic value the US currency still had.

III) Jimmy Carter helps to institute the Community Reinvestment Act, making it necessary

for banks to lend money to people who have no way of paying it back

IV) Bill Clinton turns the Community Reinvestment Act into an unprecedented,

overwhelming tool for social engineering and ensuring that US banks would most

certainly end up holding hundreds of billions of dollars worth of assets with absolutely no

market for them, making those assets worthless, resulting in hundreds of billions of

dollars’ worth of losses.

V) Desperate to survive and remain profitable, bankers invent new instruments, mortgage

backed securities, credit default swaps, derivatives, etc. They try to find ways to take

billions of dollars of losses and worthless assets and keep them moving around in strange

and mysterious ways in an effort to, at best, transfer those losses and worthless assets to

unsuspecting investors or, at worst, stave off the pain and the misery that must go with

those losses.

VI) Then, particularly evil, greedy people did what evil people always do, they found a way
 to manipulate these new instruments in unethical, destructive ways to enrich themselves

by stealing from others without any concern for the long-term consequences of their

actions.

VII) Then, as shock and realization finally sets in, regulations for valuing those assets became

so restrictive and destructive that many banks seemed insolvent whether they were truly

insolvent or not, making them easy prey for hostile take over by the private sector and/or

the public sector.

VIII) Then, the politicians in charge of watching over the mortgage and banking business did

what politicians always do, they accepted bribes and false praise from the evil doers and,

then, lied to themselves and to the people whose Constitution they had sworn to protect.

They told themselves and their people that everything was just fine and that no one had

anything to worry about.

IX) Finally, those same politicians did what all politicians love to do whenever it is possible.

They found a way to take an existential crisis that they and their friends were responsible

for creating and blamed it all on their politic rivals. Because they were in power at the

time; because their rivals were extremely unpopular; and because the mass of the people

are ignorant, stupid, and self-serving, those politicians were quite successful in blaming

the whole mess on the very same people who warned them it was going to happen and

who tried to clean up the mess for them.

Chapter 4:

The Obama Ethos: From where does it come, and what does it mean for America's Future? Is

there a long-term, conscious attempt on the part of many to bring about the downfall of Western

Civilization? If people transform the world by knocking down the Western powers from their

hegemonic position in the world, then with what do they want to replace it?

*******************************************************************************************

Formerly Known as Episode 8:

Alinsky, Ayres, Cloward, Pevin, and Other Assorted, Rabid Statists: Can One Consciously

and Willfully Create a “Tipping Point” in History—as it might be described by Malcolm

Gladwell?

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the

very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history
(and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history
begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who
rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he
at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.
—Saul Alinsky95

One cannot help but admire Mr. Alinsky’s candor and honesty.

*****************************************************************************

Here there is a problem much more difficult to deal with, even more insidious and

complex than the Climate Change hoax. Worst of all, this problem requires a speculative and

purely inductive approach, and, even if the people in my camp are correct, it will never be

proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But, does that mean that the issue is not worth pursuing?

Just because people are paranoid does not mean that there is no conspiracy attempting to destroy

95
Alinsky, Saul. Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals. New York: Vintage Books,
1989. v. Originally published by Random House in 1971.
them.

Seeing that this problem is both bizarre and extrodinarily difficult, it requires a very

different approach. Since no one will ever know for certain whether there is a conscious or

unconscious conspiracy to destroy the hegemonic power of Western Civilization or not, one must

start with the assumption that—as of now—there is no such conspiracy. But, just for the sake of

argument and discussion, people can still speculate about how such a conspiracy might work if

there were actually one. Then, looking at that speculative, hypothetical model and comparing it

to the real world, people might at the very least be able to decide if there were any merit in

further investigation and consideration.

Is it possible that there are people in the world that want the West to be ruined

economically, politically, militarily, and culturally? Of course it is possible. Is it possible that, if

such people exist, there are many of them? Of course it is possible. Is it possible that, while

these people do not all know one another or belong to some super secret organization, they are

all working away, doing their own little bit to move the world in their chosen direction and that,

like a bunch of ants driven by the same goal, all the little bits of work done by each of them does

truly drive the world slowly but surely in their chosen direction? Even if that is not possible, it is

still entirely possible that every single choice made by those dedicated to such transformation is

intended to bring that transformation one tiny step closer to reality.

It is even possible for a person’s number one priority in life to be demonstrating the evil,

greedy nature of the United States and its allies, tearing down their image and reputation,

demonstrating the fundamental nobility of formerly down-trodden, third-world nations, building

up their image and reputation, and transferring—by any means necessary—vast amounts of

wealth from the industrialized, evil first world to the undeveloped but benevolent third world.
There are a great many profoundly difficult, unproven speculations there. But, for now, this

exercise is purely speculative, so, for now, that is no problem.

If there were actually people like this in the world, then what would this do to their

ethos? They would have to sacrifice all their other priorities to this desire, even their own self-

interest. Such sacrifice would require slavish devotion to this goal. It would have to be a

religious-like devotion, a new secular religion devoted to the destruction of Western hegemony.

This new religion would have to have a simple yet well-defined dogma that its adherents would

never question and that would inform and control even their smallest actions. What do I do with

this aluminum can when I finish my soda? How many sheets of toilet paper do I use when I

wipe? For which party do I vote every single time I vote, even when I have no idea what the

issues are? With what names do I insult my enemies whenever they disagree with me about

anything? Racist? Sexist? Bully? Bigot? Stupid? Illiterate?

So, what people like me must do is decide what we would do if we were members of this

new, secular faith. If I were one of these people, what could I do—especially if I were a

powerful, influential person—to bring the world one step closer to enjoying the destruction of

Western hegemony? At that point, my people and I could focus all of our efforts on slowing

down economic grow in the first world and helping the third world catch up and even surpass

them. But, how does one go about doing that? The possibilities of course are endless. I am only

going to describe only one of many possible plans. I am going to explain how I would do it if

that were my number one priority.

Make energy cost as much as possible, including the use of cap-n-trade. I have already

extensively dealt with the extraordinary cost of cape and trade in chapter two of this section.

But, briefly reconsider the energy problem as a whole. Everything meaningful that is done in our
society requires energy. One of the easiest and most efficient ways to cripple a people and its

economy is to make energy prohibitively expensive so that many of the things that people take

for granted become unmanageably, impossibly expensive. Electricity cost more, even electricity

for my electric car. Food costs more. Clothes cost more. Utilities and common luxuries like

cell phones and cable television and Internet access cost more. Even if the cost of simple

everyday items were to double—which, in many ways, has already happened—that would be

enough to cripple a large percentage of the population. What if they were to triple? That could

easily be done by making energy more expensive.

Of course by itself, energy might not be enough. So, next, my plan would be to establish

a government strangle-hold on health care, making it as complex, inhumane, and expensive as

possible. Frank Herbert once wrote, “The people who can destroy a thing, they control it.” 96 It

seems to me that, in most cases, the reverse is also true. The people who control a thing, they

can also destroy it. So, if a group of people—the government—have ultimate authority over

healthcare, they can certainly destroy it if they want to, and, by controlling healthcare, it might

also be much easier to control the people who are dependent upon that healthcare for their very

survival. Could their be any easier way of manipulating people into behaving as you wish than

by taking live-saving healthcare away from unless they do as they are told. Ronald Reagan once

observed that, “One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has

been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian

project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for

people who possibly can’t afford it.”97 So, while the adherents of this new, secular, anti-colonial

96
Herbert, Frank. Dune.
97
Reagan, Ronald. Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine. Recording. 1961. A full
transcript of the recording is available from The Chicago Tribune at the following address,
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2009/09/ronald-reagan-on-medicare-circa-1961-prescient-
religion are carefully unraveling Western Civilization, they can also tell everyone that they

merely trying to help the less fortunate. In reality, though, they are concerned about nothing but

their plan. For all they know, their new plan will increase the cost of healthcare for everyone,

poor, middle class, and wealthy. That would just be an added bonus, crushing the West

economically at an ever increasing speed.

C) Destroy the banking and investment systems of advanced, industrialized nations.

D) Overwhelm the tax payers and the economic systems of advanced, industrialized

nations with insanely complex and expensive entitlement programs that actually

cost so much that, even if the government were to confiscate a nation’s entire

GDP, there is absolutely no way those programs could be funded. This would

include programs like welfare, WIC, food stamps, social security, medicare,

medicaid, government run healthcare plans, guaranteed income plans, and

anything else like them.98

C) Devalue the currency and intentionally create hyper-inflation, destroying as much

of the people’s wealth as possible

D) Tax middle-class people and small businesses into submission, dragging them

down to the level of the poorest folks in society, without raising anyone up out of

poverty.

D) Diminish the diplomatic and military power of the US as much as possible in the

eyes of the people of other countries, making it seem weak while making other

rhetoric-or-familiar-alarmist-claptrap-.html. The recording in its entirety is available from The Reagan Library, The
American Family Association, and Youtube.
98 Cloward Piven.
 countries feel more powerful and important

E) Make the US seem like a very small dog with a very loud, harsh, shrill bark,

making it impossible for the leaders of other governments to fear and/or respect

the leaders of the US.

X) Generally, increasing the power of government at all cost, giving it the

opportunity to control the lives of the people, dragging down equalizing their

standard of living in their own country, while it does everything it can to bring up

the standard of living of other countries by whatever artificial means can be

contrived.
Chapter 5:

Enemy or Friend?:

Raw or Cooked?:

Pimps, Ho’s, Girls Gone Wild, and

the Anti-Culture Ethos

In the world in which I live, how can I tell my friends from my enemies? Should I really

be so judgmental? Should I not be more open-minded, tolerant, and understanding? If I fail to

do so, will not everyone think of me as a bigot, a racist, or a homophobe, and will they not push

me away and marginalize me? Perhaps, to avoid offending the people of the new ethos, I should

say that I cannot imagine the man who would not want to be a pimp or the woman who would

not want to know that she is so hot that men would pay large sums of money to engage in sexual

intercourse with her. If she were really hot and sexy, no woman in her right mind would ever

hesitate to show off her nearly naked or completely naked body to total strangers just because

she and everyone around her happened to be drunk out of their right minds and some whack-job

with a video camera happened to be there capturing the glorious festivities for posterity. All

parents know that their proudest moment in life will be when their precious baby finally makes it

onto everyone’s cell phone and everyone’s web site in a low resolution video of that baby’s

amazing sexual exploits. Right? Right! [Remember, some people do not understand sarcasm.]

The current level of polarization in our society is unprecedented in my lifetime. There

have always been issues that divided people into two openly opposed groups—religious practices

being one of the original divisive issues. I suppose that, if history teaches people anything, it

teaches them that history itself is the story of “us versus them.” People, by nature, feel that they
belong to at least one special group, and the way they define those groups are fundamentally

important to their understanding of themselves. People on the outside of those groups are, by

definition, the others, the “them” in the “us versus them.” People have friends and allies, and

they have enemies. Try as we might to change it, human beings are programmed to define their

world in this way—friends and enemies. The trick is deciding who the real enemies are. Of

course, generally, the fewer enemies a person has the happier that person is going to be. Even

so, people do have real enemies, and they rarely identify them properly.

In the past, some people have believed their real enemies to be Roman Catholics, some

Protestants, some white people, some black people, some Jews, some the rich, some the poor,

some homosexuals, some heterosexuals. Those people were wrong. Those people did not know

who their enemies really were. People who still believe these kinds of lies now know that they

have to keep their bigotry to themselves so that other people do not find out how stupid they are.

Myself, I have never tried to blame all my problems on some other group of people from which I

myself have been excluded. Throughout my life, I have tried to avoid bigotry at all costs.

Yet, lately, I have been thinking a great deal about who the real enemies actually are.

This search has been especially hard for me in the past few years. A number of people have tried

to use my faith, my honesty, and my wicked sense of humor as evidence that I am a stupid bigot

myself. If I were actually that kind of stupid, then I would actually be the enemy. In fact, the

sad truth is that many people have actually decided that just being open and honest is enough to

make you the enemy. In twenty-first century America, it is bad enough to be fat, white, and

male, but to be wickedly funny, honest, and devoutly Christian all at the same time is much more

than most small-minded fools can handle without having a complete witch-hunting, bone-

crunching melt down.

 In the past, this kind of pressure and intense fear has made me reluctant to search for my

own enemies. In fact, for many years, I tried to pretend that the enemies were all in my

imagination, that my own natural, human paranoia was responsible for my feeling that “they”

were all out to get me. Even so, it is true that a person is not really paranoid if they are, in fact,

out to get that person. Yet, knowing that they are out to get me is still not exactly the same as

knowing who they are. Thinking about whom my own enemies actually are has made it

impossible to ignore the need to identify the enemies of my society and my culture. It is not

paranoia if they are actually out to get me and everyone I love. The citizens of the United States

of America do know that there are, in fact, some people in the world who are out for their blood,

but those citizens are having just as much trouble as I am figuring out who those people are,

figuring out who they are. Myself, I have now made a breakthrough in this area. My enemies

and the enemies of the people of the United States are the same. They are the very same people.

I finally know who they are.

