Dear Author

Dear,
C. S. Lewis

I know you are resting. Rest easy, I do not make conference with the dead. But I shall speak to you, the you I know in your books, and I shall say a few words.

First off, that I do not believe the world is flat. And secondly, that I do not worship Christ because he can make the world a better place.

The world is a faltering star, slowly waning into a state of evil. A state of wickedness. At my age, men wear masks because they are wicked. I wear a mask because I have spoken wrong, on many occasions.

The faith is waning in these years, and the more I read, the more I realize Christ is true.

It's not because Confucius or Aristotle haven't made cogent moral philosophies, but that what they had gotten right, it was taught and demonstrated by Christ. Mozi and Lao Tsu are complimentary to Christ, proving quite objectively that his morals are discoverable. As solid as the Tele Dan Stele or Great Isaiah Scroll, these moral evidences are precious to me, that I had chosen the right religion.

But, understand that Christ would make a better world. And as my world is waning into its age of "Science", Science which steals every man's liberty, I find the principles of faith, that there is a God, would free me from my duties of wearing masks, and would stop me from being censored and having my words erased from the common public forums.

Is there a group of Witches who writhe and control the earth? I do not know. You write about them in your Space Trilogy. And though it is my least favorite of your books, the faith you have to believe despite everything is paramount.

I would believe no matter what. Because as we both know, whether the earth is round or flat, or spins on Satan's finger, there is a God. And Jesus' words prove Him to be that God.

I have to admit, I fear being alone. Much of what I wrote was to make less doubtful the tenets of my religion. To make clear that there was a flood---

How I do not know. I liken it to some spiritual event. Where literal water fell from the sky, and flooded the whole earth. Maybe several billion years ago. Maybe man had been upon this earth for eons, and maybe there is a cycle of birth and death, where man's civilizations perish in fire.

When you wrote, Mr. Lewis, it was paramount that people believed, just like it is today. But, today we traipse close to war. In your time we did as well, but now, my happy existence is threatened by the belligerence of nations.

I am powerless to stop it. I am not its catalyst. Rather, its cataloger. And as faith disappears the world becomes like Philip K. Dick's story I just read. A world where men are unable to ideate and project into the future. They are unable to think critically, and only details are given to those who strive in the higher castes.
 
And because of this censorship, because of this ignorance, some man finds the Robot, and he gives it life. He is taught that it was a moralist who destroyed happy living, but it was---as of modernity---the robotic hive clusters of men radicalized by propaganda.

Freedom I espouse. Let man put any word to ink. That is speech. But men play the dreams of Morpheus---They watch so much Television that their dreams turn to Black and White, as my Grandfather's were. And they play those dreams and corrupt themselves.

Yet, it is censorship that is destroying us.



Dear,
Billy Joe

I have to say a few words to you. You're my favorite modern artist. In that you are not a modern artist, but sing of the ancient subjects of war, political theory and romance.

Myself, I am obsessed with words. Words of all kinds. Censorship is my enemy. All forms of it.

I love ideas. I love notions. I love all forms of poetry---even the ones I disagree with.
 
Make a well orated lambast of my religion, and I will applaud. Which you do well, and I see those same faults in my churches.

I love words, a truly spoken word. But only when such word is true. However, much falsehood needs to be tolerated, so men can attain to the bigger truths.

Learning is a journey, from whence we come from some ideological framework, and we multiply ideas until the mere breadth of ideation becomes fascinating. The communication of difficult concepts, the predictions people make, and how they can be more accurate than any prognosticator's.

We are not fortune tellers, we writers, poets, bards. Yet, we often understand the truths the world would like to forget. Those it would like to hide. How many foolish things had we said, before we got to a point where truth was recognized?

Freedom of speech is America's most sacred value. More sacred than religion. For, religion in the Middle Ages suppressed the truth, just as much as any Fascist or Communist regime. And there is a reason to be afraid of a government regulated by the church.
 
Though I would never be a Mormon, they too must exist, as with all Arians. As forbidding them only makes it less possible for another man to express truth. For, if we regulate our ideas, men who have truth cannot speak, for the government will be a obelisk which defines everything for the masses. And therefore, it being a black, calculating machine bent on power, it will never let truth be spoken again.

I despise many things---but with speech and not violence I combat it. My words are the exorcising of my demons. Those strong inclinations I have for war and justice. The same ones that make you adealistic. I understand you... For I am you. I see injustice in everything, and every establishment.

Unlike you, I understand it is a necessary evil the world must tolerate--- Yet when those princely powers rise up, and strip from the people their voice, then truth ceases. Truth must be allowed to exist--- then so must falsehood, for pursuit of the truth means much falsehoods must be entertained. For no man is perfect in his knowledge and intellect, and by a congruence of many voices, truth is pursued.
 
Speech is America's most sacred virtue. The seconds only Privacy and Jurisprudence. For racial equality, religion, the press and all other sacred rights are borne from this one. And speech is also the vehicle by which we correct what is wrong with everything else. And I commend you on your use of it, though a few F words are sprinkled in. I myself have dabbled with it.



Dear,
Ray

I just read what is, probably, one of my strangest stories. It is the one titled "Utopia".  You had once said not to mess with a younger author's work. Or in your words, "It is a sin to alter a young author's work."

May this gem be the work you talk about, as it is rife with preaching, rife with my cultish religion I had in the past. Rife with all sorts of cringe worthy dialogue. At parts it bored me. Yet, it expressed everything I wanted to say at the time.

How much further we go in society, where Christians are maligned and people are made into laughing stocks. I thought you would find it cute that Baryon found God by discovering Infinity. How modern minds, like Richard Dawkins, would be upset by it, for to him science could only prove God doesn't exist. Yet, to Baryon, the Queen telling him to prove God doesn't exist by proving infinity doesn't either, I found clever.

Yet, I read it with Mr. Dawkins in view. And I might have had his mind reading it, and felt myself flushing at some of the more preachy parts. Yet, as I read it as if I were him, I found the work faithful. It explained all the moral problems of my religion, as it ought to have. It showed why men would fight, and what the religion was that God had Israel wipe out.

You say not to try to change the world with a piece of literature. I do not change it, nor do I try.

Contained in my work is uncensored truths. I use the forbidden words to arouse a dialogue about speech. And I myself was a proponent of censorship once. For that I am deeply ashamed. I tell you that, personally, because I know you would forgive me. And I tell you that because my great work, Utopia, is a salvo across the bow of tyrants like he I spoke to. It is the world they march toward.

I think you would love my work. It is rife with metaphors, unconscious and well worth the horror story. As Utopia is a horror story. It is a horror story of one of these blasted billionaires gaining power, and exercising their brand of religion on the rest of us. We don't want it.
 
I do not know what to do with the preaching, but since it is so old, and I wrote it while young, I will not alter it. As perhaps though I broke some of the rules, it was more fertile than my period of stupidity. I would recant those words---which perhaps I spoke in a dream, I don't know. I begin to think I had spoken them in a dream.

I do not conjure your spirit, Ray. Rest in peace. But I speak to your letters, the man I know through your many interviews and many books. I say this, having a compendium of knowledge of the literatures, those I found acceptable. What I am afraid of is a man trying to make Utopia. Even in my Utopian novels, there was a distinct realization that we ought not strive to perfect man's government, for in their perfection--- well, it is just true that men are never going to be perfect.

And there in lies the problem, of course. We forget the agrarian truths--- the Grass Roots of Knowledge---and we replace them with something mechanical. Utopia is that. It is the replacing of the Grass Roots with a cult.

In that same book I counterbalance two societies, one being a disaster and the other an ideal. Yet the preaching of the work Utopia--- You had said, "It is a sin to alter a young author's work." Frankly, your approval on that project is important to me. I am not being a spiritist--- you cannot counsel me one way or another from the grave. But, it is my best, being perhaps my weakest output as a writer. Because it is written with a cognizance of trying to fix something; to save the world. But in that work, I taught myself so to speak. Where the story is strong, and the preaching weak;  but perhaps that weakness is the strongest part of the book.



Dear,
Mr. Tolstoy

I don't think any author shaped me more, outside of the Bible, than you.

I had taken from your work, that the movements of history are inevitable, and that great men are not made, but rather are the mouthpiece of an entire civilization.

Conversely, as Napoleon snuffed his tobacco, I realized I did not want to be him. I did not want to be the mouthpiece of a movement. Rather, I wanted to be the mouthpiece for my own, individual values. Those I have been taught by the Church and Jesus Christ.

I must say, your moment of clarity with regard to finding God, portrayed in Levin in Anna Karenina, is the same I had. The fact that life is meaningless without God, but I could never accept this life were meaningless. Not with all its beauty, and the power of love.

Anna was a flawless character. I find her realistic, and much like a woman who would do those things. I once told my aunt, after getting the book, that Anna was the good guy. I don't think you wrote good or bad guys, but rather just wrote true to life.

The way you get inside of a character's mind---often understanding there isn't much mind to get into with some of them---it is fascinating to me, how you have that insight.
 
When I read Jules Verne, whom perhaps you have read at some point, I don't know... I see the antithetical to our way of thinking. Though your way is not my way. It is just a large, sweeping breath over all things under the heavens. We must explore it in our thought life, whatever is in our power to understand.

Yet, Jules Verne's characters were so in the moment. There was no internal thought life, no real thought at all, yet in them was the knowledge of a certain man's way. Of experiencing, as recently a man told me to read Ned Land and the Dugongs again. So I did. He said it was realistic. And sure enough, Ned Land was realistic.

Yet in that moment, I understood you understood the person who thinks like Jules Verne. In your characters, you express their thoughts--- Somehow you understand them. To a person like me, I might look upon them and think, "Where are their thoughts?" Yet, their thoughts are in their experiences. Wholly in the moment. Drenched in that challenge with the dugong.

It is not a blessing of mine anymore to be so filled with life. For, I am awakened to my genius. A fertile imagination I had at one point, where all I could do is imagine stories and epic confrontations of war. Now, my mind is fertile and filled with the literature of the past. The characters and great understandings of other human beings.

It is not that people cannot think-- It is, as you lay out, they choose not to think. They involve themselves in the moment, like Ned Land, and are so free of thought, yet governed by their whims and emotions. And you understand that, while I have a difficult time understanding it. And perhaps so do you, yet you have found, what is perhaps, a Rosetta Stone for unlocking other minds.




Dear,
Jane

I would be yours, Miss Austen, in a heartbeat. I would sweep you off your feet. However, I was born two centuries late.

What happened to you was not fair. It is everything wrong with consenting before marriage. I am not ignorant as to why you were in your situation. The weighing guilt on your conscience must have been much.
 
However, I do not blame you. He came into your life, made you fall in love--- and as the Song of Songs says, that love compels, when awakened, that the grass be your bed, and the oaks your roof. To run off to some place private, and to fill up on loves
 
Why that man got to marry, and you didn't--- I am sorry. If I could be Colonel Brandon, awaiting on you, I would be your suitor in a heartbeat. I understand you danced, and I understand the scandalous things you did.

You were in love. Yet, who you fell in love with, that Wickham, you were Lydia. Though you didn't run off, and start a life with your suitor--- to you it would have been better because then you'd have the dignity of being married to the man you loved.

I'm not ignorant. I too have similar guilt; and I bear my shame in this day and age, like yours. Where such a thing was frowned upon, and it was a constant barrage of shame.

In today's age, you would get along just fine. Nobody would fault you for your sin. I cannot say I prefer it that way, only that if you lived in my day, we'd be charitable, and I would find you.
 
In your day, the scandal produced a woman who was in love, and broken for she was not requited in that love. What you gave of your love, I understand though never having been in love myself.

It's not quite true, I was in love with an idea. I fell in love with Peace. I had called it "Love", when in fact it was peace. And that woman I had created, the one who changed my life for the better, was of course Jorgia. The phantom of my daydreams, but very real. And making love to her was never something for which I felt guilty.

I understood from that moment, the brilliance of love. The closure of having made love to someone who will always be there.

There is something beautiful in knowing it is right. And I'm sure you felt that. But, he left you.

The true love story of Jane Austen is a common one; there comes a man with ill intents who sweeps the woman off her feet. And sweeping her, he takes from her the thing he loves most. And then he goes forward.

However, you never gave up on love. You never got bitter or jaded. You, like I, waited and waited, writing our stories. And those gave us the closure.
 
And Jane, you made your five hundred pounds from your Novels. A sum which you used well. But you died so young, for this world was unworthy of you. It had taken from you everything, for a moment's passion.



Dear,
Mr. Hemingway

I would have been more like F. Scott Fitzgerald, so I know the two of us would have butted heads.

However, underneath that bravado was a sensitive soul, who was chief among my friends in letters.

You reamed masculinity. You hunted Rhinoceri, you hunted Lions, Tigers, Bears. I'm sure you shot a few Ostriches in your day. I'm completely different than you, except in my hatred of war and injustice. I know working in the Red Cross brought your insights into the Spanish Civil War. And Pilar is a masterpiece of a character; you are the only storyteller I've read who knew to do flashbacks in the form of oral stories. I hadn't borrowed that from you--- Organically, I figured it out for myself. But yours are just as organic.

Had the two of us ever met, you'd probably say of me "He's a polymath." Meaning I'd be able to write in several different genres. Though, I wrote them well, you were the master of the novel. Though, I hadn't read a good short story from you yet.

The Old Man and the Sea is my treasure. It inspired my own "The Riddle in the Sea". Just in its titular appeal, however it was the story Steinbeck's Pearl was aiming to be. The Pearl is boring. The Old Man in the Sea kept me up reading all night.

We'd not get along, in that jesting manner. In my youthful days we'd have probably tangled once or twice. You'd win, of course. I was a lousy fighter, but don't tell me that when I was a young buck. I was a good wrestler, pound for pound. That was about it. I actually subdued an opponent once who was trying to kill me--- a legit madman.