Some of these enemies are living right here in this country, and the rest of them are

generously scattered over the face of the earth. As hard as it may seem, there is a way to spot

them and to do something about them. People must focus their attention on the savage and the

civilized, and it is civilization itself that is at stake. The real enemy is the uncontrolled,

unregulated, untrained, uneducated Id—the rawest, most unrefined level of human nature, that

thing—the “it”—that is already living inside every human being on the day that he is born.

Without culture, without civilization, without education, without faith, this raw Id is the root and

the cause—the genealogical origin—of the amoral, Anti-Culture ethos. The real enemy has no

ability and no desire to control his own raw compulsion to have, to take, to devour, to enjoy, to

experience pleasure and satisfaction on a purely physical level. This ethos of Anti-Culture has
one and only one priority, the acquisition of material wealth and the establishment of a lifestyle

dedicated to pleasure and physical gratification. That which makes it money is good, and that

which is physically gratifying is good. Anything that stands between it and money or between it

and pleasure is bad, and it will be perfectly glad to kill or destroy that which is in its way. That

is the essence of this amoral, Anti-Cultural phenomenon. Every problem that threatens the great,

civilized culture that has been lovingly constructed by the people of the United States, every one

of them, can be traced back to the ethos of Anti-Culture.

Claude Levi-Strauss’s analogy that raw is to cooked as uncivilized is to civilized is one of

the most famous, influential, and effective analogies in the history of rhetoric, and it is the

quintessential example of the philosophical, structuralist, anthropological binary opposition. It is

a tiny, white-hot epiphany, a moment of Zen-like clarity. Fire is civilization. The power to

create heat and light, the power to transform the kill into cooked meat, the power to choose to eat

your meat cooked instead of raw, that power is civilization. Raw is unlearned, unwashed, wild,

savage, and untamed. It is pure Id and pure instinct, and it requires nothing of the distilled,

condensed wisdom that can only be the result of inter-generational collaboration. Raw has

nothing to do with the wisdom of the ages passed on from one generation to the next; it is exactly

that with which a human being is born and nothing else. Cooked is learned, clean, calm, cool,

collected, civilized, tamed, and domesticated. Cooked is the distilled, condensed wisdom that is

transmitted from one generation to the next and that can only be the result of many generations

of cultural evolution.

Anyone who knows me—even a little—knows that I am a big fan of the raw and of

things that are cooked as little as possible. The ideal savory recipe has a few extremely fresh,

high quality ingredients and is as simple and quick as possible in the preparation process, a
smoking-hot pan, and a short cooking time. No one loves the raw and the nearly raw any more

than I do, and I firmly believe that all people need to understand fully and completely the raw,

untamed savage that lives within them all, the beast that lives within them all. I embrace,

celebrate, and cherish that part of my humanity, but I have also learned to control it, manipulate

it, and use it. I have been carefully and lovingly trained and educated in the fine art of beast

management. My family’s and my society’s enculturation process has transformed me into a

civilized gentleman who knows and understands that raw part of himself.

Even so, the key to finding the enemy can be discovered in the uncontrolled beast living

inside every person who has ever lived. The enemies of all civilized people are those who do not

understand their own raw human nature and who have no desire whatsoever to control it. All of

the good things and the good people in the world live within the realm of the cooked and the

civilized. Those good people are not sheep. They are not people who have lost their savage,

bestial nature. They are people who have been properly trained and educated. They are people

who have learned to understand and control their own raw, savage humanity. They are

intellectual, thinking people who have been raised with good manners and good habits. They are

people who have found that faith, morality, and values actually have meaning and can help them

understand the behavior of others and of themselves. While the savage living within them is

real, is strong, and is powerful, these civilized people understand that, in order for life to be

pleasant, peaceful, and stable, that savage beast must be held in check by the learned restrictions

of civilization.

All of the evil things and destructive people in this world arise out of innate, raw

humanity, uncontrolled and untempered by the forces of enculturation and the learned

restrictions of civilization. The American, criminal subculture (thug life), the loss of respect for
and devaluation of human life, the redefinition of the family, the redefinition of marriage, anti-

intellectualism, absolute relativism, the lack of standards of merit and judgment, the attack on

truth, the attack on reason, the loss of cognitive skills and abilities, the tolerance of the

intolerable, the acceptance of criminal invaders from foreign lands, the acceptance of radical

religious fundamentalism and terrorism—all of these things and many more are the direct result

of people refusing to do any cooking of their own raw materials, the direct result of their

rejection of tradition, culture, and civilization, the direct result of people’s complete refusal to

even try and understand or to try and control the savage beast inside of them all. If the civilized

individuals in this world do not wake up to this reality soon and force a bit of civilization upon

these savage anti-intellectuals, then a bit of cooking is never going to do the job. Soon, the only

option that the civilized people will have left is to unleash their own savage nature and destroy

their enemies utterly and completely.

Within contemporary US culture, the very best example of this raw, savage, uncivilized

ethos of anti-culture is the thug-life subgroup defined by the superstars of hip-hop music, aka the

reigning inheritors of the gangster-rap legacy. Their ethos is to have no ethos at all. Thug-life

actively celebrates the antithesis of civilization, and its number one priority is the union of

money and physical pleasure. Drugs are good, especially if they generate money. Prostitution is

good, especially if it generates money and provides ready access to sexual gratification. The

infliction of physical violence is good and is fun, especially if it generates money. Murder is not

only good; it is morally and ethically celebrated. It is the most authentic, powerful, and

transcendental of all human experiences. And, not only that, it can also be profitable. Thug

culture is anti-culture. It truly celebrates the opposite of all that is right and good by the

standards of traditional, civilized society. It is pure Id, undiluted by any concern for abstract
notions of Ego or Superego. It wants; therefore, it will take, and it will have. Try to stop it, and

it will kill in order to take and to have. This is the most raw, untutored, uneducated level of

human nature—pure instinct divorced completely from common sense, reason, and abstract

thought. If the people of the United States do not do something sooner rather than later to

properly educate, enculturate, train, and civilize the raw, uncooked savagery of human nature

within the individual members of their society, then they need not bother because there will not

be any civilization or culture left to protect. American civilization will be the first nor the last to

collapse, dry up, and blow away upon the winds of time.
Chapter 6:

The Ethos of Death:

Civilization Carefully Constructs an Ethos of Life;

Savagery and Darkness Naturally Develop an Ethos of Death

At the most profound level, it is both just and appropriate to describe the struggle

between the new ethos and the old in terms of life and death, for it is the cultivated, civilized

veneration of life itself that is at stake. The reverence for and the celebration of human life

constitutes the essence of the never-ending struggle between the raw and the cooked. The

unrefined savage nature of Mankind is born with no regard whatsoever for the sacred, divine

nature of life. This reverence must be learned. It is the product of a long process of training,

education, and enculturation. Only by the lessons of personal experience and the careful

guidance of wiser more mature human beings does each individual tame the raw, savage beast

within himself and learn to properly value and revere the heavenly fire of life. The most

important, essential quality of refined, cultured human beings is the worship of life. For

Christian people in particular, life is God, and God is life. God in the form of Jesus Christ.

Respect for, even worship of, this sacred gift of life is the foundation of the civil society, the first

and most important step away from primal savagery.

Thus arises another fundamentally important question of ethos that must be answered in

one way or another by every human being who has ever lived. Is the veneration of the eternal

cycle of birth, life, death, and rebirth the first and most important principle in a person’s

cosmology, theology, and morality? Does it transcend the concern for everything else, including

concerns for quality of life? Does that concern inform and focus the other ideals of one’s world
view, including love, individual freedom, ambition, justice, good, evil, charity, compassion,

tolerance, diversity, inclusion? How a human being answers these questions reveals to the world

the faith to which he has aligned himself. The raw, primordial, savage nature of humanity—

unrefined, untrained, and uneducated—embraces the ethos of death. The properly prepared,

learned members of the civil society embrace the ethos of life rather than death. They celebrate

the glorious generative power of the mother and the father, the very essence of life, the greatest

gift given to the human race. Savages—savage by choice or by lack of effective schooling—say

to themselves and to the whole world that the divine, sacred nature of life is of secondary

importance to other concerns—concerns such as religious freedom, personal choice, diversity,

tolerance, self-esteem, and pleasure.

At the expense of humanity itself, they make themselves adherents of the ethos of death,

an act of supreme selfishness and indiscriminate destruction. The raw desire to do as they please

regardless of what anyone else in the universe says, including God Himself is more important

than any law, tradition, or parental lesson that could ever be offered to them. Death itself is

preferable to discipline. Those who put their reverence for life before all else continue in a

timeless tradition that represents the origin and root of all religious experience, the Generator of

life in this world and the Creator of everything in it. They cherish and revere that which is most

sacred and holy because they have gained knowledge of what is of supreme worth within all

people. They know that life is the first and most essential truth upon which everything else is

built. Life, transcendent truth, and God are all one. They are the same. This gnosis is the

knowledge of all knowledge. This gnosis itself is God.

The life force within the body of every living creature is the breath of God Almighty

Himself. The power of life is the power of the Holy Spirit inhabiting the body of a material
being. When this divine presence leaves the body, life is over. Those with no respect or

reverence for this divine presence—try as they might—could not possibly have any real respect

or worshipful reverence for anything refined, cultured, or civilized. The most essential element

of a human being’s education has been kept from these people. They have been robbed, robbed

by those whom they trusted to teach them and to train them in the collective wisdom of their

people. They have been robbed by those who have failed to help them learn to revere the

divinity that lives within them and within every other living creature. They may have been

taught to put on the appearance of the civilized, but they have been taught to revere something—

anything—other than the God-given power of life within all living beings. Beneath that thin

veneer of culture, they are truly raw, truly savage, and they are natural-born practitioners of the

ethos of death, the ideology of the Id.

Within the boundaries of the United States, the ethos of death is ubiquitous. For many,

this amoral, spiritual bankruptcy has actually become their own brand of accepted, common-

sense wisdom, taken as axiomatic and unquestionable. The anti-social, thug-life subculture; well

organized crime; illegal-alien rapists and murders, protected from punishment by the sanctuary

policies of the cities in which they live; pro-abortion activism; active and passive euthanasia—

wherever one chooses to look in the USA, the ethos of death is at work. Violence, torture,

suffering, and death are never really shocking to the advocates of this diverse collection of

causes as long as no representatives of their government are using physical force in any way, as

long as no one for whom they care is hurt, as long as no one expects them to participate in

violence themselves, as long as there is some way to explain it away with some kind of cultural

relativism, or as long as the victims of the violence are actually innocent men, women, children,

and unborn humans, all of whom must be incapable of defending themselves. As long as these
things are true, then everything else is understandable and acceptable.

When the various representative groups practicing the ethos of death do demonstrate any

concern for the sanctity of life, it always manifests itself in the most perverse way possible. No,

my society may not execute a murderer who is also a pedophile rapist. His life is sacred, and it

would be immoral and unethical for society to take it from him. Protesters are outraged when a

man who has killed four police officers is himself slain by other police officers while, during the

same demonstration, those outraged protesters sing the praises of their cop-killing hero. His life

should have been spared by the police because they had no right to take it, yet it is a blessing to

all mankind that he killed four police officers before he died himself. 99

At the same time, there is a world outside the boarders of the US. Within that larger

world, Islamic terrorists have become the most obvious, outspoken, high-profile envoys of the

ethos of death. As are all human beings, Islamic terrorists are natural-born, self-obsessed

animals capable of brutal violence. Then, as they grow, the terrorists of the Islamic

Fundamentalist variety are trained, and they are educated. They are lovingly and tenderly taught

to hate their enemies, to kill their enemies, and to celebrate the death of their enemies. Their

enculturation process has completely left out any concern for the preservation of life and any

99
“Calling him a 'true hero', mourners hold vigil for suspected Oakland cop killer Lovelle Mixon.” An
Associated Press Story. Published in the New York Daily News. Web. 26 March 2009. 27 June 2013.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/calling-true-hero-mourners-hold-vigil-suspected-oakland-killer-lovelle-
mixon-article-1.372436; Wang, Alan. “Group rallies for Mixon rather than officers.” KGO-TV San Fransico, CA.
ABC. Web. 25 March 2009. 27 June 2013. http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id
=6728974; Lee, Henry K. “Oakland police funeral set for today.” San Fransico Chronicle. Web. 27 March 2009.
27 June 2013. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Oakland-police-funeral-set-for-today-3246732.php; “Rape Of
12-Year-Old Near Oakland Elementary Linked To Cop Killer.” KTVU.com. KTVU.com. Web. 26 March 2013.
27 June 2013. http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/rape-of-12-year-old-near-oakland-elementary-linked/nKg3M/;
“Uhuru Movement releases statement on Lovelle Mixon's shooting of four Oakland police.” Uhuru News.
uhurunews.com. Web. 25 March 2009. 27 June 2013. http://uhurunews.com/story?resource_name=uhuru-
movement-statement-on-lovelle-mixon; jody. “San Francisco Uhuru Movement protests for Lovelle Mixon, called
‘a true hero, a soldier.’” Democratic Underground. democraticunderground.com. Web. 26 March 2009. 27 June
2013. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5336891; “Lovell
Mixon: Murderer, ‘True Hero.’” FREEDOM EDEN. freedomeden.blogspot.com. Web. 27 March 2009. 27 June
2013. http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2009/03/lovelle-mixon-murderer-true-hero.html. This is just one example
amongst many, and others are not very hard to find with a bit of help from Google.
concern for the veneration of life. By completely removing the concern for and the veneration of

the sacred nature of life, Islamic terrorists have taken the ethos of death and the trappings of

education, literature, and civilization, and they have constructed the ultimate anti-civilization, the

twisted, demonic mirror image of the civil society. They have constructed something that looks

like civilization, yet what they have constructed celebrates the opposite of the ethos of life and

the opposite of everything well cooked and well prepared, the opposite of refinement, education,

and sophistication.

This leads to the most profound irony of all, the representatives of the ethos of death

make things particularly difficult for the adherents of the ethos of life, for the only way to

challenge them and to defeat them is to destroy them, to kill them, to render death unto the ethos

of death. The problem with that, of course, is that those who embrace the ethos of life often have

a hard time admitting to themselves that there might ever be a time when the use of deadly force

is morally acceptable and justifiable. While they wring their hands and debate the issue of

warfare and death amongst themselves, representatives of the ethos of death often solve this

problem by snuffing out the representatives of the ethos of life before they ever get around to

doing anything to defend themselves.

What many of the initiates of the ethos of life seem to have forgotten is that, while every

human life is sacred and precious, the survival of the species and the survival of the culture—of

the collected wisdom of the people as a whole—must be priority number one. Each individual is

special and important, but every one of those individuals are less important than the future of the

entire human race, and individuals are also less important than the continued survival of their

culture and their way of life. Not only do the initiates of the ethos of life have a right to fight for

the preservation of their own lives; they have a duty to fight for the future of their culture and the
survival of their way of life. Sometimes, a genteel, civilized, sophisticated, well-trained human

being really is forced to choose the lesser of two evils. Sometimes, an initiate of the ethos of life

must take the life of an adherent of the ethos of death. To do so is a tragedy, but, sometimes, it is

truly less evil for an individual human being to die than for people to stand idly by and watch as

their own people are murdered, as their own culture is slowly and surely destroyed, and as their

way of life is systematically erased from the face of the earth.

It is actually possible that God really does like Christians just as much as he likes

Muslims and that God wants Christians to survive and to continue. In order for that to happen,

Christian culture and the civilizations which support and accommodate it must continue. That

means that civilized people in this country must be willing to fight, and they must be willing to

kill. If, as a society, the American people choose to act now, then they can act in the right way, a

peaceful way, using the Constitution, the laws of the land, the power of the police, and the force

of the military establishment to defend themselves. If the people of the United States choose not

to fight for their way of life, then it is not merely individual human beings who will die. The

culture will die. The American way of life will die, and the Jewish tradition, the Christian

tradition, and many other traditions will die and be erased from the Earth. I personally cannot

believe that that is what God wants.

Chapter 7:

Appeasement, Pacifism, and The Ethos of Cowardice:

Being Submissive, Obsequious, and Pusillanimous is More Important Than Being Alive

"Cowards die many times before their deaths,

The valiant never taste of death but once."

--Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar (IIii32-33)

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile—hoping it will eat him last."

--Winston Churchill

There are two varieties of pacifist. One is a person so absolutely dedicated to the

principle of nonviolence that he would gladly die rather than ever take any action that might

harm another human being, even in circumstances that require him to take a stand for something

in which he believes passionately. If necessary, this kind of person will stand up in the face of

evil and oppression and willingly accept the resulting consequences, even if those consequences

are death. This kind of person is a hero and has dedicated himself so completely to the

traditional reverence for the sacred nature of life that he is willing to die rather than violate that

principle. In spite of the fact that I cannot imagine making such a choice myself, I have a great

deal of respect for such people. But, this kind of dedicated, nonviolent pacifist is a very rare

commodity.100

Unfortunately, the second variety of pacifist is much more common. 101 The second

100
Gandhi and MLKjr being two of the only ones that come redily to mind.
101
Many on the radical left in US political discourse, including those pacifist progressives who disapprove of
Mr. Obama’s foreign policy and military choices.
pacifist is a person who claims that intentionally doing harm to another human being is always

wrong. Yet, at the same time, in the face of evil and oppression, this person will always refuse to

take a stand that requires he do anything active or assertive. He will gladly do nothing at all. He

will gladly turn a blind eye to the suffering and death of people for whom he has no attachment,

expediently claiming that it is none of his business and that it would be wrong to intervene,

especially if intervention required the use of military force. He will gladly offer a tribute, a

ransom, or some other form of appeasement to his enemy, and he will gladly talk and negotiate,

endlessly, with anyone and everyone. But, he will never willingly put himself or anyone he

cares about in harm’s way and will never accept the concept that he need do so. This person will

refuse to use violence himself, will refuse to let someone else use violence to protect him, and

will refuse to allow for the use of any technology that will do harm to someone, even if that

someone is trying to kill him.

But, unlike the first pacifist, the second will cry foul, whine, and complain when his non-

pacifist enemies attack him violently and try to kill him, and, most irrational of all, he will be

unable to understand why his slavish dedication to appeasement and negotiation has failed to

stop his enemies from hurting him. As he dies, this person will be thinking to himself, very

rationally and systematically, “How could my enemy possibly want to hurt me? I have been

friendly. I have been nice. I have shared with everyone. I have willingly given him everything

of value that I have. How could he still want to kill me? Seeing my own blood hit the ground

just does not make any sense to me. This person who hates me has not behaved in a reasonable

fashion at all. Where did I go wrong? Am I really dying now? I think it might be nice if I was

wrong about that whole ‘God is dead!’ thing.” This second variety of pacifist is a craven,

pusillanimous coward. This person has no real respect for the sacred, divinely given nature of
human life. Without even consciously choosing to be so, this person is on the side of death. He

is not on the side of life; he is merely too cowardly to put himself at risk for anything, even the

defense of his own life. The ranks of the radical, left-wing, antiwar movement in the US are

filled with this sort of person. I have no use whatsoever for this kind of pacifist. These people

have constructed for themselves an ethos of cowardice, and their lack of dignity and self-respect

has made them all complicit in evil and murder.

Putting nonviolence at the top of one’s list of priorities while, at the same time, refusing

to take a stand that requires risk of serious loss creates an endless series of unintended

consequences and can lead to complete and total destruction. This phenomenon is particularly

obvious and particularly disastrous when the ethos of cowardice runs headlong into radical

representatives of death, into an enemy who yearns for death in all its manifold forms, who

embraces death—including his own death.102 To such an enemy, death becomes his first, most

beloved and sacred principle. This enemy’s greatest desire is to kill those whom he hates or to

be killed himself in the process, nothing else could ever be acceptable to him. The ranks of the

jihadi, terrorist movements around the world are filled with this sort of person. The history of

the twenty-first century will be the history of the war between modern, secular, industrial

civilization, practicing its ethos of cowardice, and Islamic terrorism, indulging its love of murder

and death.

It would actually be difficult to imagine a conflict involving a more disastrous set of

circumstances. On one side, there are people whose number one priority is saving their own tails

regardless of the cost to anyone apart from themselves. That is their ideology; that is the

foundation of the ethos of cowardice. On the other side, there are people whose number one

priority is the murder of the people on the opposing side. Kill and be killed; that is their
102
Islamic Fundamentalists, Jihadis
ideology; that is the essence of their ethos, their ethos of death.

http://georgeorwellnovels.com/journalism/pacifism-and-the-war-a-controversy/

http://georgeorwellnovels.com/reviews/no-not-one/

Now what we need are examples of these two ideological opposites meeting up in real

life—including Neiville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler, France and Germany in World War II,

Islamic Fascism and European Socialism in the 21 st Century, Gun Prohibitionists and Violent

Criminals and Violent Mental Cases in Modern American and European Culture, etc. [including

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22644057 ] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330991/Omar-Bakri-Hate-

preachers-rant-fuel-Prime-Minsters-crackdown-extremist-teachings.html
Chapter 8:

Homosexual Marriage:

Redefining Marriage by Making It Meaningless:

Disguising the Ethos of Death as Tolerance and Diversity

Marriage as an institution is right in theory, though it may not

necessarily be right in practice, as evidenced by the high rates of
divorce in the U.S. Marriage does, however, have many practical
implications—psychologically, socially, physically, financially,
and legally. It is not just another life-style choice. Marriage as an
institution is interminable because of its benefits to society as a
whole, to men, and to women, and particularly to children and
adolescents. In creating a template for behavior, marriage is
unique in granting certain rights and privileges and in creating
certain expectations and responsibilities sanctioned by society.
Individuals may not always follow these norms, but they know
when they have transgressed. No other institution offers the same
promise of permanence...
— Sylvia R. Karasu, M.D.103

Concerned citizens on both sides of the debate over same-sex marriage worry about the

continued existence of society and culture as they know it. Just as in the case of the ethos of

anti-culture and the ethos of death, the reverence for and the celebration of human life constitutes

the essence of the debate over same-sex marriage. No one wants to talk about it, but there is

actually a reason that, for thousands of years, the definition of marriage has been reserved for the

celebration of sexual relationships between men and women. But, no longer is it universally

thought of as a spiritual, religious celebration of the potential for life and the continuation of the

species. Today, many people do not even think of marriage as a spiritual and religious

celebration. They think of it only in its legal terms, and, in the USA, that is perfectly reasonable

and acceptable. There is an anti-establishment clause in the Bill of Rights. While it is not

actually in the Constitution, Americans often describe the effect of that clause with terms like

103
Karasu, Sylvia R., M.D. “The Institution of Marriage: Terminable or Interminable?” American Journal of
Psychotherapy: Vol. 61, No. 1, 2007.
“Separation of Church and State.”104 That is fine, and I am not suggesting that any person

anywhere be forced to accept my spiritual, faith-based values.

What I am suggesting is that everyone remember why marriage became an object of

spiritual veneration and became a special, legally protected institution, the importance of which

goes far beyond anyone’s concerns for religion and spirituality. Around the world, in most

living cultures, marriage has reached it current status because it is fundamentally important for

the future of the human race. Why is it fundamentally important? Because it is the ideal

arrangement for the production of and the enculturation of new humans, new citizens. 105 For this

reason is it celebrated in religion and protected by law. Thus, I am asking my readers to consider

and understand that the concern for heterosexual marriage is so fundamental to human nature and

the best interests of humanity that it not only transcends any matters of law, it actually transcends

matters of religion and spirituality. The reason that law and religion are both obsessed with

sexuality and marriage is because human nature itself has as its first priority sexual reproduction

and the welfare of its offspring. That is priority number one, above and beyond everything else.

Everything else is a luxury. To forget this fact is to forget why marriage has always been so

important in human societies. To forget this fact is to forget what it means to be human. Even

so, most people in the USA have forgotten it.

The ideals separating the two positions in this battle represent moral and spiritual

differences so basic and fundamental that they have truly separated the two sides into

irreconcilable camps.106 At the same time, this difference runs so deep and is so basic that most

104
Jefferson, Thomas. “Letter to the Danbury Baptists.” 1 June 1801. Library of Congress. Web. 10
December 2012. <http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html>. The true origin of this expression.
105
Regnerus, Mark. “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships?
Findings from the New Family Structures Study.” Social Science Research 41 (2012) 752–770. 766.
106
Lopez, Robert Oscar. “The Soul-Crushing Scorched-Earth Battle for Gay Marriage.” American Thinker.
11 August 2012. Web. <http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/
articles/../2012/08/the_soul-crushing_scorched-earth_battle_for_gay_marriage.html>; Lopez, Robert Oscar.
people on both sides are completely blind to its true source. As in every other chapter of this

book, it is a question of priorities. A person’s number one priority defines his ethos. Is the

veneration of the divinely established and eternal cycle of birth, life, death, and rebirth the first

and most important principle in one’s cosmology and morality? Does that priority transcend the

concern for everything else, including concerns for quality of life? Does that concern inform and

focus the other ideals of one’s world view, including love, individual freedom, ambition, justice,

good, evil, etc.? Or, are there priorities within that person’s world view more important than the

reverence for life, other priorities like charity, compassion, tolerance, diversity, inclusiveness,

equality, and kindness? Who could possibly choose life over compassion, tolerance, and

inclusiveness? How a person answers these questions reveals to the whole world which side he

has taken in this debate over same-sex marriage, the side of life, or the side of death.

When the government, or any institution, blesses the marriage of a man and a woman, it

celebrates the potential for the generation of life, the continuation of the species, and the

production of new citizens. The persons involved may not be consciously aware of what they

are doing, but that is what they are doing, participating in an eternal, never-ending cycle of

human reproduction, participating in the cycle of life. Marriage celebrates the glorious

generative power of the mother and the father, the very essence of life, the most important and

amazing process ever performed by any member of the human race. When the government

blesses the union of a homosexual couple and declares it to be marriage—using the same term

that has previously been reserved for heterosexual couples—that government says to those

homosexuals and to the rest of the world that homosexual unions are the same as heterosexual

marriages.

“Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View.” Public Discourse. 6 August 2012. 11 August 2012.
<thepublicdiscourse.com>.
 That government says to the whole world that the people it represents see no difference

whatsoever in those two relationships and that homosexuals are appropriate role models for their

citizens, including those citizens who, in good faith, cannot accept them as such. In doing so, the

government also says to the whole world that the inclusion of homosexual people in every role of

our society is more important than the collective will of all the people ruled by that government.