However, I respect you as a man and as a sincere friend. I am not a drinker, a smoker, a fighter. And when I say we would not get along, I mean it only in the sense that we're cut from different chords. Not maliciously. For I'd be honored to have gotten beat by Mr. Hemingway in a brawl. 

Sure enough, though, when all is said and done, you were a good man. A knowledgeable man. A respectable journalist. A novelist and a scholar.

I could never craft a story as well as you. My best stories aren't able to match yours. I do not conjure your ghost, so rest in peace Mr. Hemingway. Only, that I hope it wouldn't offend you that I say we wouldn't get along. It wouldn't be violent, nor bitter. It'd just be like two birds, a blackbird and a robin.

I the blackbird, the Poet crying of injustices in the land. You the Red Breasted Robin, walking like a man, and the sign of a budding spring.




Dear,
Thomas Chatterton

I had just recently become acquainted with you, from reading my Southey work. He had patronized you as a saint. Though, your life didn't seem so saintly, Southey obviously felt you were worthy to gain admittance to the Celestial City in his Vision of Judgment.

Often we authors contrive schemes, to get us published. To make ourselves rich. You had died young, as a teenager, by committing suicide. I can understand the sentiment of wanting to end your own life, when hunger and want are daily a part of it. Need you have waited the month or two to be discovered? I'd say most likely not.

Had you just gained possession of your work, instead of write in a damn pseudonym, you may have obtained all that you want. Or, like is the case with me, you could have been trying to move into a sphere of class which couldn't want you. I am aware that by name America is free, but it is riddled with the same class struggles you yourself felt.
 
Was it that your work was just discovered? Or was it that they knew you were dead, and now could bestow honor upon you without giving you the riches you deserved? Had you not assumed a pseudonym, perhaps none of your work would survive today. As it is, I can read your entire work, and it is collected, and easier to obtain than Robert Southey's.

I don't understand you--- not now when I am wise. Why didn't you just put your real name on your writing? And then you could have prospered immediately, rather than sacrifice them to the alter of a pseudonym? Did you have some grand scheme of design, where they would discover your name, and know you had written masterpieces? Well, they did, and you hadn't earned from them.
 
Yet, it is not your fault. I would never blame you. For, I too am suffering under a different, but equally vexing problem. In my age, Mr. Chatterton, nobody reads poetry anymore. So, even if the greatest poet wrote, or the greatest in two generations, none would know of it. But I will not commit suicide. Because I am stubborn, and I will eat, drink, and be vexed so that my old age proves I was a wise man. For there is yet much to discover in this world, and I am not privy to leaving it until I had exhausted all of its vanity, and satisfied myself that Solomon was right.

However, I do not want the world. Only to understand it. To live among it. To know its great belle lettres, to familiarize myself with all of its hidden compartments. To know every culture, and their peoples. Only so I can save some of them, and therefore have the company I so lack at this current moment.

Truthfully, I want to die, but am not one who wishes to take on the Tradition of Crea, as Montaigne puts it. I don't like suicide. Life is too precious to waste, even though I am poor. And likely I am happier poor, so that way I can say, "LORD, I am among the poor." And receive my blessing. Yet, let me never be so poor that I steal. Nor so rich that I forget the LORD.

Truthfully, your story was one of few poets who I read. As your tragic life is more poetic than Mr. Rowley's forgeries. Why did you have to do that?

Yet, to earn a wage from my poetry, I would not despair. To have a small flock of people by which I could shepherd through these illiberal times, I would not despair. To have my bookshelf, and the occasional portion of flesh, I am satisfied. Really I am because I am not poor. And my office is like a monk's, compiling through wisdom to draw out Christ. As the monks would be in the same office I myself am in. And I am in a little monastery, isolated from everyone. Surrounded by a few family members. I am not unhappy.

Would my society come and burn my books? Likely not, so I am satisfied with them, and the compendium of knowledge on this internet. Do I want success? Only for many people to read my work. I do enjoy solitude. But I enjoy a woman's company, too. Which I have yet to obtain. I could be satisfied writing my works and enjoying the company of a woman. Nor am I mad like I once was, as that demon had been exorcised from me.

I am like a sage monk, living in his reclusiveness, compiling odes. Yet, let me be famous only for the sake of having not wasted my time writing things nobody would read or enjoy. To have a steady salary from my writing, I would enjoy it. To eat from this labor. Yet now I am satisfied, for this one moment. Yet, why did you have to use a pseudonym?

Perhaps it is like me, where my class prevents me from being disposed to write high poetry. Perhaps the publishers are waiting for me to commit suicide, so they can pounce on my craft and pick at it like vultures. That way my rotten name isn't among it. They are like that, you know? I don't think you died in vain, as you would have waited many years before you were famous. They knew you had died, and wanted to create a narrative with your life.

Mine won't be that way. I shall live stubbornly, and they shall suffer. I will make them suffer. For they aren't prying this from me. And when I die, they will be forgotten. 




Dear, 
Coca Cola

I love Coke. I always will. I can't drink it right now for health issues, not political. But, I'll always be loyal to your brand; unless you change the formula! Don't do that. 

It's your freedom to say what you want. It's my freedom to disagree with you. I in no way condone homosexuality or race hustling. I say Homosexuality is a sin. And it's an abomination. But, if I boycotted everyone for a political difference,---well, that's just not right and I'd be boycotting just about everyone. 

And I do love Coke. So, there's no reason I can't enjoy your product and still retain my values as a Conservative. I haven't stopped watching the MLB either; I'm a Phillie Die Hard to the day I die. Fourth Generation Fan, whose Grandfather was a Philly Pro on the Tamaqua Bulldogs. So, I'm Philly for life.
 
This will pass. People will get tired of being so zealous, and come back to their senses. I'm afraid boycotts aren't going to do anything but make this culture war more militant. Let's all, Conservative and Liberal, just allow people to believe what they want. It doesn't have to be this way. 

Should you say to me, "You cannot publish, nor earn your bread from your writing", unfortunately this is the power of money, and the engine of Capitalism. And it needs to be broken. On that, I am against you.

Because your voice is stronger for your dollars, and mine is silenced, on that note I am against you. But I will not Boycott you. For, you have freedom and so do I. What point is it for me to infringe upon you your voice? Should you infringe upon mine, and boycott mine--- Well, then you are making yourself an enemy when I have been your most loyal fan.

Can I, and you, both sell our products, our brands, our ideologies? Without infringing upon one another, or stepping on one another's toes? Can I earn my bread, and you yours, without one of us trying to silence the other?
 
Not that boycotts are bad. Should you sell the parts of infants, and brew them into your potions, then I suppose I would have reason to boycott you. But, the only thing you do is exercise your free speech. And I exercise mine.
 
It is annoying to me to be told to "Be less white." What does that even mean? But, I've heard people call blacks "Niggers", and I had not cast them from my life. Nor have I boycotted them. 

We all possess our demons. We all have bad ideas. And, to get past this destructive time in our history, it would require it that I don't boycott you. And you don't boycott me.
 
That conservatives still drink Coke. And liberals, if they enjoy my product---and they will---enjoy it. As, there were plenty of times that movies I loved said things which were uncouth. When Star Wars made Darth Vader Jesus, or South Park portrayed God as a Purple Beast.

This is no different. Family Guy I hate. If given the power, I would censor them. The same as liberals would censor me. But, we ought to both understand that it is our freedom, to mutually hate one another's creativity.
 
Yet I do counsel you, that you have it in your power to silence me. And should you silence me---you and Google, and Facebook, and all the other businesses---that is Corporations taking control of the Government. And that is the very Definition of Fascism.

And if the Right can be guilty of it, so can the Left. And with that I leave you to consider.



Dear,
2Pac

I don't commune with the dead. Not as a medium. I don't conjure you for a concert. Let me just speak to your legacy.

2pacolypse, it might just happen. People of color fighting in the streets. Urban warfare. Molotov Cocktails.

I am white. But I suffer against the same institutions you do. And I am not published. Your voice is heard. Everyone recognizes you. You were rich. And I am poor, on welfare, unable to earn a living off of my work. 

In the Slavic Nations it was communism which they reared upon their haunches, and fought for. You don't realize it, but your work is of the same vein as the Communist, frustrated with society. My Marxian background, loving Marx from a young man---now I despise him---makes me want to fight for my prosperity. Makes me want to riot.

Yet, you are published. And I am not. You had the surplus of a king, as the King of Rap. I---at this moment---am poor. Is it race that holds me back? I am of the Race called Superior, born with blonde hair, a German. I wish I were Jewish, and perhaps I am. But it is not my race that holds me back. I could easily pass as that Holy Race which is called "Privileged" by blacks.

Lincoln did not free the slaves for politics' sake. He simply could have never written the Emancipation Proclamation, and allowed slavery to continue. That would have certainly fixed the problem. As the south wished to break apart from the North because of slavery. Lincoln was also an avid abolitionist. 

No, you are just a relic of hate, in an industry which pimps blacks and turns them into savages. No longer are you Kings and Princes like the Duke, Nat King Cole and Louis Armstrong. You're the Pigmy in the zoo. You were not a prophet. And sure enough, you'll have your 2pacolypse. I may be killed by some wandering zealot, radicalized by your music.

The ghettos are bad. But how much of your music is the very vein which emboldens them? How many kids are killed while your music blares? Where is the peace, when in the 1920s, men could safely sleep out in Harlem's fire chutes.

No, I am on welfare. I cannot get a job, or else my sustenance is taken from me. I may lose my necessary health insurance. As that's the real leverage over me. The policies that hold you back are the same ones holding me back. 

If you wanted to fix the world, if you wanted to make your streets safer, if you wanted peace... you failed. But, you continually rap of Race War like a two bit Nazi Krout. And remember, you had the whole world at your fingertips. You were a rich man. But you couldn't let it go. It tied to you, and the anger of your riches, the fact that you proved yourself wrong... and it screams in your lyrics, the cognitive dissonance that America is prosperous and wealthy, and you had your bit. And you got killed by a drug feud. Either that, or you faked your death, and escaped.



Dear,
Mr. Twain

I must say I like you better as a humorist. The last fifty pages of Huckleberry Finn is hysterical. The fact that it is the point where the Angry White Man of the time finds out he loves Mr. Jim.

I'm currently reading A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. It's more to my liking. And The Prince and the Pauper. More to my liking, as Huckleberry Finn was sort of dark, and trust me I followed your advice to not make the river a metaphor. Maybe I'm just stupid, and you really wanted to. But if I didn't catch your sardonic humor, maybe I should be shot for not seeing a metaphor.

To explain my current time, I see everyone is afraid. And nobody is willing to laugh. The Humor of Huckleberry Finn was the point of the novel... we all need to lighten up. We all need to laugh a little. Because that laughter makes us all on an equal footing.

The racist part of our society, the one implanted in me by the racism of the left---for they make me angry because I was not racist before they started threatening my happy society---I must say I am racist a little. But I wasn't. Not until Cancel Culture became synonymous with Blackness. When they removed "Nigger" from your work, that is when I became racist.

I am racist when I look at our current forms of literature, describing colonialism as a boogieman, and cannibalistic squalor is regarded as superior to law and order. I am no better than the people in Black Lives Matter. I get swept up in stupid movements. I wanted Derick Chauvin to go to jail---but, they sentenced him three times for murder. For one crime, they sentenced the man like he had committed three murders. And I thought to myself, "This is the thing that enslaves. Why Black Lives have to Matter, because of these kinds of excessive sentences."

Truthfully, I will write battle for battle the Civil War to erase this vein of racism in me. This new vein that hadn't existed until "Blackness" became synonymous with wrecking the society I loved. I wish, to my very core, that blacks could have been freed with Jim, but their slaveholders have developed weapons such as this fanaticism to keep them in chains. So much so that they will commit suicide.

I read Fredrick Douglass---it is weird, but he made me a little racist. He made me recognize the bonds of illiteracy. He made me recognize the bonds of savagery. I am not racist toward Fredrick Douglass, but I am racist when I saw a wrestling match between two boys. And I saw in the one boy, who was black, the movements of his slavery. To that I say that there is something which holds the black culture back. Because I watched a state champion who was also black wrestle like he were David. And the bonds of oppression were not on him.

What makes me racist is seeing this weakness of character being flouted as if it were superior to the society I love. Yet, I am impoverished by it too.

Truly, I know something needs to be fought for. But a man like Thomas Sowell I am not racist toward. You would not know him, but he is a man---possibly one of the most intelligent on the planet---who speaks to the true slavery. Developed in the mindset. Now I get close to Nietzsche, but may I draw forth one wisdome from him. We must shed ourselves of the Slave Morality. The one that has us rioting in the streets, and believing our prosperity lies in the hands of some force, economic or racial. That one bit I agree with him.

Yet, the Slave Morality which Nietzsche preaches, the one of the Jews, is freedom. It is trust, and equity---the very thing my Brothers and Sisters of that Beautiful Race fight for. For if I am racist, it is against the sluggishness and timidity which plagues my brothers and sisters. But they will get no gain of it, by trying to steal it from me. For I am impoverished of it, too. And perhaps that is what makes me racist, is that I have very little of what they want, yet these wonderful creations of God wish to steal from me what I already lack and am impoverished of.



Dear,
Herr Nietzsche 

My favorite story of you, is the one where you went insane. A man was beating on the stallion, and though the stallion was larger, stronger, faster, superior in every way, the man subdued it. And you cried out, "I understand you!" I don't believe you said this on your own accord, but saw the way religion took strong human beings, and subdued it like that horse.

Yet, imagine humanity without the horse. The most beautiful thing in creation is man's relationship with the beasts. Beasts thirty times our size, man has tamed and befriended, has ridden, has taken to war, has held in his hands. From vipers to lions, man has befriended all the beasts of the field. Could there, Nietzsche, be this cooperation between man and beast if the animals did not subdue? Could there be the beauty of the friendship, between a man and his horse, or a man and his dog?