It also says to everyone that their inclusion is more important than society’s reverence for and

celebration of the eternal cycle of life and is more important than the traditional role of marriage

in the preservation of our species and our culture. Whether the representatives of the

government like it or not, what they are saying to all their citizens is that homosexual marriage is

so very important that it justifies reconstructing the whole fabric of society and of the most

ancient, revered elements of human cultures around the world, so very important that people

must be forced to redefine what it means to be human.

Those who put their reverence for life before all else continue in a timeless tradition that

represents the origin and root of all spiritual experience and the root of virtually every law ever

written by any governmental official anywhere. Those people are adherents of the ethos of life.

Those who place other priorities above this reverence for life and who, at the same time, make

those priorities the focus of their own mission to the world—they attempt to demonstrate to the

rest of the world that kindness, compassion, and inclusion are more important than life itself.

Whether they know it or not, they decisively break with the most ancient human experiences and

traditions; they break with the very essence of human existence. At the expense of humanity

itself, they make themselves adherents of the ethos of death, an act of supreme selfishness and

indiscriminate destruction.

While few on either side have had the courage to bring it up, the most remarkable irony
found within this struggle is the surrender of one-time sacred rhetorical soil by the radical liberal

wing of American politics. Not so long ago, feminists and revisionist historians in Europe and

America were fascinated, obsessed really, with the ancient, historical phenomena of the

matriarchal society and the fertility cults that venerated and worshiped the generation and

continuation of life in the form of the mother goddess discovered under various names and faces

throughout the many ancient mythological traditions of Mankind.107 While the study of these

phenomena continue to yield important truths for scholars around the world, their use by the

trendy critics of modern culture has largely passed out of fashion. Even so, this once popular

trend has left a permanent mark upon the scholarly language of many academic disciplines, and

there was a time in which literary critics, philosophers, and even theologians used those

phenomena to great rhetorical effect, pointing to examples of ancient cultures which were

governed by women, which were spiritually nurtured by women, and which worshiped as a god

the fertile, life-giving power of the mother. For many, those cultures served as shining examples

of just how wonderful human societies could be when they venerated the female element of

humanity rather than repressing and abusing it. This rhetorical strategy actually played an

important role in the struggle for women’s rights, and it also had its part to play in the struggle to

establish a place for women in the hierarchies of many institutions of Western civilization,

including colleges and universities, government bureaucracies, elected offices, and even certain

denominations of the Christian church.

Therefore, it seems particularly strange to find many of those same people equating the

107
Gimbutas, Marija. Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe. The Hague/London:
Mouton, 1965; Gimbutas, Marija. The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd, 1974;
Marija Gimbutas. The Language of the Goddess. San Francisco: Harper, 1989; Marija Gimbutas. The Civilization
of the Goddess. San Francisco: Harper, 1991; Eisler, Riane. The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future.
San Francisco: Harper, 1987; Condren, Mary. The Serpent and the Goddess: Women, Religion, and Power in Celtic
Ireland. San Francisco: Harper, 1989. These are just a few examples for those who are interested in examining this
phenomenon for themselves. Additional evidence can be found throughout the works of Joseph Campbell and many
other influential scholars of the late twentieth century.
fight for legally endorsed homosexual marriages with the struggle for women’s rights, and to

find others who are just as willing to equate that fight with the struggle for the civil rights of

African Americans. Choosing the ethos of death over the ethos of life truly has nothing to do

with the struggle for women’s rights nor with the struggle for the rights of African Americans.

Equating the changing attitudes toward homosexual marriage with those previous struggles is at

best a false analogy.

The sacred role of woman as mother, nurturer, and spiritual guide has been venerated

throughout the existence of humanity. The Bible and ancient Christian tradition offer examples

of women who served the church and who provided role models for others to follow. Woman is

the sacred source of the cycle of life. Mary is the Mother of both the Son of Man and the Son of

God. She helped God to give the Way and the Life to all humanity. Through the birth of one

man from one woman came the life, the death, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. For Christian

people, the Son of God has become the primary representation of the cycle of life, death, and

rebirth. But, without the female, that offering could never have been made. Even in modern

Christianity, there is a necessary place reserved for the sacred role of the mother and the sacred

role of the father. Both are still required, and both must still be venerated as special and

different. The path of the mother and of the father is not the only way, but it is the way that is

best for humanity, for culture, for society, and for most of the living religions of the world.

Many people of various religions in the USA believe that marriage has been blessed and

sanctified by God. As a nation, the people of the United States are evenly split over the issue of

same sex union, and there are large regions of the country where the vast majority believe that

marriage should only be a relationship between one man and one woman. 108 There is no obvious

108
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. “Republicans, Tea Party Supporters More Mellow
Fewer Are Angry at Government, But Discontent Remains High.” The Pew Research Center. Web. 3 March 2011.
and clear shift in public opinion on this issue, and there is no justification for changing the

traditional definition of marriage. That definition should be endorsed and celebrated by the

government of the USA and its various states. There is a real difference between heterosexual

marriage and homosexual union, and it is not in the best interest of our culture and civilization

for the government to act as if there were no difference.

Regardless of what some passionate people say to the contrary, it is in fact in the best

interest of our culture and our civilization to reserve the endorsement of marriage for

relationships between one man and one woman and to encourage the parents of children to stay

married to one another for the sake of the children. There is even scholarly, scientific evidence

to demonstrate this fact. Appearing in the Fall 2005 issue of Future of Children, Paul R. Amato

explains his understanding of the evidence clearly:

First, interventions that increase the share of children growing up with two

continuously married biological parents will have modest effects on the

percentage of U.S. children experiencing various problems, but could have

substantial effects on the number of children experiencing them. From a public

health perspective, even a modest decline in percentages, when multiplied by the

large number of children in the population, represents a substantial social benefit.

That children living in stepfamilies do not tend to have better outcomes, on

average, than children growing up in single-parent families suggests that

interventions to strengthen marital quality and stability would be most profitable

if focused on parents in first marriages. Similarly, interventions to strengthen

relationships and encourage marriage among cohabiting couples with children

would be most profitable if focused on couples with a first child, rather than

12 December 2012. <http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/3-3-11%20Political%20Release.pdf>.

 couples with children from prior relationships. 109

Amato is not alone in this position. Many other scholars have examined the evidence and come

to the conclusion that what is best for children is to live in a two-parent home with their

biological parents. Every other possibility is less advantageous, and many scholars feel that this

is the arrangement that the government should be encouraging. 110 If the US government and its

various states are going to endorse and celebrate one kind of marital arrangement, it should be

the arrangement that works best for children. While the traditional definition of marriage

certainly does not require children’s biological parents to get married and stay married, that is in

fact what the traditional arrangement was intended to encourage. That is what societies around

the world have encouraged for thousands of years, and that is what the marriage laws and

customs of the USA still encourage people to do. Redefining marriage to include homosexual

couples is not going to help the government encourage the biological parents of children to be

married and live together.

Homosexual people should have exactly the same rights as everyone else, yet

homosexual people do not have any right to demand or expect special privileges or special

treatment of any kind. For this reason, no one can or should attempt to secure equal rights and

protection for homosexuals by changing human nature, by rewriting the dictionary, by changing

the marriage laws of this country, or by legally enforcing a social policy that scientific research

has demonstrated to be contrary to the best interest of individual children and the best interest of

society of a whole. It is safe to say the any of these drastic measures would constitute special

109
Amato, Paul R. “The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social, and
Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation.” The Future of Children: Vol. 15, No. 2, Fall 2005. A Publication
of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and the Brookings
Institution.
110
Fagan, Patrick F., and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D. “Marriage: The Safest Place for Women and
Children.” The Heritage Foundation. 10 April 2002. 26 June 2009. < http://www.heritage.org/ Research/Family/
BG1535.cfm>.
privileges and special treatment.

Far more rational and far closer to fair, would be to handle this matter the way many

others have in the past, including many in ancient Greece and Rome. In those societies, certain

types of homosexual relationships were common, but those men who engaged in long term

homosexual relationships still felt the social and human obligation to marry, to reproduce, and to

raise a family.111 Plato went so far as to suggest that, regardless of his preferences, a man had a

moral obligation to marry and to reproduce and that that moral obligation was so important that it

should be required by law:

Let this then be our exhortation concerning marriage, and let us remember what

was said before--that a man should cling to immortality, and leave behind him

children's children to be the servants of God in his place for ever. All this and

much more may be truly said by way of prelude about the duty of marriage. But if

a man will not listen, and remains unsocial and alien among his fellow-citizens,

and is still unmarried at thirty-five years of age, let him pay a yearly fine; ...he

who does not pay the fine annually shall owe ten times the sum, ...He who

refuses to marry shall be thus punished in money, and also be deprived of all

honour which the younger show to the elder; let no young man voluntarily obey

him, and, if he attempt to punish any one, let every one come to the rescue and

defend the injured person, and he who is present and does not come to the rescue,

shall be pronounced by the law to be a coward and a bad citizen. 112

111
Carlin, Norah. “The Roots of Gay Oppression.” International Socialism Journal 42, London, Spring
1989. 4 April 2007. 12 August 2009. <http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=310>. The most common form of
homosexual relationship in ancient Greece was pederasty. Such was still the case in Plato’s time and continued to
be for some time thereafter. In Greek, pederasty literally means “boy lover” and indicates an intimate, sexual, love
relationship between a beardless young boy and an older, mature man.
112
Plato. Dialogue on Laws, Book VI. Project Gutenberg. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. 29 October 2008. 10
In Plato’s world, it was not uncommon for a man to engage in homosexual activity and to

develop deep and profound relationships with other men. But, even in ancient Greece, marriage

was between a man and a woman; it was a “duty”; and it was for the production, protection, and

education of legitimate offspring. It was not necessary for people to love their marital partners,

but it was all but compulsory that they marry and try to have children and try to raise a family.

At moments in history like those, people could be married, and, if they were not married to

persons whom they loved, then they had extra-marital relationships. Remarkably, whether it

seems ironic or not, those are exactly the same choices, the same legal rights, that everyone in

the USA has today.

In the Oxford American Dictionary, for marriage, definition number one still reads as

follows, “the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they

become husband and wife.” Even so, the revision of even the Oxford Dictionaries has already

begun, the first note below definition one reads, “a similar long-term relationship between

partners of the same sex,” yet, even in this note, the lexicographers still make a distinction

between the two, they are not exactly the same thing. A real marriage still requires a “husband”

and a “wife.” A husband still has to be “a married man considered in relation to his wife,” and a

wife still has to be “a married woman considered in relation to her husband.” Marriage is an

institution established not for the benefit of individual persons. It is an institution established for

the benefit of society as a whole and for the protection of the most vulnerable members of each

individual family, the mother and the children she brings into the world. It protects them from

the irresponsible behavior built into the nature of every human male. While women may no

longer feel the need for such protection, their children still require and deserve it.

It is the height of narcissistic self-indulgence to demand the fundamental change of our

August 2009. <http://www.gutenberg.org>.

laws, our culture, and our social structure so that the primary purpose of marriage—encouraging

the production of children and the protection and nurturing of those children—is completely lost.

In fact, it is so selfish and willful that it is evil. If marriage is merely about love, sex,

companionship, and the financial welfare of two adults, and if it is not also a very special

financial contract endorsed by the state and the church for the protection of mothers and children,

then marriage is meaningless. If society wants to make marriage meaningless, then, perhaps,

society should eliminate marriage altogether. That might actually be more fair than any other

solution. Making homosexual union and heterosexual marriage the same under the law would

mean that marriage is not about life, the continuation of humanity, and the production of high

quality citizens. It would mean that the most important goals of marriage are really tolerance,

support, inclusion, self-esteem, diversity, and political correctness.

The truth is that marriage is a special financial contract protecting mothers and their

children, and binding them together with a father. The fact that some heterosexual couples

produce no children does not mean that the production of and protection of children is not in fact

the primary function of the marital contract. The fact that some people have actually lost sight of

this reality and become selfishly obsessed with their own, individual wants and desires should

not require everyone else in the world to fundamentally reorder and reconstruct the material of

their society, their culture, and—for many—their religious beliefs.

The bond between a husband and a wife is special, and it is different. It is not the same as

homosexual union, and it is an insult to all husbands and wives to suggest otherwise. If

homosexual persons want to have that special bond, then they have exactly the same right as

anyone else in the world. They can marry members of the opposite sex and try to raise a family.

If they want to have a long term committed relationship with a member of the same sex and
adopt children together, then do that. Do both. Do neither. Those are the rights and privileges

of a person in the USA, and it should stay that way.

This debate is profoundly important. In the end, it is about much more than the issue of

homosexuality and homosexual unions. It is about the very nature of what it means to be a

human and to be a citizen of the USA. If marriage is really just about personal rights, individual

happiness, and companionship, then it really does not matter who marries whom. Does it? Why

should marriage be limited to two people? Perhaps, their should be an unlimited number of

partners. Perhaps, it is insensitive and oppressive to require that all partners need be alive, or to

require that all partners be human. Who am I to judge? It is all relative after all. There are no

absolute truths, and there is no God. Right? Right!

Of course, the answers to all these questions depend upon the priorities defined and

established by one’s ethos. For those devoted to the ethos of life, marriage is about the

continuation of the species and the protection of mothers and children. When it comes to those

for whom life is not the number one priority, it seems perfectly reasonable to choose inclusion,

diversity, and political correctness over life. It seems perfectly reasonable to redefine marriage

however one pleases. Without even trying or even necessarily being conscious of it, such people

attempt to make marriage meaningless by making themselves adherents of the ethos of death. It

should not surprise anyone to discover that the people who advocate most passionately for the

cause of homosexual marriage are often the same people who advocate passionately for abortion

rights, who suggest that being married for the fourth time is the same as being married the first

time, who suggest that people define their own family arrangements for themselves without any

regard for what the law demands, and who are uncomfortable with questions of heaven and life

after death. In fact the ethos of death often seems at odds with any point of view that requires
genuine belief in anything that is not concrete, tangible, and obvious. Perhaps, support for the

ethos of life requires abstract thought processes and the Formal-Operational level of cognitive

development, while support for the ethos of death need not rise any higher than the Concrete-

Operational level.
Chapter 9:

The Courtly Love Ethos:

The Antidote to the Ethos of Anti-Culture and to the Ethos of Death

Courtly Love and Chivalry are the antidote for the anti-culture ethos. Being a

medievalist, I often read about and consider the ways in which my ancestors dealt with the same

frustrating problems that people still face today. Many times, I even find myself thinking that

the medieval way—or even the classical way—might actually be the best way. Even so, I am

also quite used to being told that these notions of mine are foolish and pointless. So, I usually

stop talking about my latest plan for dragging people back into the dark ages of the tribal, poet-

warrior ethos, and I remind myself that it is really only a dream and that there is no way it could

ever work.

But, every once in a great while, I decide I am right and that it could actually work. This

moment—right now—is one of those times. I know that chivalry will actually work. I know

that because chivalry has never actually gone away and because many people still openly

embrace the ideals and manners of civilized gentility. Chivalry and the Courtly Love ethos are

the antidote for the Anti-Culture ethos and for the rampant mistreatment of women throughout

the world. Those courtly ideals and customs still being practiced still work very well. Very few

persons will complain—man or woman—if I hold a door open for them, or if I do anything polite

or courteous. I also know that chivalry will work because there is at least one modern school of

thought that has embraced some of the same concepts. It is safe to say that, at the very least,

French-style, difference feminism openly acknowledges that men and women are fundamentally,

biologically, sexually different. This is particularly true is the case of writers like Julia
Kristeva.113

The advocates of this modern, theoretical position might not thank me for pointing it out,

and they might actually curse me for my own position here. Yet, it is actually medieval French

women—and men—who are to thank for our well-developed notions of courtesy, gentility, and

chivalry, and there are some remarkably feminist ideals enshrined within that medieval tradition.

It is for these reasons that I also have some real respect and admiration for Kristeva and for

French Feminism as it is sometimes called. This variety of Feminist understands that there are

some genuine, non-environmental, non-cultural differences between men and women and that

some rudiments of female humanity are superior to their opposing, contrasting male qualities.

There are in fact some sexual differences between men and women.

Gender was a term used in an almost exclusively grammatical context until 1955.

Gender has now become a mainstream, normalized, yet still neo-Marxist expression used to

explain how men and women are essentially the same except for the arbitrary, oppressive roles

imposed upon little girls and little boys by their male-dominated, partiarichal culture

immediately after birth, and the use of the word sex has been all but completely replaced by the

use of the word gender.114

For wealthy aristocrats in the middle ages, those very real biological differences were

identified, acknowledged, and systematically analyzed by the codes of Chivalry and Courtly

Love. I submit to everyone, everywhere that our choice is simple: raw, selfish, uncivilized,

beast-like anti-culture, or the well-prepared, altruistic, civilized humanity of Chivalry and

113
Kristeva, Julia. Tales of Love. Trans. Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia UP, 1985; Still, Judith.
“Chapter 14: French feminist criticism and writing the body.” A History of Feminist Literary Criticism. Ed. Gill
Plain and Susan Sellers. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007. 263-281; Habib, M. A. R. “Julia Kristeva.” A History
of Literary Criticism From Plato to the Present. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005. 697-701; Riding, Alan. “Correcting Her
Idea of Politically Correct.” The New York Times. 14 July 2001. 8 December 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/
2001 /07/14/arts/correcting-her-idea-of-politically-correct.html?pagewanted=all>.
114
Haig, David, Ph.D. “The Inexorable Rise of Gender and the Decline of Sex: Social Change in Academic
Titles, 1945–2001.” Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 33, No. 2, April 2004, 87–96.
Courtly Love. If I get to choose, I will choose to be well-seasoned. I will choose civilization,

and I will choose a female-centered humanity. And, yet, that does not make me a femminist by

modern, twenty-first-century standards.

Think about it this way. Apart from the genteel, medieval approach and some of the

contemporary French approaches, there are exactly two ways in which women are commonly

treated in twenty-first century, Euro-American style societies. Number one, as far as rights,

responsibilities, and privileges are concerned, treat women exactly as if they were men with no

relevant differences of any kind. Gender identity, not sexual identity, is imposed upon infant

humans the moment they are born. This repression is built into, an institutionalized part of their

culture. If it were not for this kind of environmentally imposed repression, males and females

would be virtually the same. Option number two, treat women exactly as if they were non-

human property to be abused, mistreated, and disposed of however one likes. The former is the

way of the modern American Feminist, while the latter is the way of the brute, of the caveman,

or of the fictional, unrealistic persona constructed by many popular American musicians in the

many productions that celebrate the thug-life ideal.

For some time now, the American way of dealing with women’s issues has been to try to

treat every human being as if there were no difference at all between men and women. There are

a number of contemporary feminists who actually believe that there are essentially no real

differences between men and women and that everything that seems to make women different

from men results from gender roles imposed upon people by the cultures into which they are

born. These theorists actually believe that, free from such artificially imposed restrictions, men

and women would develop and behave in virtually identical ways with virtually identical
abilities.115 For this reason, there are many people in the USA who believe that their society has

not gone far enough in eliminating the separate and unequal standards by which women are

judged.

Some people go so far as suggesting that female police officers and fire fighters should

have to live up to the same physical standards as their male counterparts and that female military

personnel should live up to the same physical standards as their male counterparts. There is

actually a great deal of debate over this issue, and it has been going on for a long time.116 Many

actually believe that even on a physical level, there are no significant, inherent differences

between men and women. The fact that only women can conceive, that only women can give

birth, and that women are truly different in their genetic structure seems to have escaped the

observation of some of these people. Even on the most basic, fundamental level, the level of

DNA, men and women are different chemically and physically. Even their chromosomes are

different, not to mention how their body parts are different, and how their bodily functions are

different. To suggest otherwise is obviously absurd. 117 But, if I have demonstrated nothing else

in all the chapters of this book, I have certainly demonstrated that there is no shortage of people

willing to believe the most absurd kinds of nonsense ever dreamed up.

So, at least in the US, in the name of equal rights or equality between the sexes, women

115
Holmes, Mary. Gender and Everyday Life. New York: Routledge, 2009; Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble:
Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1990; Habib, M. A. R. “Chapter 26: Feminist
Criticism.” A History of Literary Criticism From Plato to the Present. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005. 667-707.
116
Gray, Susan L. "Discontinuing The Canadian Military's 'Special Selection' Process For Staff College And
Moving Toward A Viable And Ethical Integration Of Women Into The Senior Officer Corps." Journal Of Military
Ethics 7.4 (2008): 284-301. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Dec. 2012; Lott Jr., John R. "Does A Helping Hand
Put Others At Risk?: Affirmative Action, Police Departments, And Crime." Economic Inquiry 38.2 (2000): 239.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Dec. 2012; Vojdik, Valorie K. "Gender Outlaws: Challenging Masculinity In
Traditionally Male Institutions." Berkeley Women's Law Journal 17.(2002): 68. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9
Dec. 2012; Yiyang, Wu. "Scaling The Wall And Running The Mile: The Role Of Physical-Selection Procedures In
The Disparate Impact Narrative." University Of Pennsylvania Law Review 160.4 (2012): 1195-1238. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.
117
Udry, J. Richard. “The Nature of Gender.” Population Association of America. Demography, Vol. 31,
No. 4, (Nov., 1994) 561-573.
are often treated as if they were men, and, more and more often, men are expected to act like

women, to behave as if they were women. There is a conscious attempt on the part of many to

use the powerful influence of culture to erase the differences between men and women, and the

people who attempt to do so actually believe that it is possible. But, what I want to know are the

answers to a few very simple questions. Just how many people feel like this little experiment has

been a success? Are women as a group any happier? Are women as individuals treated any

better than they were before? Are men as a group any happier? Has fairness and justice been

served? Yes, there have been a number of huge changes in the ways that American society

operates. Sexual roles and identities are profoundly different for both men and women than they

were just a few decades ago. But, in general, are circumstances better for women now than they

were a century ago? How have things truly changed?

Some feminist activists would have everyone believe that all the revolutionary changes in

the traditional sex roles of the USA are changes for the better. Of course, many of those changes

have been positive and should have been made long before they actually were. As far as rights

and opportunities are concerned, women should be treated exactly the same way men are treated.

Women should have access to education and should be able to choose for themselves whatever

job they are capable of doing. Women should vote, and they should run for office. In many

other ways, women should be treated exactly as men are treated.

In spite of that obvious truth, many of the changes that have to do with courtship,

marriage, and reproduction are of more dubious value. Especially in the case of reproduction,

whether some theorists want to admit it or not, there are genuine, structural, biological

differences between men and women. When it comes to sexuality and reproduction, men and

women are very unequal; in fact, women are vastly superior. For this reason, women should be
granted certain privileges and protections, but many of the traditional privileges and protections

granted to women have disappeared because many in the USA have come to believe that it

would be wrong to treat women differently from men.

But, have the changes in society within the realm of sexuality and reproduction actually

made women’s lives better? Well, how about it? In the US, women now have cheap, easy

access to birth control and cheap, easy access to abortion, even using abortion as a method of

birth control. Because of birth control and abortion, some women see no reason to avoid casual,

meaningless, no-strings-attached sexual intercourse. Women now have freedom and

independence, including the freedom and independence to fend for themselves and for their

children without any hope of assistance from their male oppressors. Women must avoid

dependence upon anyone for anything including protection from physical and sexual abuse. Yet,

at the same time, women are encouraged to be dependent upon the government for food, clothes,

housing, cash, and even protection from violence. The traditional expectations of husband,

father, friends, family, and church have been completely usurped by the government. Some

even suggest that the government take away her guns. And, best of all, in many states, there is

no fault divorce, allowing women and men to walk away from their marriages and their children

just because marriage and parenthood have stopped being fun. That sure has improved the

quality of life for so very many mothers and their children. Right? Right!

In the contemporary realm of sexuality and reproduction, men get everything they want,

and women get nothing apart from responsibility, including parenting a child without the benefit

of a spouse or a father figure. Being a poor woman in the US has never been worse. Being a

man, rich or poor has never been better. Because the legal establishment still protects them well,

as it should, being a rich woman or a middle class woman in the USA is about the same as it has
always been, pretty good. And, being a middle class man has rarely sucked as much as it does

now.

As has been the case throughout history, as long as he has never been dumb enough to

allow himself to be held out to the world as a model of moral perfection (cf. Tiger Woods), a rich

man can have sex with whomever he desires as long as he has enough money to cover the bills of

all his girlfriends and his wife, and very few people judge him harshly. Today, in the USA, a

poor man can have sex with whomever he likes, and the government will pay for the

consequences so that he might be able to have the sex life of a rich man, and very few people

offer to judge the poor man in these matters. In spite of the fact that men in both these categories

are reprehensible, society gives them both a pass. It would be wrong to judge these people by

traditional, patriarchal moral values. Right? Everything is relative. Right? Everyone is entitled

to his own set of values, regardless of what those values are. Right!

Yet, if a contemporary middle class American man has sex with someone to whom he is

not married, his wife will leave him, keeping his house, his car, and the love of his children, and

everyone in his home town will pretended that he was never born. Then, if his mistress has a

baby, he will probably have to buy her a house, a car, and be hated by the children she bore him,

and he will probably never have sex again. If he were rich, none of this would matter because he

would still have enough money to start over again with a new mistress, new wife, or both. If he

were poor, none of this would matter because the government would pay for everything, and he

could move on to making illegitimate children with some other woman. But, it does not work

this way for the modern middle class man. At this point, the middle class man is broke; he

cannot start over again; and, if he does not make his payments on time, he becomes a “deadbeat

dad,” and the law hunts him down like a dog.

 Of course, the irresponsible, reprehensible middle class man gets exactly what he

deserves. That is justice. Even so, of all the men in the USA who behave in a reprehensible

manner, it is only the reprehensible middle class man who is still held accountable for his

behavior. The only exception seems to be made for those rich men who were foolish enough to

allow or encourage others to use them as models of moral perfection, such as John Edwards or,

again, Tiger Woods. Sometimes, they too have to pay for their crimes, but, more than ever,

many men are able to use and abuse women with impunity.