Such it is, that even the animals obey a morality which you do not understand. The morality of camaraderie, kindness, love and affection. The morality of trust, and cooperation. Where the horse has helped man grow his crops for thousands of years, and helped us supply ourselves with food. They have given us their meat, they have given us their time and energy. Such it is, that sacrifice has created a natural bond between man and animal. One which you would destroy. For if the horse had broken his restraints, and if the horse had never been tamed, it would starve in the wild like you did. Or, it would simply be without the ability to ride. There would never be friendship nor loyalty between it and its owner.

No, you went insane, knowing religion had taken an animal, powerful and strong, and had subdued it. Rightly it ought to be subdued, for the horse is better use to itself and mankind if it is bridled by religion. If it does not buck the stranger off its back. For, by this cooperation, religion has tended to unify human beings, and allow us to forge relationships and common bonds. Religion must subdue the animal within us, if we are to ever form kind bonds, and trust and the superior elements of true happiness---which is love.

If we were an untamable stallion, being broken by religion and made weak by it---how would the horse ever improve its strength, except by the tow of a plough? It would never grow stronger. It would forever be weaker, fed on wild grasses instead of cultured grains. It would have no shelter---no barn to comfort and warm it. It would, rather, be in the fields roaming, in danger on every corner from hunters, wolves, lions and jackals.

Do you really wish this state on mankind? One where we throw off our bonds and keep ourselves tethered to a wild ferocity? Where now the horse is outmoded, and only the rich own them. They are obsolete, taken over by a machine and not a man. Your ultimate goal is to replace men with machines---cold, steel, hardened machines. For what flesh would the horse have, the most beautiful of God's creation, if all men needed were automobiles? We are quickly destroying the wildlife, and horses too would go extinct one day. Yet, you feel a kinship with the horse, being broken by the restraints its handler has given it. Should men had never progressed, it would still be common for a man to own a horse. Instead, we have machines.

Truly, your progression of man to machine is inevitable. For it is profitable for men to shed themselves of their flesh, and take on an iron bone. And like the horse, we shall die. We shan't be strong, but delivered to the wheel of fortune.

You died in an insane asylum. For this horse broke you. Yet its restraints are the thing that made it useful to us. And for progress to continue, it shall require that man go extinct, and never share love or witness beauty. To never understand those things, nor joy nor trust nor faith.

I speak to you, one who is dead. I do not call forth your specter, for you are dead. Yet, do understand that I love the horse more than you. I would see it nibble at the farmer's apple, take grains from his children's hand, and be embraced as an old friend toward the twilight of its life, than for it to be replaced by an automobile.



Dear,
Plato

I come to your concept, of the universality of Word. On it, the Apostle John staked Christ, that Christ is the Word Made Flesh.

I get scoffed at when I say this because atheists cannot perceive a world existing outside of our own realm of existence. Yet, as one of them noticed and I had seen it mentioned, the Aborigines would travel their distant paths, often never having travelled them. Yet, they could navigate them like an Ant does with scent, being blind; because of the Word, or nature within their mythology of Path Songs, they could safely and accurately travel to any part of the continent.

In this, is the power of Word that a man like Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, Gandhi, Siddhartha, Confucius or St. Augustine of Hippo and the Tribal Shaman on the Ivory Coast can communicate ideas. Not mere concrete things, as if language were reduced to a set of logical positives, where it must be materially understood before morally. As this kind of thinking builds atomic bombs, but it doesn't tell us we ought not use them. It doesn't give weight to death, or life, or birth, or love, or joy.

Yet, just as much as Euler's Identity, e^iπ = -1, which if viewed on a half sphere would be best visualized as negative mass expanding and shaping itself into the bottom half of the sphere, only nonexistent, reminiscent of negative space equal to the mass of the half sphere's positive space, making negative that nonexistent half equal in the limit by which the finite expansion of the infinites of calculus stop---just as much as that can be communicated, visualized or understood, so can concepts. Not everyone can understand the concepts. Not everyone is adept at understanding concepts which only a genius can represent or understand. Thus, with this limitation in the human imagination, what can stop us from believing in God?

There are people who cannot understand Euler's Identity. It is impossible to them, as a Horse's ability to understand calculus. As a horse can understand addition, and this beautiful truth shows the universality of the concepts, that even we two species can understand the basic logic of addition. Yet, the horse will not understand calculus, and some human beings cannot understand it. Does it mean the calculus or equation does not exist? Simply answering that question requires there to be a God. A creator. An architect. Because sufficient to itself, the concept exists regardless of whether we observe it. Meaning it is not our own minds which sustain it. So, it falls into the reality that other minds exist, which are superior even to our own.

However, what the Horse understands that many wise men do not, is the sanctity of its rider. It, being superior to the rider, will not trample her under foot. Because it abides by a system of morals present to it, that many of our most intelligent men and women cannot see. A principle of kindness, gentleness, love and trust. The man of superior discipline observes both things equally are true. Equally are self evident. Yet, who makes them so? Who makes Truth which is self evident?

For, by the laws of Euler's Identity, it can easily be said the cause is accidental. Yet, for the horse and Christian, meekness is observed as a truth, which is self evident. Yet, how many human beings cannot observe the truth? How many are blind to it? This law, which exists and governs us, does not allow us to act unbecomingly. And if we do, it brings upon us doom, hardship, suffering---yet, if all were that simple, why wouldn't all bad men suffer? There are men who kill, rape, rob and pillage like Genghis Kahn, who have the pleasure of a different woman's flower every night, drinks mead to his heart's content, expands his empire, kills many men, makes slaves and concubines. And such a man is happy. Yet, such a man is almost universally understood as wrong. For how many happy men did he slay? How many beloved wives did he sully? And if none, how come he didn't take other men's wives? He likely did, but this kind of man is universally bad. One who kills, robs, rapes, pillages---yet, in consequence, if a government causes suffering, it gives those subservient to the government the Just Cause to overthrow their oppressor. Therefore, for a time, all of the crimes of humanity are abolished, and war reaps its reward.

Yet, these truths are self evident, that when the victor is crowned, it can be either to suffering or pleasure for the people who are under such government. And humans know without a doubt that pleasure is superior to pain. Thus, the morality which best suits pleasure is to be determined, and often it's found in the likes of Confucius or Mozi or Lao Tsu, who one discovers filial respect, another discovers love for one's neighbors, and another discovers the world of ideas lies beyond human comprehension or ability. And it is soon found that what these scholars got right---like you had gotten right---were only the proofs of God's infallible word. That if the morality of the Bible were followed---including the aspects on war, which are observed unconsciously by all, yet we'd like to suppress them---it would lead to the ultimate pleasure for those of us living on the Earth.

And by that same tread of logic, it shows morality is able to be observed, yet what we observe of it only bears witness to what the Bible had already witnessed to. And what's even more true, is that only a man spiritually enabled to follow such laws can, or will.

Dear,
Søren

Your philosophy is like a bridge between Nihilism and Transcendentalism. For there are two great forces working in the world today, that of nihilism and transcendentalism. And by your reckoning, life is about making a choice between the two.

The Bible, being the object of faith, is not as important as the faith itself---or the relationship with our Creator. While I accept as true every word the Good Book proclaims, I'm skeptical of convincing atheists of it. Because what's important is their belief in one miracle, and one miracle alone. And that is Christ Jesus' burial and resurrection. If one is confident of that, one will be saved.

Whether Noah built an ark or Eve was literally formed by the rib of Adam---I believe it wholly, but I also have knowledge only very few do---it's inconsequential to the greater miracle of Christ's burial, death and resurrection. The Virgin Birth must be believed too, and that Christ was God Made into Human Flesh. These three revelations are the three miracles by which all Christians must believe to be saved. Greater knowledge comes when you accept the others, greater faith, greater relationship with God.
 
But, I do not pretend to convince an Atheist that the world were flat, why would I pretense to convince him that evolution were not true? Especially since it is irrevocably observed, and as canon to science as any other truth? We ought not argue about it. Rather, the Bible should be accepted on the merit of faith that the Bible is true. Because its morality is true. Greater than whether Noah existed---which he most certainly did---is the knowledge that he was not Gilgamesh, a warrior, firebrand, nor did he fight heathens off his ship. He was a farmer, the only man of faith in the world, humble, and possibly preaching to all that the flood would come, yet none would listen to him. Happy he would have been to have anyone on his ship, but God shut the ears of the world around him, and thought only to save his three sons and daughter in laws. And that's the importance of the story, which even Christians forget. We, often, want to shut the door to the world, and pretend like we are greater in our efforts. That we ought to be like Gilgamesh, fighting with the sword and punishing the Heathen. Yet Christ says, "He who slays with the sword must be slain by the sword." In no uncertain terms, Christ says, "Judge not lest you be judged." Rather, if we are like Noah, we are beckoning an unbelieving world to come join us in the ark, but none will take the call, or they think we're lunatics until the torrential rains come.

I understand that a lot of Christians will be angry at me, but faith is understanding the story. It's not literally believing the story---though, that can just as easily be a condition for true faith. As the miracle we ought to believe, wholly, is that Christ died for our sins, and resurrected. We need not believe in demons, ghosts, fairies, aliens, angels, djinni or otherwise anything, though some of it may be true. We need to have faith in Christ and Christ alone, that He, in bodily flesh, suffered and died and is the LORD. That God Himself died for our sins.

I'm not even sure one ought to believe in hell, but one must surely believe in heaven. As, true belief in Christ will cause one to obey the moral teachings of scripture, to understand that they are true. Such things as Noah's example with the ark. Greater spiritual awareness will cause one to understand the rest is true, but that granule of a miracle is all a Christian needs to convince anyone of. Telling people the world were flat, evolution isn't true, and that the Earth is only six thousand years old is harder than passing a camel through the eye of a needle. And I don't mean the walls of Jerusalem, as Christians in their lack of faith believe that is what Jesus was referring to. It can be done, with God's help. But by our own power, we ought to preserve the unbeliever's soul with one teaching, and that is Christ preeminent. If you can believe in that one small miracle, the life and teachings, and death and resurrection of Christ, then you can be saved. I've seen men like Tolstoy believe that, and even doubt the miraculous healings of Christ, but I'm confident he was saved. As salvation is a willingness to do what is right under all circumstances, through riches or poverty, through persecution or praise. And it is spiritually enabled in the Christian's heart to follow based proportionally to their commitment to the truths in the Bible.

For some men, this is a stumbling block and I adjure them to continue in their faith. But, I worry about them stumbling over their faith when some great catastrophe happens in the name of science, where some form otherworldly is discovered. As I understand they are demonic---but in order to ensure we never face those questions in our lifetime, it is best we evangelize with Christ Preeminent, come in the Flesh. Jesus Christ is Come in the Flesh, and we need to preach that truth before any other can be accepted. And that truth means changing our behavior to fit the model Christ set for us, and not abandoning it. As one can believe all the Bible Stories they want, if they don't believe in grace it's all for naught. And believing in grace means the accompanying of action. Not simply setting our light under a basket.



Dear,
Paul

It will be said of me that I preached Works Righteousness by Christian Pharisees. You know I did not. I preached only Christ can save. Only belief in Christ, his Bodily Resurrection, His blood, could save. No man doing good, who is a Jew or Muslim, can be saved. Because by what authority does he do good? By whose power are we enabled to do justice, and enforce peace?

Surely, Grace is misunderstood. It's always said that you preached works righteousness was a sin, when you in fact preached the opposite. You preached that the Old Covenant was dismantled. Probably where that word gets its origin, the mantle of the Old Covenant is abolished, and a New Law, prophesied in Jeremiah, is preeminent.

It is my deep study of logic that, "Faith without works is dead", means if there is faith, then there are also works. You say, if there are works, there must be faith. Meaning, in logic, Faith and Works are a biconditional. They are equally weighted, where the believer cannot have one or the other, but must have both.

Did not the Pharisees, Paul, believe in the Sabbath? Quite piously they read Malachi, and made lots of lofty rules for the Sabbath. Which, none of those were what the Sabbath intended. As the sin of breaking the Sabbath isn't working on Sunday, but making your neighbor work on Sunday. That is what the Bible means by not turning your foot to your own pleasure. The Sabbath is also about not being burdened with your sins, but allowing Christ to bear your sins for you. So you can be light and confident in the LORD's blessing. And in turn, correct the scoffer when he admonishes you for your faith.

Where we got the silly notion that works were secondary to faith wasn't you, brother. It wasn't C. S. Lewis. It wasn't G. K. Chesterton. It wasn't even Martin Luther. No theologian throughout history, or even still in the ministry today who is saved, preaches that works are secondary to faith. In pretense they'll repeat their formulae, but they do not truly believe it.

But, Atheists believe that Christians are taught to sin. That sin is lawful, that goodness is evil---the law which Christ teaches is on everyone's heart. And they, in their zeal to be good, try to do what's lawful. But, they are not empowered to do it. Before I was saved, it took all my effort to nearly cause a fatal accident on the road just to pick up a solitary piece of garbage. After I was saved, by merely preaching the Word of God amputees were healed and the Blind could see. And I did nothing to heal them. It's not like the Christians who yell at the man with his knees tucked under him, and then whipping the crowd into a fervor so they don't notice him untucking his legs. That's the kind of thing that seems to me that Christians don't believe in Grace. Rather, who is it that works miracles? We, or God?

All things are possible through Christ. The trees, I've observed on several occasions like to move when there is little wind, so it's not a far reach for me to believe that they can get up and walk, if Christ deems it so, so let it be. But shouting at a tree makes you look like a fool. If the tree moves, it moves by God's authority, in order to accomplish the work of God. Not by our own command or word. Same thing when I witnessed men being healed---truly healed---it was not by some intention of mine. It was done apart from me, which is why Christ says to those who say, "Have we not healed in your name," the correct answer is, "Have you not healed men in my presence? I thought you had loved me." To which if Paul has ten thousand shekels, and he gives one thousand of them, it is the blessing of God which gave him the ten thousand shekels. Not by Paul's hand, as I have work but not pay, yet it is sufficient a work that we ought to give that which God enables us to give.

That is my understanding of grace. My understanding of works is that any Christian who is true will perform them, even raising the dead or walking on water. I don't believe we do it by command, like some witch or sorcerer. As that's what they do, is manipulate the forces of the wind by will. We do not will anything, except what is good.

Understand, Paul, I have thought deeply about this. And I know you taught what was good. Befitting for a man was his kindness, and love and his generosity. It is God who enables the work, but without the work, there can be no salvation. Which is why Faith is Biconditional. We ought to act like we truly believed in God, as far as He has enabled us. Which, to the extent we are enabled, that is the extent of our faith. But by what we do, that is a measurement of our faith, too. And what we can afford. Which is why the widow putting in her two cents is greater than thou, Paul, giving thy one thousand shekels out of ten. For thou have more than the widow did, when thou had ten thousand shekels. Yet, if poverty is our destiny, we shall be poor for Christ Jesus' sake. If riches, it is for Christ Jesus' sake. For you had been in prison my brother, and I have not. Except for where I sinned, I had never suffered for the Gospel like you have. Yet, I have suffered greatly, according to what my faith has allowed.



Dear,
Wisecrack

I come to you today, as authors in the twenty-first century. The video essay slowly replaces my work. I saw your video on the information age, how intellectuals are getting dumber. A textbook I read on the Psychology of Persuasive Speech---back in 1980---understood the phenomena. When someone hits a popular conscience, has a marketable idea, or generally interests people with it, it becomes like a demonic possession, infiltrating everything they do.

It's like a miner finding an endless stream of fool's gold, and because there is an equally greater fool willing to purchase it from him, he mines the rock without first checking the mountain if there were anything real within it. Any corundum, diamond, gold, silver or amethyst would even be good. Instead they mine the fool's gold, and like a Jackson Polluck Painting, because it validates their acquiescence to power, they pay top dollar for it.

Let me tell you a secret. Jackson Polluck hangs in billionaire's homes because it demonstrates a principle of success and marketing. That no matter how aesthetically worthless something is, it can still be valuable with the right marketing. With that, artwork rivalling Leonardo---even excelling his ability---doesn't get sold or patronized.

Information is no worse or better. It's not the quality, but rather the notoriety. Yet, if that information is actually true, it tends to offend the audience. Therefore, you rarely get truth spoken in public settings. The best sermon I heard was about a man making an analogy between David and Goliath, with Christians and Homosexuality. And sure enough, he is no longer on the air. Not because he offended, and therefore was censured. But, because the audiences were offended, and therefore he was defunded.

Understand the truth is offensive. The truth is bare. It's gritty. Great poetry speaks truth---and the job of a reader is to understand it. Yet, if the greatest poet to live in 300 years were writing this essay, notice that that same poet doesn't make much above forty dollars from his work.

Markets dictate value. They dictate the quality of ideas. They dictate the substance of ideas. I once got into an argument---as per I saw this in a dream---between myself and Athena. Athena had said, "You cannot allow markets to dictate the quality of information." And I, in my Glenn Beck phase---my phase of loving Free Markets---said, "But why not? Of course people will choose the best information." And he, Athena, said to me, "I will allow it." To which, in the vision, I went home. 

Now, I see the truth. Men hate the truth. And a man---not a god---like Athena was right, though beholden unto him, he had taken exception to my work. And he did not like it. So, he cursed it, and fought against it, and set the world on fire.

For the problem today is wisdom sets the world ablaze. Everyone is beholden to their own truths, rather than the actual truth. Truth becomes a mirror rather than an instrument by which to observe the natural world. And because of this, men and women are oppressed by ideas which are unnatural and unyielding to others.

Poetry can save the world. Only because it would teach people to listen. God will save a soul, but poetry will save the world. Because if men listened, rather than spoke---if men and women took the time to observe nature, form and entity they would understand that there are only two sexes, two genders, and the exception to this a rare phenomena which would be dealt with according to that specific case. They'd understand Homosexuality is a sin because it is dirty and foul and dehumanizing---and it correlates with social decadence and decline, both being caused by the same problem, which is pleasure being made into a god.

And with that being said, if there is no wisdom, there is no objective truth, there is no observable, intrinsic good, then there remains nothing on which to create happiness, or trust or solidarity. It, like G. K. Chesterton said, would last but a generation, yet what a hellish generation it would be.



Dear,
Jordan Peterson

I make it my aim to understand. I am sapiosexual. I love intelligence, mastering other's ideas.

One of the things that I found in my life was William Wordsworth. Who, after reading one of his poems for two hours, I fully understood it. In that moment, the postmodern lie was debunked. It clearly meant what I thought it meant, even down to the subconscious cues and intricacies. I could navigate speech and understand the thoughts behind that speech. I became, what the Bible calls, a "Prophet" or what that word translates from in Hebrew, an "Interpreter."

Understanding ideas---from Nazism to the Enlightenment Philosophies---is my highest aspiration. Understanding why a Femfascist or Nazi might believe in what they do, even to understand it from the most critical level, that an entire philosophy has been abandoned---in both cases---and the result must be a realignment of our values toward the Creator. Toward the natural order. Toward the Formal Element, which right now is unpopular, but later on in life will be a wellspring of chemicals and endorphins more potent than love. To understand, say, Niagara falls is to be welled up with that chemical which is akin to looking at the stars or studying Euclid's elements. The Chemicals which are there because a certain Form or Spirit awakens them within us. Same thing happens in love.

Yet, when we deny those irrational factors---the things which keep us bound to rationality---we tend to find our pleasure in other ideas. Destruction, deconstruction, denying anyone had anything of worth to say. Fundamentally espousing one's own doctrine without first understanding what someone else had said.

This selfishness, the homoerotic nature of the Western World, the inversion of love objects toward one's own identity and race and orientation, is the downfall of Western Society. Freud had noted it, and that psychology is teaching us to love ourselves preeminent above all things, it can be said that selfishness has destroyed the culture. Homosexuality, Transgenderism, Divorce, Serial Monogamy, Greed, Materialism, Hedonism, Tribalism, this is all caused by what Freud noted was the Homoerotic. The turning of our sexual desire inward, instead of outward. To where we destroy because we cannot ever understand, and therefore, never truly love.

Love is the highest ideal, and in love there is the beauty of those chemicals we obtain through wisdom. Through studying the natural course of the world. Through objectively appreciating the sublime feelings connected to truth---which, since the stars have metaphorically fallen, we can have no connection to. We cannot look into the heavens, and draw the cogent endorphins which the stars once created in their observer. We cannot know the forms of love, or even remember the liquor that was America. For those of us who remember it, we call it "Freedom" we call it "Democracy." For myself, I call it Peace.

And peace is only to be rooted in the truth. Where once again Western Powers are disenfranchised with Democracy and Republican Governments, and are enchanted by the cult of dictatorships, of rational materialism---much were the Nazis when they became disenfranchised with Christianity, and sought to establish the social order of Thor, or the Communists when they became frustrated with Confucianism and sought to bring in the social order of the Baalim Chairman Mao. And by replacing Christ with something else---in America, he was replaced with sex and money---there can be nothing except the interest in one's self.

The discipline of reading someone else's words, and understanding them, becomes mooted while it is replaced by the feeling those words implement in our lives. Never truly understanding the words, we are instead thrilled by the feeling of the words. It'd be like the enthrallment of Niagara Falls, without there actually being a waterfall. Which imagination can impart this gift, yet without having witnessed what is true, there can be no understanding of it nor the connection it makes with the Chemical.

Spirit is not merely chemical. It, if it's to be analyzed correctly, is the recognition of whether the chemical is true. For, there are many chemicals, and some masochists feel love by inflicting hurt onto others, yet it does not fit the form of what love is. Neither does our selfishness this generation, where the core problem with Postmodernism, Cultural Marxism, Nuevo-Liberalism, Materialism, is that the pursuits of these sciences are not to gain knowledge of others, but rather to know the self. And already we know much about ourselves, when the more we try to know what lies within our hearts, the more we cannot understand what is in others'.



Dear,
Critical Race Theorists

I understand your notion on equity. I truly do. As it is a thing lacking in our culture, for all people. I understand the slogan "Black Lives Matter."

This just gets into the fact that I am just like you. I suffer from a debilitating disease, that if I don't get my medicine, I'm likely to suffer immensely. I would like a softer transition from employment to getting off my benefits, as if I try and fail to work, I might lose these life sustaining medications. With that, I understand the reason Black People are held down, which is the Welfare System not allowing a greater cushion to wean off of the system.
 
Nobody wants to be on welfare. If I had my pick between working or sitting at home, I'd work. But, I've tried working several half dozen times, and my illness creeps in, and prevents me from attaining any goals. So, as it would turn out, if I took the risk of working, I might lose everything keeping me tethered to reality, as my illness is something like Schizophrenia. 
 
With this is a very real program you could implement to help people get off of welfare, and succeed in the world. 

Another thing which holds people back is the apparent criminal records they hold, for eternity. A program to seal all criminal records---as many times as needed---would be necessary. This way employers cannot discriminate based on criminal history. Yes, it might be common wisdom that most people who have committed a crime are more likely to commit one, but there are people, like myself, who have completely overcome that part of their life.

I have to say the truth, that if I could work, I would. And what prevents me is that if I fail, my medically necessary medicine will be taken from me. And that frightens me more than anything, as me without it is a shell of fear and panic. And I think if you truly wanted to level the playing field, if you truly believed in equity, you would strengthen the grace period between work and benefits.

As, anyone who has succeeded, will in fact stop receiving benefits. Nobody wants to take benefits, and I'm a strong believer in the honor system. I believe most men have honor, and wouldn't squelch the welfare system if they had other options. If they had work, it would be more likely that they would let go of the benefits. Unless culturally, it became normalized to hold onto benefits, even when gaining success as an employee.

And this last example shows the pitfalls of your organization. People of different colors have all the benefits they need. And, as a last resort, your theories are making permanent a crutch which should have been set aside once the leg healed. And for that, there is no honor in what you do.



Dear,
Dr. Laureate Southey

I must say I came to you work with some difficulty. It was hard for me to first find a distributor who would sell your work, and secondly, once I found it it was basically one of those copies meant to preserve historically significant work. So, my reader probably knows nothing of you.

I found your Madoc poem and Joan of Arc suitable in name to create my own renditions of them. For a few months I thought I was subconsciously plagiarizing you; that some demonic force had implanted in my memory your poems, and I was rewriting them. Thus, I spent my twenty dollars---which was reimbursed for some reason---and bought your collected work.

I must say, I understand why you're Poet Laureate. Your work was on the cusp of the Novel's invention, and it had a refined style easily comprehended. Your verse, by modern standard, would seem superfluous, as like the Iliad and the Odyssey are translated today, your work might be better read as a novel rather than poetry. As your work is one of the first works which called the sky blue---it's hard to find a poet. or really, a writer prior to you who would have the audacity to call the sky blue. Most writers didn't describe anything, but rather their imagery was secondary to the concept being discussed. It's not like today's literature where the image is compulsory.

This gets to the strangest part of your work, that it's more novel like in its diction. Which, is likely why you became poet Laureate because you innovated a style that is still in use today. Neither Byron, Keats, Shelley, Wordsworth or Coleridge's style are in use today, unless you count my pitiful attempts at poetry. 

Truthfully, Southey, you are Poet Laureate for a reason. While your work is hard to find, your style has become the standard for writing.

I am reading Thalaba the Destroyer right now, and I might say it's very relatable to my own feelings. I don't know if many people could or would read it today, and be able to extrapolate from it a sense of enjoyment. But, I do, as I feel a lot like the Prophet in the work, forecasting doom on the world. I'm looking for that one bit of kindness toward the Camel, so to speak. 

The story is archetypal, and probably your chief work. As I'm thinking about it right now, and I just sense that there's a truth to it. That a prophet---should one exist in modern times---would exist in that manner. The fact that you knowingly synthesize Islam and Christianity confused Byron; yet I'm knowledgeable that some Eastern Orthodox Christians who speak Arabic still call Jesus Allah. I'm even more knowledgeable, by the subtle innuendo, that it is the Christian religion you are speaking of.

And quite, the story is what it would be like if a prophet walked the earth in these current times. In diction not dissimilar to the Novels of a generation after you. I have to say, you deserve Poet Laureate. 



Dear,
G. K. Chesterton 

I was first made aware of your work, when speaking with a rich man in the forest. He told me about your idea of Communalism. We didn't speak much of it, for he had to be on his way. Then, you became recommended to me when I threw away all of my correspondences, for in the act of cleaning, new ideas began to be uncovered for me.

I had now just purchased "The Everlasting Man." It was also said to me recently, that Christians will accept my work because of G. K. Chesterton, that because my Pseudonym is B. K. Neifert, that will lend to an easier acceptance of my work. 

Providentially, I do in fact liken Christianity to the Eastern Philosophies. I do write stories on its magic and mysticism. I do, like a Shaman, make a new feast of ideas and thoughts for the religion. I do take an old, stale tradition and make it colorful again.

As, you're right. If one were to look at Christianity as one would look at Sun Wukong, as an interesting and rich mythology, it would spark new and great thoughts revolving around the faith. It would be something which---as you said---would carry on for two thousand years, maybe even bring us to the stars. It would satisfy all of our moral failings, and teach us the laws of liberty and truth.

But, it's not Sun Wukong who I exemplify. That is just a myth. I exemplify the Confucians, the Mozis, the Taoists---never the Buddhists---as speaking common sense wisdom for future generations. Yet, each of those philosophers got something very wrong. Lao Tsu said that one cannot ever speak truth. Confucius said that women must be allowed to drown, if saving them meant touching their hand. Mozi would have music abandoned.