Worst of all, though, is the plight of the poor woman in American society. She can have

sex with whomever she wants and have as many babies as she wants. From various sources

including the government, she can get free birth control, free abortions, free daycare, free

housing, free food, free clothes, free cable television, even free cell phones. If she has any desire

to be educated, she can also have a free education, as far as she wants to go. No one is allowed

to judge her morality or to tell her what to do about anything, including how she rears her

children. Every time she has another baby, the government writes her a bigger check than it did

the last time. But, the one thing she cannot have is a husband to love her and to take care of her,

and the one thing that her children will never be allowed to have is a father to provide a quality

male role model and a loving relationship with a responsible, mature, man.

Feminism, socialism, political correctness, and neo-Marxist intellectual terrorism do not

seem to have done the poor American woman much good. Was it not the poor, single mother

whom all the do-gooders and crusaders were supposed save from those evil men who wanted to

use them for sex when they were aroused and to use them for punching bags when they were

angry? It seems to me that these poverty stricken women still get used as sex objects and still get

beaten by their babies’ fathers. But, now it is so very much worse, because, now, there is no way
out. She is stuck with the government as her spouse for the rest of her life, and her unfortunate

children will grow up believing that this life is not only acceptable—it is normal.

In the current ethical wasteland of the American and European states, it is little wonder

that the bestial, thug-life way of dealing with women has become the defacto, default response of

the untutored, unsophisticated American male—regardless of what color he might be. This

untutored, unsophisticated American man is the quintessential product of the anti-culture ethos.

As a response to American feminism and the masculinization of women, the thug-life treatment

of women may be a more recent development, but it has rapidly become the most loathsome and

troubling. By refusing to advocate out-dated notions such as behaving like a gentleman and

treating a woman like a lady—traditional, repressive, patriarchal, phallogocentric notions that

they are—the teachers and the parents of contemporary US society are actually encouraging men

to treat women as if their needs and desires were exactly the same as men. But, for a man with

no standards by which he may judge himself and no male role models of quality, it is a very short

step from the notion that men and women are exactly the same to the notion that a man may treat

a woman exactly as he pleases, to the notion that it pleases him to treat her as if she were an

animal or as if she were an object with which he might satisfy his sexual appetites, and to the

notion that he may dispose of her carelessly, as if she were a piece of trash. And, if all the role

models whom he observes behave this way and if—because his parents, his teachers, his church,

and his heroes actively avoid the endorsement of any alternative, traditional value systems—a

man is never exposed to any other philosophical world view, it is almost certain that he will

choose to behave like an animal himself. The anti-culture ethos actively encourages men to

dispose of women in any way they like. Does this wretched situation represent what women

really want? Has this improved the lot of woman in the USA? The people of this country have
an obligation to answer this question. They do not have the choice to remain silent.

There is, in fact, a different way, a third approach, the Chivalric, Courtly-Love approach.

Men could voluntarily choose to treat women as if they were superior forms of life. Men could

recognize the fact that women are actually doing men a favor by accepting men into their lives as

lovers, fathers, husbands, and friends. Smart men know that the women in their lives make their

lives more pleasant and more fulfilling. Those women actually make life worth living, and men

who understand these facts treat the women in their lives accordingly. Smart women will

demand that the men in their lives understand these facts and behave themselves accordingly,

and those same women will punish the men in their lives when those men do not do so. The

ultimate measure of a man is the way he treats the women in his life. His mother, his sister, his

girlfriend, his wife, his daughter, an anonymous woman on the street—how he treats those

women tells everyone everything necessary to know about him, how he treats them on every

possible level, not just the surface niceties for the sake of appearance. Chivalry is the antidote to

the ethos of anti-culture and the ethos of death.

Of course, this method only works if both men and women are willing to accept the

responsibilities, as well as the privileges of the courtly tradition. One cannot expect to be treated

like a princess or a prince, if one is not willing to take on the burden of responsibility that comes

with such treatment. One must be willing to behave like a princess or a prince before one is

treated like a princess or a prince. Men must actually behave in ways that demonstrate to the

world that they know women are doing them a favor by taking them on as husbands, lovers, and

fathers. Women must willingly and enthusiastically accept the responsibility of mastering the

men in their lives, of civilizing them and teaching them to be gentlemen instead of beasts. Men

must want to be better than their biological nature makes them, and women must accept the
burden of making them better. If both are willing to make this commitment, it is right and just

for the man to treat the woman as if it is she who makes his life worth living and for her to

expect that he will always treat her in this manner. This method is hard, explaining why so few

people are willing to admit that it works or to try to live their lives in this way. But, if a husband

and a wife can work hard enough to make this kind of relationship last, they both might live

happily ever after.

Women must be willing to help men understand how they are different, and to do that

women must understand that difference themselves. Women are of the earth. They are mothers.

They are life givers and nurturers. They are constant and reliable. Women are the inspiration of

all nobility, gentility, and civilization. Yet, when disrespected, rejected, threatened, or injured,

no force more fierce, savage, or blood-thirsty can be imagined by anyone, including women

themselves. As William Congreve famously pointed out, “Heaven has no rage like love to

hatred turned / Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.”118 If women were all to understand and

embrace the sexual characteristics that make them women, that make them different from men,

there would be no limit to their power and no limit to their ability to affect change in the world

around them. But, first they must actually admit that they are different and must understand that

difference.

In the reproductive, genetic, DNA-composition of all human beings, there are X

chromosomes and Y chromosomes. The X chromosome constitutes the female element of

human nature. The Y chromosome is required for the production of male offspring, so the Y

chromosome constitutes the male element of human nature. Genetically, women get an X

chromosome from their mothers and from their fathers. That XX inheritence is what makes them

women. They are literally constructed from the female nature of their own mothers and their
118
Congreve, William. The Mourning Bride. III.viii.
father’s mothers. Genetically, they are 100% female, and they have received nothing from the

male element of their father’s humanity. In the case of his daughters, the father has kept the Y

chromosome, the male element, completely to himself.

Men have only one X chromosome themselves, and they can only get that from their

mothers. He is only 50% female; otherwise, he would be a woman. In order for a man to be a

man, he must receive his Y chromosome from his father. Genetically, everything that makes a

man human, he gets from his mother. Everything that he gets from the female element of

humanity, he must receive with that X chromosome given to him by his mother. The only thing

a man gets from his father is the Y chromosome. More than anything, that Y chromosome

constitutes the DNA coding that makes him physically, biologically a man instead of a woman.

That which makes a man a man is more an absence than it is a presence. What makes him a man

is that which is missing from his nature that would otherwise make him a woman.

Men are alien creatures from another planet. They are dreamers and builders, but they

are also life takers and destroyers. In their natural state, they are inconstant and unreliable. They

are animals, monsters really, placed upon the Earth to do things that no woman should ever be

asked to do. They require the genteel, civilizing influence of women. A man must rely upon his

relationships with the women in his life to complete him, to make him whole, to make him fully

human, to keep him from being merely an animal, to prevent him from truly being a monster.

The ideal man is, in fact, a poet-warrior. The poet springs forth from that part of him he

inherits from his mother, and the warrior comes from that part of his humanity that is missing

because he is a man and not a woman, missing because his father gave him that Y chromosome,

a genetic code document missing most of the code that makes the machine human.

Perhaps Algernon is right in the Importance of Being Ernest, when he says, "All women
become like their mothers. That is their tragedy. No man does, and that is his." 119 Every woman

could be a regal lady, and every man could be a noble knight. If young women and young men

were all educated and trained properly, they could all be given the opportunity to behave

accordingly. If they all freely chose to do so, every person could be treated as ladies and

gentlemen should be. The reason that many cannot be treated like ladies and gentlemen is that

many people choose to behave like animals instead of humans. Animal or human—everyone

who has ever lived has had to make a choice in this matter. Choose now; choose wisely!

Animal, or human?

Suggested Authors and Topics for Further Reading and Study

by Those with Interest in These Matters

From the Arthurian Tradition

Sir Thomas Malory

Chretian de Troyes

Wolfram van Eschenbach

De Amore, The Art of Courtly Love, by Andreas Capellanus (c. AD 1190)

Marie de Champagne and Andreas Capellanus

Marie de France and Courts of Love

Roman de la Rose (c. AD 1230)

Chaucer and The Wife of Bath’s Tale

Sir Gawian and the Green Knight and The Order of the Garter

119
Wilde, Oscar. The Importance of Being Ernest. Act I, ll.??.
 Book IV

The Ultimate Conclusion or

The Ugly Truth about Power and Authority

A) There is No Exercise of Power and Authority Free of Violence

B) There are Only Two Ways of Managing Power and Authority:

1) the Unscrupulous Tyranny of the Godless, or

2) the Reluctant Leadership of the Faithful

 “Joe: ‘That seargent will be a private in the morning.’

Gen. Waverly: ‘Yes, isn’t he lucky.’ ”

—Irving Berlin’s White Christmas (1954)

More than anything, the history of political discourse is the history of how people deal

with power and authority. Based upon my reading of that history, it seems safe to say that, in

general, people deal very poorly with power and authority. As a general rule, less power and

authority exercised results in less evil and destruction, while the greater the power and authority

exercised the greater is the resulting evil, cruelty, bloodshed, and destruction. The exceptions to

this general rule of thumb are rare and wonderful, so much so they often seem truly miraculous.

At the moment of birth, a human creature begins to learn the nature of power and

authority. The moment one’s warm, wet body hits the cold, harsh air of the real world, the trials

begin. Sometimes a new born baby even receives a hard, sound whack on the backside from a

well-respected authority figure in the community, from a person often entrusted with the very

lives of all the people in the community. Like it or not, that baby is absolutely helpless and

dependent upon others for anything and everything, and the baby does not like it. This new

person is so unhappy that loud cries and screams often burst forth for no apparent reason.

Yet, abject submission is the child’s only choice, and it is not really a choice. It really is

forced upon him. Every single time this new person needs or wants something, he must either

find a way to ask for it or hope that others anticipate these desires. In each and every one of

those instances, the well-defined roles are reinforced clearly. One party is submissive, and the

other is the source of power, authority, and resources. One party is weaker, one stronger, but

both make powerful demands on each other. Most often, there is harm done to both parties in the
process. Usually, this damage is small, and life goes on.

But, sometimes, the damage is great and the effects permanent. Often the drives and

needs of the child are overwhelming. From his point of view, these drives must be satisfied.

From the parent’s point of view, it is just as obvious that the child must learn to control those

drives and that, sometimes, the proper response to those drives is denial and self-control.

Helping the child learn denial and self-control can be traumatic for all parties. From day to day,

even the smallest things can become epic battles. The struggle over whether or not the child is

going to eat chicken nuggets three times a day, seven days a week—this mundane struggle can

develop into an ongoing, everyday confrontation that leaves life-long scars on both parent and

child.

Even in the most loving and caring relationships, even when the child ultimately

comprehends that the parent really is doing what is right for everyone, the child’s dignity and

ego have been bruised, creating anger and rebellion, and the parent’s resolve and the parent’s

own understanding of his own values have been tested in a truly trying way. The child’s natural

reaction is to resent this power being exercised over him, and the parent’s natural reaction is to

resent being tested and to realize that the taste of power and authority is bitter and unpleasant.

The child’s natural reaction is that of Lucifer, and the parent’s natural reaction is that of the

angry and jealous God, the reaction of the God-Creator, the reaction of Yahweh (Jehovah).

When that same child grows up and when he has children of his own, he is confronted

with a creature whose needs and desires know no bounds, no limits at all. It is now his job to

nurture and to rear his own child, to mold that child as it grows. This process requires authority

and power. It cannot be accomplished without them. It requires that the parent be able to say no

from time to time and that the parent be able to discipline and punish the child when necessary.
All the while, he is remembering his own relationship with his own parents, remembering what it

was like to be the child. While doing what comes naturally, day-to-day, in the process of caring

for the new child, the new parent begins to realize things about this relationship that scare him,

things over which he himself has very little control. He is forced to assert himself in unpleasant,

painful ways, and he begins to notice primal, animal-like patterns of behavior having to do with

reward and punishment, irrational things about the darkness, the shadow inside everyone,

including his beloved child—and himself.

In the beginning, especially in the first seven years of the child’s life, he notices that

reason has no effect on the child whatsoever. He also discovers that physical punishment—and

other punitive measures, including raising of the voice, embarrassment, shame, time-out, and all

the rest—hurt him more than they do the child. Psychological damage is done to both, yet—

unless the parent becomes a predatory abuser of his own child—the damage done to the parent is

far greater than the damage done to the child. In fact, the parent soon realizes that harsh punitive

measures, including physical punishment, have a counter-intuitive effect upon the child.

The harsher the parent is on the child, the more the child craves, desperately craves, the

parent’s approval, affection, and love. This causes a good parent fear, trembling, and remorse.

A good parent realizes that he and his child are both hardwired, genetically programed, to behave

in certain ways and that human behavioral psychology is not all that much different from animal

behavioral psychology. He even recalls all the observations he has made about all the animals he

has observed in his life, especially all the dogs that he has known over the years. It is quite a day

when he realizes that he himself is just another dog in a pack of his own, that—like it or not—he

is the alpha dog, and that—worst of all—he has to behave like the alpha dog in order for his pack

to be peaceful, happy, and prosperous.

 It would be easy for him to neglect his duty as the parent and do nothing, letting the child

run wild and free, but even that choice, the choice to exercise no power at all does harm to parent

and child. Whether any action is taken at all, there is still a bond of obligation for the parent and

of submission for the child. The child actually longs for the firm direction and careful guidance

of the parent. Each will take its toll on the other, whether they do right by one another or not.