Propounding the Greek Philosophers, Aristotle didn't believe in Evil, Plato didn't believe his Forms could be found through poetry, and the Moral Sages of Greece could only find fragments of the truth.

Never once did a sage find all wisdom, nor has a sage ever so concisely divine truth as Christ did. Christ, who was a historical figure---his birth records and death certificate still exist---he was a poor Nazarene who couldn't afford books, yet philosophically, he understood things which no other sage ever could or would. 

It's not that Christ, Chesterton, had original ideas. He truly didn't. The same ideas can be found fragmented throughout history, at just about every stage, and in every place of existence. It's that throughout history, no one man had found the whole of it, and presented it to us by example. Not even Moses.

It is this reason that I believe on Jesus Christ. And simply stating, the distance of the True Eastern religions---because Buddhism is Western, not Eastern---they had found portions of all that Christ would speak or say, yet all of them had chaff among the wheat. There was no chaff in the purity of Christ's religion, which is why all must enter through His gate. For He has moral teachings, which men having Intelligence Quotients far superior to even mine hadn't but compartmentalized, and possibly dogmatized like we humans so often will do with truth. We will be like the Confucians and Mozis warring their competing philosophies, trying to make their truth superior. When, each philosophy has a compartment of the truth. The Mozis Agape and the Confucians Filial respect. Yet, these two, Confucius and Mozi, warred, and their disciples hated one another. Each one, like the respective Republican and Democrat, were ensconced in their truth and thought very little of the other's.

Yet, Christ had purity of teaching that no other teacher had. Lao Tsu found "Word" in the crudest sense, that behind all communicated things lay their nature, just as Plato had, yet the two philosophers would semantically argue about whether the utterances could be expressed. Plato saying words could carry meaning, and Lao Tsu saying they cannot. Yet, each one saying the same thing that truth Is, regardless of how we perceive or retort it.

The fact being that in Christianity, it found even this truth, the most difficult of all truths. The truth that There Is, and all utterances, all knowledge, all wisdom is about tapping into those veins, rather than sophistically bending words around to utter any fancy we like. That truth remains---and this is why Plato hated fiction. Yet, the same things he hated about fiction could be hated about science, philosophy or any other discipline. For, the true geniuses found the Truth. Yet, no genius, save God Come in the Flesh, had found all of them, and this is the miracle of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.



Dear, 
J. K. Rowling

Harry Potter is perhaps the most important work of fiction in my lifetime. All I know of it is the movies, yet within it, it speaks some very critical truths about human nature.

What is the magic? It is knowledge. The combat between good and evil forms of knowledge. How practical knowledge ought to win against academic knowledge. How life is superior to death. How there is a constant struggle between life and death, and also between good and evil.

That sometimes good and evil must war, the book elucidates. When Voldemort silently takes the stage, and begins to purify racially your Wizards. He represents the Dictator. He represents the Iron Man taking up his cause, and using his cause to bludgeon the world into suppression.

Your work genesysed the innocence of youth, the purity of it when it becomes corrupted by the knowledge of evil. Slowly, there is a struggle in every mind between the good and bad instinct, and man must sever from his soul the wicked force within it.

I was watching a video online---as is my habit---and on it a Millennial and Gen-Z were having their metaphorical fight. And then the Baby Boomer came on, listening to their music. The rebellion against the old Folk Hymns of the past, the hatred of the wisdom of a generation who fought in two ferocious wars---your generation---the despising of their knowledge, it is how we will get Voldemort.

Do understand, Ms. Rowling, the danger lies far greater than that. They say only six million were killed in the holocaust, when it was fourteen million. They say only one hundred million were killed by communism, when it was five hundred million. They say that there are no genocides today, when nine million were killed in Myanmar, several million were killed in North and Central Africa, one hundred thousand people die each year from global conflict, not including the eight hundred thousand killed by the United States. China is purging countless of its citizens who are not Han Chinese. Forty-one thousand people were killed in America with guns in 2021, and possibly another ten thousand killed by knives. China, Iran and the United States Saber Rattle. There is rumor of a genocide in South Africa---though none can confirm nor deny it. Immigrants flood the United States, and many are left in mass graves on the border, or die in concentration camps. It's neither democrat nor republican who will stop it.

They say these are peaceful times we live in. Yet, everyone is kept indoors, afraid of a virus a little less uncomfortable than the flu. People stay indoors, and billionaires capitalize on it. Speech is censored through de facto means of control, and of course that Gen-Z thinks your books are not important. Because no books are. Yet, your books warned of these times. As, all the great litterateurs have warned of these times.

The problem is I don't see a Harry Potter right now. Because Generation Z are more like Malfoy---and that is why they don't like your books---and the Millennials are too weak to take up the mantle of a hero. I speak my mind in an age where people are getting arrested for doing so.

Know I respect you, as the only author in the Twenty-first century who used her words wisely. All else is propaganda, or even worse essays.



Dear,
G. K. Chesterton

I had read your The Everlasting Man, and I must say, Mr. Chesterton, that you have made the chief argument for God's existence. Not that you had gotten all your facts right. Really, the chief fact on which you based your whole argument was wrong. But, the fact that your fact is wrong gives credibility to the chief principle of your argument. That an animal can do art, it must certainly be true that there is indeed art and universally so. That an Elephant can paint is significant, because it means there is an objectivity to what can be painted.

The hardest thing for we humans to understand is genesysed in your argument. The development of a conscience. You expertly argue that the conscience must have developed when man had first developed, for we cannot be called "Man" without first a "Conscience." Though, what we appear to have discovered in my age, is that animals all share some of the same faculties of human beings. They are on the cusp of developing a sense of other, a sense of right and wrong independent of our training. And where animals develop reasoning skills, it's often been seen that they grow more compassionate.

Should we find in nature a creature which has all the faculties of intelligence, but without the conscience, I'd say it'd be the same thing as if a fish had evolved into a man like being and with all its intelligence, it is nothing more than a predator. For we have such examples of men who appear to be like this. Men who are devoid of conscience. And such men are not the disproof of the rule but rather proof of it that where some faculty of humanity exists, which they cannot understand but others can independently. Not mores or social constructs... I'm not speaking to those. I'm speaking to general kindness and compassion, which some men lack and others do not.

The animals tend to appreciate this compassion more than the men do. There is a trope of the Saintly Man being a friend to all animals. He can as easily make friends with a scorpion or tiger as a dear or a dove. The saintly man is a friend to the animals because we recognize in animals the timidity and meekness of their wildness, that they will run away at any presence of humans, but should a man be able to touch or even have the animals linger nearby in his presence, we call this man a "Saint". Because the man is so freed from his Shadow that the animals recognize he is not a threat to them. Yet, there is the exception of a Polar Bear who will eat men, and that without fear because they have not learned instinctually to fear men. Yet, that is slowly changing.

The man who is so freed from his wickedness, is the man who is the most compassionate. The least like a predator. This man may eat meat, but his cattle do not fear him, but rather give their meat willingly and without bitterness. For the man who is like a "Sheep" is the most like a man. The man who is most like a "Wolf" is the least like a man. And we see in Dog Breeds, that the more intelligent they become, the more aware of the distinct otherness of those around them, the more compassionate the animal becomes. Though, a man without compassion is just an animal---we call the man without compassion a beast. But the beasts, when they become more like a man, have compassion. It is this universal truth which the Atheists cling to to say "God does not exist," yet, they abandon their compassion oftentimes for the sake of worldly gain. For the sake of cooperation, careers, or even to have friendships. They willingly sacrifice their compassion for these things, and what causes Christians to be ignoble in their eyes is that Christians do the same. In fact, Christians teach it is a part of their religion to abandon compassion for the sake of worldly gains, for that is what the Gospel has become to almost half of all evangelicals, is a hearty approval of the State of competition and Solitariness, and they use God as a self soothing mechanism. They teach the highest ideal is to be self satisfied, self motivated, and self assured. And this reason, Christianity is pugnacious in many Atheist's eyes, for they have no qualms about Christ's teachings, but when they see His followers, they do not see the loving and tender sheep they desire to see, but rather a pack of wolves.

Yet, it is precisely this Sheep Morality which makes Christianity so special. That in being sheep, we are led by an invisible shepherd, giving us greater liberty than the Wolf who must acquiesce to their pack leader, or the dominant male or female. We, being sheep, do not wander or need men to guide us, for the Spirit of God blows upon our sails into the directions where we must follow. We get led by an invisible shepherd, but so many Christians make their shepherds on the Earth, and it is why they will be damned. They scatter the flock, and do not gather the outcasts, but rather create their functions and strict organizations which are to most men boring and structured to a point where no true relationships can be created. In fact, this structure has been divorced from God, and has been implemented in the Mainline Church, where Atheist Christianity is at its peak of worship, and the congregants do not believe in God, but believe in the service and the comfort of the music and the comfort of the social gathering. Only, in that gathering, there is no true fellowship, but rather everyone in it have selfishly gathered themselves to benefit from one another's spoils, much like a Dog seeking a hand to pat it on the head.

Yet, should there be true fellowship, or true love within the Church and Christ's body the elements of what make us Christian would shine, and men wouldn't be in question about whether God existed. For we'd have the Spirit among us, and it would lacquer our hearts with its joy and peace and love. We'd be filled with Spirit, and full of grace and charity. We'd be strong in the LORD, and believe on Christ Jesus with all our hearts, knowing it is just as important what He taught as what He did. We wouldn't half heartedly seek worldly success, or gain, or men's approval, but would rather diligently serve the LORD and demonstrate all of the truths which people admire about our religion. We'd overcome the predatory instinct and allow all the sheep in the field to gather, and chew on their cud, without infringing upon their feedings, and the Christ LORD would shepherd us to the pastures where we would get fed, and we'd be in holy communion, and this would prove God exists to all men, for they would say, "I see Christians have love, and it is a supernatural force. I wish to seek Christ to, to remove from me this wicked nature."



Dear,
Mr. Kapinos

You created the show "Lucifer". In it you have a protagonist who isn't atheist because she believes in "Good and Evil and Right and Wrong." I applaud you for making this character, as Lauren German's  character is of the kind of Atheist as Marcus Krantz---my lead character in my first novel, "The Fifth Angel's Trumpet". If I may put my input, Lucifer is not proving himself the Devil to her in order to ensconce her in her Atheism. As, what better proof of God's existence, than the Devil Himself? Very wise thematic choice, as Satan cannot evangelize the Gospel, but rather can only cause suffering and hell.

With that being said, Lucifer is an interesting character. Portrayed as a man with Histrionic Personality Disorder, who is a sexual predator yet is seeking justice. What a wonderful world it would be if Lucifer sought justice. Every time I watch your show, I say, "If only the Devil were like so."

When I was in the hospital, there was a demoniac within the walls. He'd cry out, "I'm going to destroy you," In a deep voice, like one might see in a Death Metal song. He didn't sing it, but had that tone of voice. And he said, "I'm going to destroy you," while I was weeping in the other room.

Then, I heard the same voice within my head---one of the few auditory hallucinations I'd ever had, though I understood it as a demonic apparition. This particular devil I call a "Babylonian", as there are a multitude of fallen angels, and at the top echelon there are three with twenty-two distinct personalities. Lucifer, the "Covering Cherub", was one of the Cherubim, the four creatures who stand at God's throne. There must have been six of them at first, yet distinctly, two of them were different than the other four, thus, pride must have settled into their hearts. Lucifer sinned according to his "Brightness".

Yet, there remains ten distinct demonic personalities within the being called "Lucifer". As there are ten horns to the Dragon. And seven heads. Meaning, there is an enclave of Ten Kings and seven heads of state who will be possessed by this once Cherubim. Lucifer is Beautiful, and can take the form of a man. Which gets us to Job, when he roared like a lion, and on the command of God, he did everything in his power to strip from Job his salvation. And Lucifer caused Job to act defiant toward God, to question God's reasons for punishing him, yet Job sinned nothing in the trial because Job didn't curse God, therefore, Job was left with double of what he lost.

To understand Satan, one must merely look at this story in Job. Satan cares nothing for justice, and only on expanding his empire. The Satan you created is a metaphor for a Sex Addict, yet Satan is more like Adolph Hitler combined with Errol Flynn. The Babylonian I talked about earlier, the one who spoke within my mind and manifested in the one patient of the hospital I was staying at---understand I am innocent, but its desire is to kill me. Just like Christ was innocent, and Satan's ultimate plan was to obstruct justice by not allowing Christ to die on the cross. Now, I am not Christ---I am not a God---so therefore, I am not completely innocent, yet what crimes I have committed have been atoned for, yet Satan wishes to continue his assault upon me. For like Pharaoh or Babylon, they did not want to withdraw their torments on the Israelites. So, God sent Moses and Cyrus to free them.

Therefore, your show is interesting. Yet, it is not the true devil you have created. You created a picture of a Psychopath. Yet, you hadn't created the picture of the Devil. The devil will place Christians in concentration camps, will purge the world of all religions save the one where he is the head, and will most likely advocate the very morality of the Bible yet replace himself with Christ as the head. In fact, Satan will call himself Christ. For Lucifer is perfect from his begetting, until there is sin found in him. And his Prince, the Beast, will act like he is Jesus Christ.

I say all of this to show my love for your artistic rendition. As it submitted the DC universe under the Yoke of the Christian God. And I am happy that it did. Though there are falsehoods in the DC universe's moral telling, the fact remains that it opens the minds of Atheists to the possibility of God being greater and powerful enough to create a vast universe, where the forces of light and dark stand somewhere outside of it, beyond the constraints of time and space. And God, being all powerful, will still have dominion upon all of Earth and the worlds.

Dear,
Chesterton Society

I have in my possession "The Everlasting Man", which I had just bought from Barnes and Noble. Now, it would turn out I have read more C. S. Lewis than any other writer. I read two of his Narnia books, two of his Space Trilogy books, The Abolition of Man and Mere Christianity. The Abolition of Man being one of the greatest essays of all time. One of the greatest apologetic arguments of all time.

However, G. K. Chesterton has come up with the most solid foundation for belief I've ever encountered. It's nothing I hadn't organically come to on my own, but it is the argument that can convince a man of God's existence. Emanuel Kant had found the argument--- And possibly the reason C. S. Lewis fans don't like Chesterton is that many atheists claim the appearance of a conscience only proves a conscience exists. Which, isn't true.

Should Good exist, and not merely a preference, then God must exist, too. If Good objectively exists in this world, and it exists beyond human definition---if men can understand it independently, and therefore find it like you would a scientific principle---then God must also exist. It's a modus ponen argument. If there is good, then there is a God. Because if there is not a God, there can, quite conceivably, be nothing truly good as it's all a matter of subjective interpretations. Nothing subjective can, inherently, be objective.

So, what Chesterton found was objective good. He derived the genesys of the conscience in Cave Men---where we'd presume to find it---and traced it to the first burgeons of civilization. He found quite accurately that if the conscience existed and was found in the Earliest Civilizations, it could naturally be traced back to all human history. And he begins this by alluding to Cave Paintings. Which proves men had not been savages, but where rather observational and had tenderness. Which is important, because if we can objectively find this conscience in primitive man, it means the conscience is universal.

Which is the reason why Chesterton was a great apologist. Though, he got a few factual details wrong, quite paradoxically, it's the fact he got wrong, that it is wrong, that proves his argument. I'm sure Chesterton would be pleased at that. For, the mere observation of conscience in animals must indeed prove God exists, as it proves the fact of the conscience is able to be discovered. And that those principles of conscience are universal.

Which, the question remains, which God best describes the conscience. In my argument, that's the natural course we'd follow. And the best God at describing the Conscience is Jesus Christ. For no other had come close to even describing it. 

So, I hope you enjoyed reading this, and I bid you to not pit Chesterton and Lewis against one another. As each of them are equally capable men of producing sound and foundational wisdom in their audiences.


Dear,
Psych2Go

I have a High IQ and this might seem like a stupid question, but why does a lack of confidence in my own knowledge make others pounce upon me? If demeaning myself makes me vulnerable, then it means those around me are predatory, and I am their prey. Doubly, by your own admission I am not intelligent for saying two of those things. Regardless, maybe I am not intelligent, and I'm some idiosavant. I'm only smart enough to make that portmanteau, and my intelligence is lacking. I'm also entitled, of course.  

Socrates, considered the wisest man in Athens, asked a lot of questions, making himself look the fool. He was also martyred, which, by your standards he would have been less intelligent when he drinks the hemlock poison, therefore, according to your psychobabble, he was martyred because he wasn't confident enough to abstain from the hemlock.

I also looked into the PPI-R. I'm having a psychologist friend of mine look into the accuracy of that test, and whether Trump's is 177. That would mean Hitler's is 169. And---if I'm being mean it's for a reason---on a Swiss Government website I saw the average college student's score was 291 for a male, and 266 for a female.

This gets to my point. Why does demeaning myself make me a prey? There's something to victimhood culture, because I'm with Black Lives Matter that I don't want to have to hunt my prey with a stick, and play this awkward, white people game where I have to know all the social cues and self affirmations to fit in.

I have to be mean to you because what you promote is something most destructive to the Western Tradition. It is your freedom to write it. And perhaps I am being mean in this post--- But I have it on a hunch that a shrink thought I had Histrionic Personality Disorder because I wrote her a letter in this tone. Frankly, if I do have HPD, it's because I've been taught to self-love more than anyone else. I love myself dearly, and I want the exact opposite which is to escape myself, and invest my time in someone else.

I've been through six years of intensive therapy. I went twice a week to group therapy, went once a week to individual therapy, seen a psychiatrist---about the only helpful person out of the lot of them. I was hypnotized to a point of trauma, I was inundated with this "Self Love" culture--- And they told me to throw my mother under the bus because she made me feel sad. A lot of people made me feel sad at that time in my life. 

What I'm saying gets to the root of your comment, "Smart people don't demean themselves, because it makes others feel less confident in them." What world do you live in? The one I used to know---a long time ago---never punished me for doubting myself. I never had to be a predator to make a living. I didn't have to put up a facade in order to fit in. Then came Elementary school, where I was abused nonstop by peers and teachers. To your credit, I was put in special education programs built for retarded children. But, as I said---and you called it entitled---I have an IQ of 157. About the same IQ as Ralph Waldo Emerson. One of my favorite writers, actually. And it was this psycho mumbojumbo I lived with my whole life, and crippled me into becoming a writer. I had nothing better than to escape the abuse of my peers, and invent imaginative worlds where I could retreat into, and about the only people I did get along with were my brother and his friends. Was it that I didn't display self confidence? Was it that I broke a social taboo? Was it that I was really retarded, and needed a B-Tech and TSS? The shame of that time of my life, and you have the audacity to tell people that their problem is that they aren't confident in themselves. Most of the self confident people I know are borderline sociopaths, which accounts for almost 100% of the College Population according to that test you recommended the PPI-R.

When all's said in done, Therapy made me into the monster I became. Jesus took me out of it. If you want to know Psychology, read Freud, and know Self Love is the exact pathogen this culture suffers from. Self-Confidence and Self Esteem are the very cancers eating away at our bones. What Freud said is that we need a Catharsis or love object. As the greatest secret to psychology is that we are all narcissists, and our deepest desire is to find solidarity with someone else. And I half agree with all of these Liberals when they want to create their utopia of feel good and inclusivity. Yet, I can't be inclusive. I can't condone self deprecation, and especially, I can't condone sacrificing humility for the sake of being liked. What's humble is pulling the child back from the street when a car speeds by. Not smiling while he gets ran over by it. And all of modern psychology is sin; it's claiming the train doesn't exist, while your car stands on the warning track. And if that test is any proof, the studies I saw show that almost 100% of our generation are, indeed, psychopaths. And we have a whole lot of psychology to blame for that.

The greatest psychological truth is to fix your own damn problems, and make yourself better for everyone else.




Dear,.
Brandan Robertson

A clip I just watched on Mike Winger's podcast showed you endorsing Polyamrous relationships. I often wanted to link Homosexuality to this. But nobody believed me. You, the proof of the declining moral fabric of society, proves that the two are insufferably linked. And it proves that there is no love in our culture, if this can be accepted. To call yourself Christian, I'd rather you be a flagrant atheist than garb yourself with Christ's veil.

I don't believe you believe in God or Jesus. If you did, you'd realize that the Bible condemns Sodomy. That is any sex, beside what is permitted in heterosexual sex. I hope you have your deconstruction of faith, and take your followers with{} you. As you are going to go to hell if you continue in this sin.

Frankly, the Gospel is for people like me. Who've made severe mistakes, and want to change their lives for the better. It is not for people like you, who love your sin, and want religion to be a way to embrace sin. If you loved Christ, you wouldn't want to sin. You wouldn't want to be homosexual. It would burden your conscience, and you'd feel dirty and depraved. As, I was once in a homosexual relationship. And I felt dirty, and I wanted to keep i{t} a secret. It was a source of shame for me, and I know that feeling of shame came from God, to lead me to Repentance and therefore live a changed life in Jesus Christ.

You are an abomination to the Cross. I'd rather you have nothing to do with Jesus' teachings, and be an opponent to the faith, so you could actually come to it organically, then use it in the way you are using it right now. As the Church in Laodicea speaks, God would rather you be hot or cold. For if you're lukewarm, He will spit you out of His mouth. Be God's opponent flagrantly, rather than veil yourself with the cross and subterfuge little ones in the faith. And perhaps, maybe, you will find yourself confronted by the True God of creation, and not the one you've constructed and have taught.

Dear,
Mr. Harris

For a man who murdered, there is no hope in this life. Such a man, having no hope, ought better well to murder even more and suck life's pleasure from its very marrow. He ought to rape. He ought to pillage. Because there is no moral expungement for the crime. Not under human agency. Such a man, if put in prison, ought to escape prison. He ought to slaughter and pillage, and seek every ounce of pleasure from life that he can. And, such a man, only killing him could suffice to end him. The very crime he committed then be levied on the executors of his judgment.

It's only the logical outcome of such a man, having no way to be forgiven. And such a man has existed many times throughout history, and has pleasured himself with young girls, men's wives and even men and boys. Never suffering in their life, always being rewarded by his cohorts. They live in Africa, they live in Russia, they live all over the place, such men. And without Hell, such a behavior is logical. Without justice, of course you're not stupid enough to believe that it'd create less suffering in the world to allow such behaviors to exist. Therefore, justice is easy to believe in. Yet, it's so hard to achieve, as half the world's conscripts and nuclear weapons belong to such men as these.

In what way would change such a man? It's only Christ. Who offers forgiveness, once and for all, and saves one, giving one a motive to live and therefore be beneficial for man and neighbor. As, the logical outcome for anyone who has murdered---knowing they will suffer for twenty to forty years, and without a plan for redemption---is only to reap as much destruction on the world, and therefore gain as much pleasure as they can. It can be only hedonism.

Now, you understand the man I'm describing is wrong. Inherently, such a man ought not exist---and such a man is rare who'd be even capable of this. And this is evidence of the conscience of man, yet in that conscience lies the proof of God's existence. That most men are restrained by it. Yet, a slow backslide has occurred in other cultures to completely erase the conscience in large swaths of humanity. The conscience is by no means universal, and it can be inured or even removed. If Christ's forgiveness does not exist, and His law not preeminent, and His truth not supreme in the hearts of man, then what follows is the kind of man I just described for soon it would be necessary for all men to be murderers just to survive. It'd be the Cave Man wandering the desert, impregnating his wife, eating her fetuses, raping her---and there's no evidence that such a man ever existed, but rather the contrary is more often proven, that man from his inception---because we also observe it in the beasts---had compassion. 

You might say, "Aha! You've only proven my case." No... I have not. For a world of predators has existed in Rome and Tenochtitlan, where there was utter lawlessness and the complete indulgence in humanity's vices. So, there has been such men as the cave man just described. But, we know such a man is wrong because he creates suffering. Yet, to some men suffering is pleasurable, and such a man is often a murderer.

So Christ is necessary for human kindness. To solidify the gaps in our justice, and to give men a hope beyond the Earth. Or, something to fear. For without it, man goes astray. Not because it's a fantasy to help men be better men, but because it's true that there must be eternal justice for a man, whether he be good or evil. And one principle of the Scripture is that all men are evil, for we cannot see the suffering we cause, but it inevitably is true that we do cause suffering. For it is compulsory. Thus, eternal salvation must rest upon Christ and Christ alone, for we have all caused enormous amounts of pain, and we are all guilty, so we must all likewise be saved by one Who was not. For the only way to redeem man, is to accept he is fallible, and therefore, give ourselves over to the knowledge that this world is cursed, and is not where we are meant to be.

I go round this cycle to help you understand humanity more completely, and why you must be wrong. For, yes there are tidal waves, and yes there are starving children. But, those children starve---the gross majority of human catastrophe---due to insufficiencies in human kindness, and a defiance of the Sabbatical laws which tell man to rest, and his land to rest. For, there is a command to rest in the Bible, and it's an important command. To rest in Christ.

Because such a man needs Christ, and so does justice, and so do all of humanity's pleasures rely on there being a God, for what we've found in human agency is precisely the vices I just described. And those peoples who are rejuvenated by Christ, it shows that the very pleasures of love rely upon it. Yet, there is also pleasure in sin and because of that, there ought to be a hell.

Dear,
Mr. Peterson

First off, I don't advocate Socialism. But, there is a technical flaw in American Society. It isn't fixed in Germany, either, as Brandenburg Airport has been overtaken by corruption. Europe is having problems building its bullet trains. In America, there are old examples of public transport systems being wiped out by automotive companies. There's something fundamentally flawed with capitalism, Jordan. The average man in American society is making below fifteen dollars an hour. They are incapable of accomplishing the work, and must compete for low salary jobs, which offer no job security. Not all of them can master writing like I have, but I have made very little from this craft. So, American society is not a meritocracy. Something prevents my works from being published. Probably a hierarchy of sorts. And with that being said, it is unfortunate, but something in American society must change.

It's not to say that everyone should be earning stipends. There is a corrupt society as well. But, everyone should be free and able to master their skills and earn a living. I've spent fifteen thousand hours on this work, written a copious amount of work. Something near three quarters of a thousand posts just on this blog. Do understand something prevents me from earning my bread, and it isn't talent. But, rather, when I send my works out I get rejection after rejection. There are iron smiths, bakers, landscapers, restaurateurs, writers, musicians, painters, librarians, farmers---the list goes on---who are being priced out of their trades. Farmers are being broken because they cannot compete with the large fields---as the Bible says they "Join Field Unto Field"---growing enough corn to fill the entire landmass of Ireland or Scotland. Painters cannot create in aesthetics because Jackson Polluck is patronized. And you've noticed Disney's craft is awful. But that it is what Disney produces, and billions of dollars are spent, in record numbers, on patronizing those movies. Soon, there will be no movies. Not because of communism, but because of an engine of capitalism. An engine of capitalism which makes Woke Culture lucrative---and it is. It is lucrative for tyrants at the top of the markets, who use these little gremlins to foment wars, and race riots.

You must understand the problem. My being offensive is an engine of capitalism. Because what I say is offensive. And it shouldn't be. You were allowed your portion by men at the very top, to be a Straw Man. I was told in a vision that you would suffice to be my voice. And perhaps I wanted you to do the arduous task. I cannot do it. A part of me is very thankful I haven't gained the things I want. And I don't blame you for it. Yet, I am underneath, a voice of conscience in the ears of great men and women of our times. I do not get paid, but I'm listened to.