Even if the child is completely abandoned by the parent, the unbreakable, undeniable bond that

they share affects both of their lives everyday. They make demands upon one another, and they

are obligated to one another, for all time.

In spite of all these harsh realities, the parent-child relationship has the potential to be the

best, most positive, least destructive power-based relationship of all, especially if one were to

consider the God-creature relationship to be another form of the parent-child relationship. All

other temporal, real-world, power-based relationships are significantly less pleasant and less

positive than the parent-child relationship.

Perhaps the most frequently painful and bitter of all relationships is the employer-

employee relationship. Virtually all human beings must discover a way in which to put food and

water in their stomachs, to put clothes on their backs, and to put a roof over their heads. The vast

majority of people in the world do so by working very hard. Many of those hardworking people

must perform this work in the course of doing their jobs, and every human being with a job has a

boss. Most people with jobs have many bosses to whom they must answer. Answering to the

bosses in one’s life is often a terrible, soul-crushing trial in which making the wrong choice can

bring great punishment and suffering and in which all choices may turn out to be wrong. There

are often no-win situations, and in many no-win situations there is no path that will lead to a

lesser evil, or a smaller suffering. Worse still, it often seems just as bad from the bosses’ point of
view. Many times, there is just as much violence done to the boss as to the one bossed around.

A good boss does not want to exercise the power and authority required by his job

description. The good administrator already knows what happens every time a choice is made

affecting the circumstances of any employee. For this reason, the good administrator exercises

that power and authority as infrequently as possible and on as small a scale as possible.120 He

knows that no order he might give is going to have entirely pleasant consequences, even giving a

subordinate a promotion and a raise is going to have a downside for that employee—more

responsibility, more authority, and more friction between colleagues at the very lest. Most

administrative choices are going to be significantly less pleasant than that. It is impossible for

even the best employee to separate those unpleasant consequences from the administrator who

issued the order, even if the order comes from other bosses higher up on the food chain. Even in

the best of circumstances, it is not possible for the employee-supervisor relationship to be free

from all violence and oppression. It will always have a dark side, and there will always be an

element of the worker versus the management about it, of the us versus them, of the self versus

the other. There is no Utopia, and there is no Heaven on Earth for any one.

In the worst kind of employee-supervisor relationships, there is nothing apart from this

darkness. A bad boss never hesitates to exercise the power and authority required by the job.

This kind of boss either does not know or does not care what happens when this power and

120
Thompson, Paul. “A Christmas fairy tale.” European Journal of Psycholotherapy, Counselling & Health:
Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2002, pp. 149-68: “A containing leadership, then, becomes something that is empowering and
not despotic. This might require leadership by example, rather than a remote, managerial kind of leadership
(Obholzer and Roberts 1994), which might be increasingly difficult for the manager to manage given the increasing
reliance on processes of audit, quality assurance and external inspection. Such processes potentially create an
additional layer of persecutory anxiety, imposed upon the organization externally, but introjected as an internal
organizational construct that can become, in turn, a mechanism of defense against recognizing emotional reality.
The capacity to be flexible and be responsive in ways in which perhaps Winnicott suggests mother and infant act
reciprocally become impeded if not impossible in the bureaucratic, stratified and encoded management framework.”
[p. 164]
authority are exercised upon someone. This kind of boss, the evil administrator, not only enjoys

this exercise, he looks for every available opportunity to use the authority inherent in his job.

From the outset, the evil administrator took on the boss’s job because the power and authority

were irresistible, not to mention the other benefits, including money, prestige, and the kind of

respect that can be born only of fear. All of these things made the administrator’s job an

irresistible choice. In many cases, that choice was impossible to pass up because the experience

of doing the worker’s job was unpleasant, unfulfilling, frustrating, and unrewarding financially

and psychologically.

For the would-be administrator, these temptations and the circumstances accompanying

them are especially maddening when his current job is truly beyond his capacity—when he is

incompetent at that job. To this kind of person, the boss’s job seems much less demanding and

much more rewarding. Anybody could do that, so why not take that job, exercising power and

authority instead of being acted upon all the time? Until he has already taken the bait, no would-

be administrator realizes that the boss’s job is a trap. But, at that point, it is too late, and he finds

himself in a brand-new cage with brand-new bars and brand-new rules, restrictions, and

supervisors of its own. The former incompetent is now stuck in this new cage, not good enough

at doing anything to go backward down to his former position or to move onward to a higher

level of responsibility. Now, all the evil administrator—and one-time failed worker—is able to

do is stay in this managerial position and hope to exercise his power and authority often enough

to make himself feel important and strong, to justify his extravagant salary and benefits, and to

prove to his own superiors that he should not be fired. This kind of boss lives in constant fear

that everyone above and below him will discover the awful truth, that he is a fraud and

completely incompetent, that the only way he can deal with this fear is to lash out at others,
trying to make them all hurt the way he hurts himself.

My personal experience as a teacher suggests that, the vast majority of the time, the

administrator in the Principal-Teacher relationship is an evil administrator who wanted the

Principal’s job because he thought it was easier and more financially rewarding. The only justice

here comes in the fact that he soon realizes that no amount of money is just compensation for the

demands made upon him by going over to the dark side of power and authority, including taking

on the schedule demanded of the boss and having to accept responsibility for every terrible thing

that might happen at his school, whether it is his fault or not.

Then, perhaps the most unpleasant of all temporal, earthly power relationships, there is

the governmental, regime-subject relationship. In order to live peacefully, productively, and

happily together, people in a society, in civilization, must have rules. There must be law and

order; otherwise, there is no civilization. In this relationship, just as in the employer-employee

relationship, there are two extremes. At one end of the spectrum, there is anarchy with no

governmental regulation and no laws of any kind. At this extreme, there really is no society, no

civilization at all. At the opposite extreme, there is the large-scale equivalent of the evil

administrator, totalitarian dictatorship and the micromanagement of every tiny detail of every

citizen’s life, day in and day out. With the advent of modern computing and information

management, this kind of oppressive intrusion into people’s daily lives is not only possible, it is

everyday a growing reality.

A wise and caring governmental system—like the one created by the founders of the

United States of America—is very much like the wise and good administrator. Its powers are

limited, well-defined, and exercised only when absolutely necessary. “That government is best
which governs least.”121 The citizen of any society is very much like an employee working any

kind of job. Every time the government involves itself in a citizen’s life, that citizen’s

autonomous will is repressed and crushed, even if it is on a very small scale. Every time it

happens, a tiny bit of the light that is that citizen’s spirit and liberty is extinguished. A tiny bit of

that person dies. Of course, the larger the governmental intrusion, the larger is the bit that dies.

Many times, it turns out to be a very small matter; the wound heals; and life goes on as normal.

But, more and more often, in modern, high-tech, western civilization, governmental intrusions

are on a grander scale; the wounds do not heal; and everyday life is anything but normal.

Governments can easily become the functional equivalent of the evil administrator in the

employer-employee relationship. Many people in my own government want to regulate every

aspect of my life—how I get my healthcare; how much gas I use; how much electricity I use;

what weapons I may use to defend myself; how many bullets I can buy at the same time; what I

eat; what I drink; what I smoke; even what I say. With the aid of advanced technology, how

long will it be until my government monitors everything I do by remote-sensor surveillance? My

thermostat, my coffee pot, my refrigerator, my oven, my cell phone, my computer, my Internet

Service Provider, the microchips implanted in my pets—how long will it before all these tools in

my life are seamlessly networked together and plugged into the Internet? How long before they

are used by my government to spy on me? How long will it be before I have my own personal

drone following me everywhere, collecting data on me twenty-four hours a day? How long

121
This quotation is frequently attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but its authenticity has been questioned by
reliable resources, including the web site of Jefferson’s own home, Monticello, and others, <http://www.
monticello.org/site/jefferson/government-best-which-governs-least-quotation>. It was certainly used by Henry
David Thoreau in 1849 in the first paragraph of “Resistance to Civil Government, or Civil Disobedience,” the full
text of which is available at the American Transcendentalism Web, <http://transcendentalismlegacy.tamu.edu
/authors/thoreau/ civil/>. In slightly different form, “The best government is that which governs least,” it was also
used as early as 1837 by the editors of The United States Magazine and Democratic Review, according to
“Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. 1989” available at Bartleby.com, <http://www.bartleby.com/
73/753.html>.
before that drone reads my thoughts and stores them on the servers of the Department of

Homeland Security?

As terrible as these future possibilities are, even worse is what the overly intrusive

government in the United States has already done to a large percentage of its subjects. It has

bought their wills and their liberty from them for, what might be considered by many, a fairly

small sum of money. In modern welfare states, like the USA and those in Europe, the

government has discovered that it can completely take over a person’s life by buying that person

with taxpayer-funded benefits. The more the government gives, the more absolute is its control

over a person’s life. It should be obvious to all that such welfare benefits are a form of control

and repression, but many try to justify this kind of enslavement by telling everyone, including

themselves, that it is done for truly compassionate, charitable, and altruistic reasons.

Under the right circumstances, federal and state governments will provide food, drink,

clothing, housing, education, medical care, transportation, child care, electricity, water, cell

phone access, and even cable television. Some of these benefits go to everyone regardless of

their financial circumstances, especially access to primary and secondary education. The others

will only be provided as long a person’s financial circumstances do not improve. As long as

these people do nothing to improve their own circumstances, they will keep receiving their

benefits.

As long as unmarried parents stay unmarried, unemployed, uneducated, and keep on

conceiving more and more offspring, the benefits will never stop. If the benefits never stop, the

beneficiaries have no reason to vote for anyone who might interfere with the flow of their

benefits. These poor people are virtually ordered by the government to do nothing, nothing to

improve themselves or the quality of their lives, nothing to rebel against or resist their treatment
by the government. All they have to do is support the people who protect and preserve their

benefits. Apart from that, they need only be quiet and do nothing, making no trouble for the

people in power.

In such a system, what incentive is there for these poor people to improve their financial

circumstances? What incentive is there for the government to actually help these people improve

their circumstances? There is none. The power elite stay in power, and the poorest, most

oppressed people in our society stay that way, forever. Bread and circuses.122 Most of these

poor people even end up being grateful to the very same people who are oppressing them and

robbing them of a chance to make a better life for themselves. This insidious process constitutes

a kind of violence against the most vulnerable people in our society, as surely as if they had been

beaten into submission by the fists of warriors, as surely as if they were threatened with deadly

force by police officers with firearms.

In the United States, this political violence and terrorism has been so successful that fully

fifty percent of the population pays no federal income taxes at all, and thirty percent of the

population pays no federal income taxes while, at the same time, collecting benefits from the

federal taxpayer. That thirty percent will never support any political leader who does not support

the continued flow of benefits, and the other twenty percent who do not pay any federal income

taxes are not going to support any leader who wants to place an income tax burden upon any

people other than the so-called rich, the top fifty percent who pay one hundred percent of the

federal income taxes collected.

122
Juvenal. Satire X.77-81: “iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim
imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat, panem et circenses.” The
Latin Library. thelatinlibrary.com. Web. 27 June 2013. http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/juvenal/10.shtml;
“Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who
once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and
anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.”: Toner, J. P. Leisure and Ancient Rome. Cambridge, UK:
Polity, 1995. p. 69.
 As with all power-based relationships, the regime-subject relationship can have

wonderful, positive effects. Yet, even those governmental actions that seem to be purely

motivated by compassion and charity will also have violent, harmful results. All actions that

exercise power and authority will contain violence and oppression of some kind, regardless of

their original motivations. In the best of circumstances, these negative effects are small and

easily justified. In the worst of circumstances, people die, or—just as bad, the final results are

political enslavement and spiritual death.

Anyone who actually has a desire for power and authority wants it for the wrong

reasons—without exception. There are no good reasons to desire power and authority. Any

human being who willingly seeks power and authority over another person cannot possibly have

a positive effect on that person, but he will do violence—psychological, physical, or both—to

that person in the process. With the exception of God Almighty Himself, the only exercise of

power and authority that can possibly have any positive effect comes through the unwilling

acquisition of that power and authority, accepting it because one has no real choice. 123 This

phenomenon explains why—the vast majority of the time—one’s boss is an insane person. Only

an insane person would want the boss’s job in the first place. The Man for whom one works is

almost always crazy; even when the Man is a woman.

Whenever possible, power and authority must only be accepted in order to prevent even

greater evil and destruction, accepting it only when doing so is truly the lesser of two evils.

Wise, experienced, mature people—left to their own devices and concerned only with their own

happiness and fulfillment—would never desire such a position. They can clearly and easily see

that it posses a far greater danger to themselves than it does to anyone else. For instance, only

after their first beloved child is born, do most parents realize that they have a terrifying degree of
123
Plato, “Allegory of the Cave,” The Republic, Book VII, 519c – 520d
power and authority in their young child’s life. With that power and authority comes a terrifying

degree of responsibility. This burden is thrust upon them whether they want it or not, and some

parents rise to the occasion and administer that power and authority well, doing as little harm as

possible. Upon the rarest of occasions, one does encounter a supervisor or administrator who

understands these facts very well before he or she assumes the mantle of authority. These people

reserve the use of power for those moments when it is absolutely necessary to prevent greater

harm from taking place. Otherwise, they allow their charges to proceed with their work and their

daily living unmolested.