But, I understand the economic forces keeping me from gaining my fortune. I have not the money to go to college, nor the time. I am thirty-one, nearly thirty-two. I understand the problems in society were fundamental. I cannot even write my masterpiece, because I see America slipping away into the forgotten strains of history. I do not want it. I don't. I'm not the one pushing it in that direction. I'm the one saying that man must fight---not wear their masks, go out and live their lives. Maybe some of us need to be put in prison. Maybe some of us need to be killed and martyred. But, it is precisely the capitalistic force that is keeping America down. It is profitable to fear monger. It is profitable for great and rich men to force us indoors, and reliant on the umbilical chords of Amazon and Netflix. Rich men are making great fortunes off of our disparity. And it needs to stop.

Dear,
My Future Self

You opened up a really interesting topic, with your video describing the Lord of the Rings. Whether J. R. R. Tolkien had constructed the narrative with this in mind.

I'd say yes... Tolkien was trying to basically create a mythology for England---as you said---one like Ovid or Homer's Masterpieces, or the Irish, Welsh or Scotish folklore. Tolkien wrote a lot about myth, believing there should be mythology to supplement the real world. That myths could contain in them important knowledge.

So, what you're getting at, Tolkien would probably say the retellings of Frodo and Bilbo are more important than the actual historical events themselves, because they fit the formal ideation, and therefore, theme and moral can be extracted from them.

Tolkien was writing a mythology---it was fiction---and he wasn't deluded to believe his Myth was actually English. He created the books because he was frustrated that all of England's mythology was basically borrowed from other cultures. Beowulf is Danish, and Arthur is basically a retelling of Charlemanian mythology. But the primary point of Tolkien's was to highlight the importance of fiction, and very real benefit of having it as a supplement to reality.

Tolkien was not talking about the Bible. I don't think his beliefs were that the Bible was fiction, as he was a devoted Catholic. And the correct way to view Middle Earth is to understand that the story is, in its formal elements, constructed in a way to communicate what was true from the myths. That Aragorn needed to be a paragon for a king, so other kings could model themselves off of him.

It gets to the point, where probably what Tolkien wanted the reader to come to, was that the pedantic scholarship was basically unimportant when compared to the overreaching structure and story of the Lord of the Rings. It was his life's work to validate myth, and the fact remains that it is his retelling. In effect, Tolkien was Illuvitar, thus, what he wrote was the canon and actual accounts of the events. It's interesting to think that Tolkien made himself into the god of Middle Earth, so the real analogy to take is that it's moot what the scholars he invents create. They are, in actuality, his inventions too. What's important is that Illuvitar left the Lord of the Rings for people to study. And the formal elements were the most important aspects of the story. The symmetry and the knowledge.

Which gets into a person like me's field, where I study literature. The point of which, that what the canon of the literature is---as some novels like War and Peace have an actual canon, and some passages are omitted from the work---that the author wrote it, and intended the work to be read like that. Meaning, it was necessary for the story to be constructed in that way---as intended by the author---and therefore presented in that form.
It's important to understand this when approaching literary studies. That the moral of Tolkien's was not to get bogged down in the meta scholarship, but to rest in the fact that Tolkien wrote the work, therefore, since Tolkien wrote it, it is the literal events. Because Tolkien was Illuvitar, and the canon he presented, while working through Bilbo, Frodo and Gandalf, was the canon set forth and given to the folk of Middle Earth.

Which, was an apologetical argument in defense of the Bible, that it was really moot what the scholarship entailed, but rather that God Himself had written the work, and intended it to be read in the form it is. Using agents like the Prophets, whom he divinely controlled.

 And if you think about it, we are a lot like the thoughts of God, so it's not that far fetched, and I think that was what Tolkien was aiming to display. That he wrote it, it's his characters, so it's written exactly as its intended and miraculously at that. It's what his Middle Earth people need, and was given by Illuivitar. And the scholarship, at that point, is moot. Because Tolkien knew he wasn't God, but he wanted his Lord of the Rings to be a supplemental mythology for the English people. The Lord of the Rings isn't Metamorphoses, as Tolkien is not writing within the framework that the mythology is true. Only that it's a supplemental way of understanding the world, which is what all fiction is. Tolkien loved all mythology and all literature. To him, a story was more important because it had a Formal Element which could teach you higher laws and greater truths. Which, would be probably what he'd say about his Lord of the Rings, too, is that the Red Book is like the Bible, and Iluvatar preserved it for Middle Earth in its the most beneficial form it could be rendered.

Dear,
Homosexuals

The reason homosexual marriage cannot be accepted, is because it is a slippery slope leading to the exact problems we see today. By you gaining your right to marry, I have lost my voice. By you being protected, I have lost the right to criticize it.

Sin is sin. And when sin takes root in a society, it overturns it and throws the whole world upside down. How many things have been done to me, and the country accepts it? It's the decadence of Rome. Something must destroy wicked institutions, and if not common law, then it is the sword which comes barreling down upon it from the Northern Lands. For a country has no right defining marriage in a context other than what's natural to human beings. Without that standard, Freedom and the fidelity of Worship and the very social fabric collapses. And that collapse comes from many different conspiracies, all working together to cause a nation harm.

Simply put, frustration brews when its allowed, and boys and girls increasingly make the choice because it is easy. The very notions of truth begin to dissolve, and at the last, there is nothing left in the culture worth standing on. Simply because a capital offense is legalized and then encouraged.

You might say, "Aha! The Sabbath is a Capital Offense!" And rightly it is. Are middle income workers gaining or losing in this economy? Oh, there's other sins in this country like greed, yet the hedonism shown in this culture is at a point inconceivable to previous generations. It is exactly what the Founding Fathers warned would happen in the society. As, they studied Rome and Greece, and they knew well that it was the decadence which lost them their right to choose leaders. And that same decadence is here in America corrupting the very fabric of civilization to a point where happiness is far away and almost unheard of.

What you must understand is that Law is a part of order. It is to be established based on what is natural to human flourishing. Laws are constructed in benevolent societies to order to produce the most amount of human happiness. When laws outright legalize something heinous and corrupt---such as murder---the society ceases to function. It, rather, falls apart. And though it lasts in name for a thousand years, it is complete misery for the people who live in it.

What needs to be understood is that every sin has consequences on the world around it. Every sin, if accepted or tolerated, erodes at the social wellbeing of the civilization. To where, freedoms are given up for the decadent right of hedonism. In exchange for pleasure, we give up our sacred rights to speak, to think and to assemble. And it is directly correlated, and it is directly being shown and prophesied to you.

I say this, having witnessed a time where men were pure. Homosexuality wasn't even a word, let alone would the concept cross our minds. Rather, it entered into the world by my sin, and also yours and others. And by that, it was given a name, and by naming the sin it became normal.

Love is so fundamental to society, and without it, society cannot be happy. When Sodomy, Catamy, Sadomasochism, Serial Monogamy or Polyamory and Paramours are accepted as normal behaviors, what of love? What of marriage? What of the solvent bonds and trust built between two partners? There can be none, because every man and woman one meets are corrupted by selfishness and the world around them. And as a result of that, nobody is happy anymore; they may have fun, but not true joy. And that is because sex is made an idol and the very Love I worship is polluted in the name of a pleasant sting. Can two men raise a child? Or two women? No. Not if those two are sexually promiscuous with one another because the sex homosexuals have is selfish. It can neither produce offspring, nor is it reciprocal. 

I as your friend tell you this: Homosexuality is a sin because it is selfish. And because it is selfish, it makes people selfish. And when people are selfish, people are not loving. And when people are not loving, happiness fades away.

Dear,
Richard Dawkins 

Pi ends at the thirty-fifth digit. Does it not?

Dear,
Mr. Sagan

There is no life on other planets. There are other planes of existence. On those there are life, but it is more humanlike than anything. There are other dimensions, possibly infinite, or perhaps limited to twelve---which, all have created human life, or life which resembles humans. Aliens are demonic entities made corporeal. 

When you see the things they will do---as I've seen them in my dreams---there will be no question to you, who lives in the golden age of humanity, that this is so. For my generation, it will not be so. Let me never see it. That is all I wish or want. However, soon it becomes apparent that technology after a certain number of years ceases to be really science, and can only be called Magic.

Dear,
The Atheist Church

Why do you want religion without Christ? I think you display something poignant, that many people go to church for the wrong reasons. Maybe you are just a manifestation of that trend in culture, of people wanting worship without a diety. People want the benefits of kneeling and standing, and sitting and standing, and singing bad songs, and the hysteria of rolling around on the church floor babbling in a made up language. Frankly, it offends so many Christians that you are doing this, but you only can do it because so many churches are doing the same thing.

It's interesting to me how you want the most boring aspects of Church. Personally, as a child I found it boring, I still can't bring myself to go to that kind of a gathering. Church to me is sitting with a friend discussing Jesus. I feel that is more like church than any process I'd ever went to. I don't get socialized at Church, I feel rather empty when I go. Except for one thing, which is the very thing you take out of it.

If it weren't for Christ, I wouldn't even dream of going to church. If it weren't for the connection I had with God, and the overwhelming sense of peace I receive by communing with Him, the prayer, the two way discussion... I wouldn't see any reason to go. Sermons are pretty boring, and if it weren't for the direct communication with God, strengthening my heart, I wouldn't even listen to them. 

Church is boring. Why do you need to do it? Why do you remove the only part of it that makes sense? Sitting around talking about morality isn't going to fix the problems in your heart. Only having God point to the flaws, and then empowering you to uphold the moral laws, that's the only benefit I can see from moral teaching. A friend of mine said Gandhi used his authority to elicit oral sex from his followers, so obviously there is no follow through with moral teachings without God to help empower you to follow them.

Which leads me to the question, "Why?" Many Christians are asking it. Why would you want the ceremony of church, when you could just get together and have a barbeque every week? Often, I've thought Church would be better if that's what it was. Why do you feel the need to sit down for long hours, listen to boring lectures, sing mildly annoying songs and get up and sit down four to five times? Why raise your hands and get tingles? Why? Experientially, why would you do it?

Unless God were connected to those events, making even the worst melodies something soul cleansing, why would you even do it? Are you experiencing community? Why not just join rotary club? Why not just join an Atheist club? Why form it like a church?

Just some questions, as I abhor going to church. It's one of my dirty little secrets. If for the hordes of superficial relationships I'll make, where I know people by name but know nothing else about them, or the bad songs and redundant lecturers, I don't understand why you'd want to recreate that, and just remove God from it. For me, God's the only reason I would enjoy it.

Dear,
Atheist

If atheism were a lack of belief, why proselytize it? Since you're so technical with our definitions, proselytize has two different senses. The first is to try to convert someone The second is to promote. You are promoting your lack of belief? So, what is it called when you set out to promote or convert someone to an opinion?

Seems contradictory.

Sincerely,
B. K. Neifert

P.S.

Disbelief already means "Lack of belief." and having to create apologetically arguments to defend your position, isn't helping your cause.

Dear,
Alex

On the problem of suffering. The Earth is cursed. It is cursed because man has the knowledge of sin. When Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, they immediately had the power of judgment given to them, and through judgment, comes the power to discern right from wrong. With that knowledge, comes the ability for man to cause greater suffering.

It's my thoughts that animals are like Pan chasing Syrinx. It might seem cruel, but they are animals. They haven't the knowledge of right and wrong. Which, God was willing to keep that state of bliss for humans, too. Yet, when our ancestors chose to eat of the fruit in the garden, it genetically infused in us judgment. It's also why Christ is very adamant about surrendering judgment. Because it's God who judges, and though man has that capability, it was never man's place to have.

So, the suffering of this world must be endured---as God created the world to include suffering, and thereby prove to man that this was not his eternal home. And by doing so, there is a promise of a greater life hereafter. Because this world is flawed, and is filled with the knowledge of good and evil. Men without that knowledge wouldn't be capable of the great crimes they commit. For without that knowledge, there wouldn't be the ability for man to creatively cause suffering. Or, their greed which inevitably creates suffering in the form of economics. Or their unrest, which also causes great suffering.

The laws handed down by God were given to reduce suffering as much as possible. For, it might seem strange, but if those laws were followed, there would be considerably less suffering on the Earth, because man would be judged, and by judgment, Law would supersede anarchy, and thereby create order. But, since Christ came to redeem man, judgment has been taken from men, and has been given under the authority of the Son, to judge all human life when the time comes for judgment.

With that said, suffering was intentionally built within this world because sin entered into it, and with that suffering, there is hope in a better future where suffering will be put away with the grave. All suffering will cease one day, by God's authority, and this world is the battleground, where souls who are good will find Jesus, and suffer this life for a short amount of time, while those who take their pleasures here will be put away. For those who find their pleasure on the Earth will only have that pleasure. Not to say rich men cannot be saved, but only to say that it is easier for a camel to be thread through a needle, than for a rich man to enter into heaven. The reason why is that the rich have attained their wealth, often at the expense of the poor who work long hours for their benefit.

I say this with regret, but we all will answer for the suffering of the poor. Either be forgiven by Christ, because we accepted Him, or be thrown into hell, for you and I are both rich, and all of our sustenance comes from their sweat. It's a crime worse than murder, and one Voltaire understood well and vexed him all of his days, knowing that his beloved sugar came from the backs of workers in Cuba and Costa Rica who were essentially slaves. That is the price we pay for being Westerners, but God has given us a way to be redeemed. And those men in Costa Rica, who some of them having to murder, steal and assault to live, will thereby also be forgiven of their crimes.

There is suffering because of sin. It's as simple as that, and sin is defined in the Old Testament and the New Testament. And the world is filled with sin, both rich and poor. And we, having been given the choice, will either find Christ and thereby attain to Eternal Life through the predestination of His Election, or we will choose him not, and thereby have our names blotted out of the book of life. The choice---since your so fond of that concept---is merely to accept His grace or not. There is no other choice.