Ultimately, all power and authority belong to God, not Mankind. This phenomenon

makes things rather hard on the atheist and the Marxist—on all non-believers in general. Since

they cannot allow themselves to believe in God, when the need for leadership and guidance arise,

non-believers have nowhere to turn apart from their fellow human beings. Seeing that, to them,

one human being is pretty much the same as the next and that they deem themselves to be as

good as anybody else, these nonbelievers really have no reason to think that they should turn to

anything other than themselves when seeking the ultimate authority. If some human being—not

God—is going to be the ultimate authority, then why should it not be me? As a result, such

people will literally kill each other for the chance to tell all other people what is best for them

and for the chance to force those people to behave accordingly.

On the other hand, for those folks who are on good terms with God and who have

willingly accepted His power and authority, it does not seem irrational at all to turn to Him for

guidance, support, and leadership—to turn to Him when searching for the ultimate authority. To

the believer, it does not seem irrational at all to accept all of the following assumptions, as given.

God is omniscient. God is omnipotent. God is omnipresent. God created the universe and
everything in it. God has a plan that involves every creature and every element of His creation.

God has endowed every sentient creature with Free Will.

According to Judeo-Christian tradition, Mankind is created in the image of God Almighty

Himself (Genesis 1:26-7). In this way, we are like God, and God is like us. When considering

human nature, the Self is the original archetype, the archetype of archetypes, and the Self is a

reflection of God Almighty who is the origin of the Self and of the Collective Unconscious. 124

Programmed into the Self, there is an undeniable, inherent, genetic need for a God-Creator, that

which otherwise might be referred to as an Image of God, an Imago Dei. Human beings must

have a God of some kind.

If, by himself or by others, a person is denied a relationship with the God-Creator, that

person will replace God in this relationship with something else. That something will become

his new god, be it money, sex, drugs, hero worship, climate change, saving polar bears, ancient

alien visitors, angel sightings, faerie rings, crop circles, whatever. Something will take the place

that rightfully belongs to God. If that person chooses to suppress the replacement consciously,

then the replacement will simply be made unconsciously. It is the result of an unavoidable and

archetypal pattern. It will happen. People must have a god of some kind, yet many try to reject

even the idea of God. Some are even outraged or offended by the idea of God. This kind of

rejection will lead, unavoidably, to psychological dysfunction.

This prototype is the model for Mankind's relationship with all authority, authority of any

kind, including that of God Himself. Man's natural reaction to authority is rejection. Yet,

Mankind may not live without authority. If authority is rejected, denied, or eliminated, it will be

124
Jung, C. G. Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. 2nd Ed. Vol. 9, Part II in the Collected
Works of C. G. Jung. Bollingen Series XX. Ed. William McGuire. Trans. R. F. C. Hull. Princeton: Princeton UP,
1968. ¶ 42; ¶ 70-71; ¶ 73; ¶ 170; Jung, C. G. Psychology and Religion: West and East. 2nd Ed. Vol. 11 in the
Collected Works of C. G. Jung. Bollingen Series XX. Ed. William McGuire. Trans. R. F. C. Hull. Princeton:
Princeton UP, 1969. ¶ 757, p. 469.
immediately replaced with some new type of authority, and the new authority will not and cannot

be any kinder, gentler, or more humane than the previous authority. Even if that new authority is

one’s own Self. It is by its very nature violent; authority of any kind requires absolute

submission in order to function. This need for order, hierarchy, and authority is just as

undeniable, inherent, and genetic as the need for God. In fact, the former is merely a reflection

of the latter. Both are unavoidable. Neither of these drives can ever be denied. These

undeniable drives will have their way. Even if a person attempts to make himself into his own

god and attempts to assume all authority to himself, there will be a god; there will be authority;

and there will be abject submission of some kind. In the case of those who make themselves the

ultimate authority in their lives, this unavoidable reality makes for a particularly traumatic,

internal psychological and metaphysical conflict. Imagine how horrible, terrifying, and difficult

this must be for people who take this whole burden upon themselves and assume the full mantle

of God Himself along with all of His authority.

Even when people focus exclusively upon themselves, there is only one method for

exercising any kind of control or self-preservation in dealing with authority. Everyone has

exactly one choice, and that choice is one of balance and degree. How much freedom does one

give up when submitting to an authority before one completely rejects that authority's power

over him. Authority is necessary in order to establish and maintain order and stability. But, the

more power that an agent of authority takes on, the more freedom and autonomy it steals away

from those under its control and direction.

The greatest of all ironies in life is that, while He is the ultimate authority, God is the

authority who demands the least and offers the most, including the most freedom. Yet, while it

is of the smallest importance and offers the least in return, the authority of Mankind is always
more demanding and more abusive than the authority of God. God does ask for love, worship,

acceptance, and absolute submission, but He also offers love unbounded, eternal life, and

unrestricted freedom from temporal authority. Lucifer and one's fellow man are the ones who

actually want to rob people of their souls, their love, their joy, and their freedom: Fellow Man =

Government = Lucifer.

Lucifer and his relationship with God, as represented in Milton's Paradise Lost and in

every other retelling of that story, is the story of these archetypal drives and undeniable needs. It

is also the story of what happens when one, even the mightiest one, of God's creatures rejects

him and his authority, replacing God with himself inside this archetypal structure of power and

authority.

In the end, God is the only authority that matters to one who has accepted Him. All the

authorities of this world are merely petty inconveniences. The worst they can do to people is

torture and kill them and their loved ones. They cannot make people serve them. If a person

serves God and his soul is prepared for the next world, then he need fear nothing. My soul is

prepared. But, that does not mean that I want to leave immediately for the next world, nor does

it mean that I am longing for the realization of my eschatological speculations.

If—like Lucifer—a person rejects the God-Creator and His authority, then the only kinds

of authority that person will ever meet with are the violent, abusive, destructive authorities of

this world. As I have previously said many times, after long trial and experience, I know there is

no master in this temporal, material world worthy of my service. I am the only worldly master

whom I will serve. If I choose to work with or work for an authority of this world, it is only

because it serves God's purpose that I do so.

If I were to reject God and the Grace He offers me, then this choice to serve no worldly
master apart from myself would certainly destroy me. If everyone rejected God and also rejected

all worldly masters, then society and civilization itself would certainly be destroyed in the

process. In my case, and in the case of all others who choose to offer themselves and their

service to God, this choice does not destroy me. It empowers me and sets me free. At the same

time, it ensures that my God is the true God-Creator—not a false idol—and ensures that the

authority in my life is exercised by the ultimate authority in all of creation, by the Creator

Himself.

My undeniable, inherent, psychological, archetypal need for God and for His authority

has been met in the only acceptable way in which it can be met. I have no need to replace God

in my life because God is—in fact—in my life. I have no need or desire to put myself in God's

place, and I have no need to construct a new god for myself. I need not feel the slightest

temptation to give my soul to Al Gore and the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming, or to

the Church of Climate Change. I need not embrace the false Gods of any neo-Marxist cause, and

I feel no desire whatsoever to make myself into a god.

My undeniable, inherent, psychological, archetypal need for authority has been met in the

only acceptable way in which it can be met. I have no need to give myself over to the authority

of Mankind—aka, the government. Nor, do I need to make myself a ruler over others. I need

not knuckle under to the demands of the government, the boss-man, or anyone else, unless I

know that God has led me to do so, and I never need to make myself a dictator. I am happy,

content, and confident in exactly who and what I am. I need nothing else to make me feel

important, to make me feel safe, or to make me feel secure. I never need give any order at all,

unless I am led to do so by God Himself. Even then, I would be reluctant and less than willing to

do so. It certainly would not be out of self-interest that I did so.

 I also know that God will never lead me to do any evil to anyone, including myself, and

that God will provide for me a solid foundation upon which to build my life. He will lead me to

his Word in the Bible and elsewhere—in reading, study, scholarship, and personal experience.

In this manner, I will be provided with the opportunity to discover the values, the truths, upon

which to build my life and my relationships with others.

For those who accept this kind of vassalage, this Gift of Grace from God, the results are

positive and practical. Life will be better for them and for the people whom they touch. The

evidence of this is tangible and concrete, making the so-called “leap of faith” very easy and very

small. Once made, that tiny leap becomes logical, reasonable, and eminently pragmatic, and

those who make the leap often wonder to themselves why it took so very long to do something so

very easy and so wonderfully beneficial. In fact, the older a person gets, the more irrational he

has to be in order to avoid the pragmatic realization that God and his gifts are quite real. No one

should trust me or any one person to make this leap for them. All people must negotiate this

existential, spiritual obstacle course by themselves for themselves. It might also help to consult

William James 125 and others who have already made the journey.

Those who reject His gifts are doomed to be confused, depressed, isolated, and enslaved

to the petty, secular, temporal authorities of this world—enslaved to the government, to the boss-

man, to their own selfish obsessions and desires, to the false gods that they construct for

themselves.126 Their whole experience of life in this world will be limited to the low, the mean,

the mundane, and it will crush their spirit and destroy everything that they love and care for. It is

125
James, William. The Will to Believe. New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1897. Republished in Kindle
form in 2009 by ebooks@Adelaide, University of Adelaide, South Australia; James, William. Varieties of Religious
Experience: A Study in Human Nature. Centenary Ed. New York: Routledge, 2002. First published in 1902 by
Longmans, Green, and Co., New York.
126
Jung, C. G. Psychology and Religion: West and East. 2nd Ed. Vol. 11 in the Collected Works of C. G.
Jung. Bollingen Series XX. Ed. William McGuire. Trans. R. F. C. Hull. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1969. ¶ 509, p.
334; ¶ 516, pp.336-7; ¶ 688, p. 429; ¶ 735, p. 452
irrational to give one's self over to repression, to death, and to destruction, yet many millions

willingly do so, consciously avoiding and rejecting the comforting embrace of God. By doing

so, these irrational people can only make the world a more miserable place to live—for

everyone.

Those who make gods of themselves or of some secular, temporal ideal are also doomed

to destroy everything they touch and doomed to create only chaos, suffering, and evil in the

world. Even those who have dedicated their lives to reason and scholarship will only be able to

destroy, oppress, and murder if, at the same time, they fail to cultivate a strong relationship with

the only authority that matters, if they fail to accept the gifts of the God-Creator.

"Whoa! Whoa! Wait just a minute!"—protests the non-believer. I am absolutely sure that

there are plenty of people out there who have accepted God and who have offered their service to

His authority, and I am absolutely sure that those people are not only miserable; they are also

murderously destructive, even evil. How can one explain that?

Quite simple really, and I am not cheating. They have offered themselves over to false

gods. If they had truly found the God-Creator and accepted his love and protection, then they

would be at peace. They would be happy and content; they would find solace and consolation.

They would not want to kill and destroy unless it was absolutely necessary to protect themselves

and their way of life. Only at such a time would they be led by God to kill and destroy. This is a

simple test, and it actually works. It can only be complicated by those who give themselves over

to Lucifer in the form of some false god, such as secular humanism, nihilism, socialism, Marxist

Communism, absolute relativism, cultural materialism, hate, violence, racism, sexism, wealth

envy, and an endless list of others.

Those people who claim to serve God and, at the same time, chose to promote one of
these destructive ideologies—those people first lie to themselves and, then, they lie to everyone

else. They lie to themselves about being able to serve God and to serve some false god or

destructive ideal at the same time. Then, they lie to the rest of the world about their faith. In

reality, they have no faith in God. What they really have faith in is their secular cause or their

false god, not their God-Creator. The reason that they are all depressed and that they all need to

change this world, here and now, is that they have never found the peace, protection, and serenity

that come along with a close, personal relationship with the God-Creator. Because they do not

really know and understand that there is a place for them with God in heaven, they have an

uncontrollable desire to make heaven on Earth for themselves right here, right now. They have,

consciously or unconsciously, made themselves into utopian idealists because they have left

themselves no alternative.

That does mean that I am suggesting that many varieties of Christianity are paths to the

God-Creator. And, yes, that does mean that many varieties of Islam are evil and false. But, no,

that does not mean that I believe the one and only path to God is the path to which I myself have

been led. But, it does mean that I think I have found the path to the God-Creator through Christ

and that I think the very best path to the God-Creator is through Jesus Christ.

Even so, I do not believe that everyone else who has found Peace, Grace, and Eternal Life

with God has done so by means of the Christian Church. I am sure that there are Jews, Muslims,

Hindus, Buddhists, and others in Heaven with God. And, whether one accepts Jesus's Harrowing

of Hell or not, it is impossible for me to believe that Abraham, David, Solomon, or Gandhi are

burning in the flames of Hell, along with Lucifer, Beelzebub, Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao,

Pol Pot, and Che. At the same time, I am certain that, in some special place, all those devils are

being appropriately punished and properly roasted as I write these words.

And, of course, the ultimate power-based relationship is the God-creature relationship....

EXAMPLES EXAMPLES EXAMPLES: employees and their bosses; the

people and the government; even when the authority endeavors to be purely altruistic, there is

always violence and damage done. Sometimes, there will be wonderful and positive outcomes,

but there will always be violence and permanent damage done—always.