Dear,
Ms. __________

I suppose we write poems just so other people can think what they will about them. Yet, when I read them, I enjoy the act of learning what someone else had known. When Dante, for instance, linked rage and wealth, it was something only a master poet could do.

Being that you are published, and you are the authority over the art---seeing that you teach courses on it---it's just what we need to do with poetry, is ensnare people in their little postmodern bubbles. It's like no thought had ever been made, beside one internally entertained. No word on a page could ever inspire one to think about the world differently. No logic could be exerted on an "Esoteric Construct" that could ever possibly be true.

I understand the reason people read poetry right now. It is easy. There is little enjoyment in doing Math, so there is little enjoyment in finding something wise in someone else's words. I understand it perfectly---and do not begrudge you for getting published. However, I may interject that what makes a good poem is truth. That something true had been said.

You can never love someone you haven't listened to. You can imprint on their words as many of your own ideas as you want, but you don't truly understand them until you have recognized what their idea is. Whether disagreed with it, or not---it certainly doesn't matter. Because something had been said.

It's that reason, that if we forget this about poets like Eliot or Emerson, then there really is nothing left. There is no reason to speak, and no reason to even write a poem. If you are okay with someone interpolating into your poems---what business is it of yours to be a poet? If what you're offering is entertainment, then there can be no thing worth writing. Movies are far better an experience than any novel I'd ever read. So are dreams; which wise men try to interpret.

I suppose the enjoyment of all poetry is to think what you will, and refuse to believe someone else may have thought differently. And then to do them the discourtesy of never really trying to understand what they said. And so long as profits are coming in, what was the art but a means to getting rich?

Dear,
Mr. Ehrman

One of the first things I learned, after my conversion back to Christianity, was that "Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani" was a Rabbinical teaching method, where the first line of a Psalm was quoted, and meant to be interpreted. The psalm being quoted is Psalm 22. 

As for the inconsistencies in the Gospel---especially the point where Jesus talks---there's an Old Testament verse "He was silent as a lamb before His shearers," The prophecy was fulfilled by Christ. The fact that Christ did speak, and fulfilled the prophecy is comforting to me, especially with regard to Micah 7, where the Prophet being tormented by the witch is said "Not to Grumble." Meaning, a prophecy can be fulfilled, though it hadn't literally transpired.

With that, I'm not going to reveal all of the secrets of the universe to you. You'd likely not believe them. But your sermon on the inconsistencies of the Gospel just reaffirms the comforts of Christ's teachings, and dissuades me from having legalistic beliefs. Which, I'm happy about that because a prophecy gets fulfilled through a type, and not through literality. There's also a verse in John where Christ responds to Pontius Pilate. But, Christ was still "Silent" before His Shearers. And Christ was sinless, and a perfect fulfillment of Prophecy, sufficient as a Lamb.

And, the prophecy being fulfilled through Christ was in Psalm 22. It's literally one of the first things I was taught as a Christian. And frankly, the thing that converted me to Christianity, was the apparent meaninglessness of life without God's existence. And the moral vacuum, that was apparent didn't exist. I can clearly see morals are inherent. 

Dear,
Mr. Peterson

I come to you again, today, to tell you that morality is rational. That the psychopathic condition is irrational. Because more pleasure is derived from law, than lawlessness. More pleasure---for all people---is derived from law, than lawlessness.

Precisely, what law best creates pleasure? And there in lies which God is Preeminent. We have thousands of years worth of data, to show that a God whose moral is most like Christ's, is a God Whose morality best suits the pleasures of men.

We see that men cannot have pleasure without morality. And the strictures of certain taboos---when accepted---take away the general pleasure of men because in history, men follow certain paths, and those paths create consistent behaviors and societies.

Men are like a Quadrilateral, where the laws of Quadratic Equations can be used to formulate any shape, so long as that shape has four sides. There is any number of shapes that can be created within that system, all of them valid and circumstantial based on the individual. That governorship comes to the Family, to so shape an individual within the constraints of the laws governed by such an object.

However, when men are forced into a system that warps them into a shape outside of what is written within them, they break. And that law is axiomatic, and founded in the thousands of civilizations we've seen throughout history. One degree off from that four lined shape, and men cease to function. For the laws are not meant for men anymore, but might as well be for some alien creature who does not have human DNA.

Yes, morality is objective, and the higher principles of human behavior are subject to a Higher Law that can be observed throughout history. That men rejecting that law, break the constancy of their natural shapes, and begin to degrade into chaos. Yet, the natural order is that some other power is put in place to restore order. And that is what is happening right now.

Why we know Jesus is God, and God exists, is that the morals best describing Human prosperity, and the morals which best govern Him, are exactly the morals described by Christ in His sermons, and also the Laws of Moses---that unclean foods create heart disease and thereby shorten lifespans, that unclean fabrics create septic rashes, and that sin is punished according to a gradient scale based on the severity of the crime, or that some men, having committed heinous crimes, need a way to get right before God and so have a cleansed conscience. That law is not sufficient without mercy, and that some men need to be punished more than others. A man who is sorry for committing murder is less abhorrent than a man who feels no shame in committing it. So forth, with the capital offenses justified by our current culture, there are an influx of behavior patterns which destroy the social fabric. Paramours, for instance, remove mates and the children who have bonded with them have one less individual who was imprinted upon in their young psyches. Homosexuality creates a scarcity of sexual partners, which frustrates the libidos of not a few, and it creates social chaos. Transgenderism is duplicitous, and creates frustration. Bestiality, Catamy, such things create even worse social ills I'm sure. Catamy creates sex addicted children, who later grow up to be the very predators who abused them. And Bestiality, no society in my memory has ever degraded to such a low. But Incest, of course, destroys familial bonds, as it most certainly must.

There are causes and effects sin has on a culture, and the God who best defines sin, and the God who best manages it, and the God who best describes it, is the God of the Universe. Finding the laws which govern moral behaviors does not invalidate the Lawgiver. As, it's true that if God does not exist, neither ought the laws which govern morality. For, if there is a universal law, if it can be described---and it can---then there must be a God who created them. And considering we are talking about men, and not men from Gethen, there is only a certain way in which men can behave and operate. By bending men outside of their moral parameters, what existentially is created is chaos. And it's a pattern found in all of history, and it is one which must be understood. And because of that, morals are certain, and being that they are certain, they must prove God exists. Because no man who is rational can negate that truth, that morals are inherent in humankind.

Dear,
Myself

If you can just remember the pleasure of your sin, the chase like Pan and Syrinx, the lust like Byblis for Caunus, the thrill of The Wife of Bath's tale;--- You can easily remember how euphoric all of that was. The cruelty was sublime, and I get a sick feeling just thinking of it.

I suppose most people living in sin enjoy these sorts of pleasures. As you once did. As, there is a pleasure in hunting prey, there is a pleasure in chasing mates, there is a pleasure in raucous and bawdy behavior. 

There are two different types of people in the world. Sheep and Goats. Sheep enjoy solitude, we enjoy the pleasures of emotions in their season. We are easily startled, and we graze mellowly upon the grass, chewing the cud of wisdome. Goats, on the other hand, contrive plots, and see the apple upon the tree and will coerce other animals to help them retrieve it. Sure, they will share in the spoils, but the fruit was best left for the farmer's consumption. He worked all day upon it, and the goat had eaten it out from under him.

The truth being, when each his own sets up his worldly authority, the other will suffer. The good man will suffer when bad men get their regime. Bad men will suffer when good men get their regime. Because there is pleasure in hunting, chasing and raising hell. There are sublime pleasures in it, but a good man ought not do---or rather, ought to be abhorred by---those things. A good man ought to feel sick to his stomach when he encounters sin.

And because of this, when sheep are exposed to violence, they run. When sheep are exposed to sin, they bleat and will do their best to flee from it. Which is why they need a shepherd. A goat, having less knowledge than a shepherd, will sometimes lead the sheep to their destruction. They are not even a dog trained to coerce the sheep---which would be something like a demon, though give the dog its reign it would tear the sheep into pieces. 

For this reason, there are two governments upon which humans establish themselves. Good government, and bad government. And each will suit its person, either good people or bad people. And evil people call evil things good, and good things evil. Good people call good things good, and evil things evil. They are the complete reverse of each other, so they will enjoy different things. 

With that being said, keep in mind that when you speak, it is for good people's benefit, that they might find pleasure here upon the Earth, and not for evil people, who ought to feel no pleasure at all. Yet, the world is not ours, Christians, so we do not get to dictate how it operates. We have surrendered it to Christ, therefore, the only thing we as Sheep ought to do, is wait patiently for the arrival of our shepherd, and understand the Goats and Dogs have their anarchy once before the return of the Shepherd.

Dear,
Postmodernists

It's often very clear what a writer said. Unless the work is intentionally meant to veil its meaning, like Cantos by Ezra Pound. To which, that is a true Postmodern Work, where the meaning is supplanted from the mind. It has no meaning. Some say it is the Inferno, I say it is Child Harold's Pilgrimage, the truth is the Cantos were written to expressly be imprinted on by the reader, through buzz words. It has every Buzz Word in history, some in over forty languages, and it is an artistic failure. Because no meaning can be found in it.

What is the reason we write books? What is the reason we read books? It's a different question than why do we watch movies. Even though movies often have the same elements, movies are not pure thoughts. They cannot create imaginative effects, but rather do everything for the mind. Same with Video Games. These are purely experiential. However, books are for learning. And if one wants experience from a book---well, a book will never create as full of an experience as a movie will. Sure, they will create imaginative settings, sure they will create images. Sure, they are pleasant. But, simply put, they cannot compare with movies, TV and video games.

And TV, Movies and Video Games are different mediums, by which perhaps it is true that nothing of real sustenance can come from them. There is no real literary quality to any of them, and they are purely meaningless, experiential platforms on which an individual will blow time and fully immerse themselves. There are themes, there are plots, there are ideas in movies. But, one does not sit and think about those ideas, themes or plots. If one does, it's less to the effect of Life Altering, and more to the effect of entertainment. Though, I'm splitting hairs because even movies prove your concept is bogus.

If art is not to convey a meaning, and if the meaning is impossible to discern, why create it? Why indulge in it? Certainly, I bring up movies because they are pure experience. They are pure visceral pleasure. Same thing with music---though the poetry in music also proves your theory bogus. But, I'm deriving the sense that your Philosophy is driven by the experiential. And I'm not talking about Heidegger's Postmodernism. The art of Postmodern Analysis can be used, truly, to identify meaning in a text. Good Postmodern Analyses will not evade meaning in texts, but will rather find meaning in the most unlikely places. 

However, Postmodernism by today's standard is a fascist, racist culture meant to erase from civilization all the constructs which have bettered it. It is a weapon used by Princes to annul the populace's wisdom, to take from them any autonomy, and make them reliant on a corporate network so large and unbreakable, that every man woman and child are dependent upon the sustenance provided to them by their corporate Kings. For, if you destroy the meaning of the Constitution---which Postmodernism has many ill effects, and one of them is the misrepresentation of law---then you destroy the happy civilization we've enjoyed. If you nullify the fact that a law can be interpreted, or a book can be sufficiently understood, then you nullify the very real principles of truth.

A book can be understood. It can be understood perfectly by two or three different people. And if we forget this, we will throw all semblance of society into chaos. Civilization will cease. For reason dictates that meaning exists, and objective truth can be attained. If it cannot, then all that remains is power. And power flows through those who have corporate control over the resources. And you, being Postmodernists, are the source of that Power Structure. You nullify the basic truths, you nullify the foundation on which Democracy can be sustained. Anarchy always breeds Tyranny, as men are destined to create social contracts in all circumstances. There can be no Anarchy, as men will either order themselves by Law, or they will order themselves by Force. And in order to be ordered by Law, Laws must be understood. And certainly, they can be understood.

With this being said, when you nullify poetry---when you try to evade its core meaning---you do yourselves and society a disservice. You refuse to understand the point of view of others, and trap yourselves in infernal narcissism. You refuse to believe that others have expressed something, and you doubly refuse to believe that you can attain to the knowledge of what they have expressed. Communication can be difficult, but all things considered, raw utterances are not helpful. Evoking implicit conjurings of imagination, and making people experience, and then saying that the experience cannot be wholly similar between two people---this is itself wrong, and it is also dangerous. People are slightly different from one another, but abandoning our commonalities for the purpose of trapping oneself in a vacuum of narcissism, that is all postmodernism is, is the narcissistic belief in our own autonomy and independence from all other minds.


Dear,
Ms. Kramarik

There's a girl, much the same as you. I see all of the same talent. Her paintings don't sell for millions of dollars. My writing doesn't get purchased. At least not yet.

You're my favorite Artist, Ms. Kramarik. Not because you were a prodigy, but because you drew the best portrait of Jesus. What kind of world do we live in, where talent like yours doesn't get patronized? It's a secondary hobby. It isn't taken seriously. I've seen a man paint Michelangelo's bodies in the most photorealistic eye I'd ever seen. I do not know if it gets patronized. I do not know if it gets sold.

The things done with art---the disinterest in it, the utter disregard for it---is wonderfully wrong. Everyone who paints like you---and there may be at most a couple thousand---ought to earn their living off of the craft. What is the world without art? What is the world without music or poetry? Without stories? When money dictates our stories, when money dictates our art, and when money dictates our music, it tears people like us apart.

Art needs to be sold--- There may be nine billion souls on the earth, but only a couple hundred thousand of them painters. A couple hundred thousand of them writers. A couple hundred thousand of them musicians. Everyone wants to believe that talent is equally distributed among all people---but, due to a writing disability, I could never reach the level of proficiency you reached at four. Not everyone can be an artist. Not everyone ought to be. And painting ought not simply be championed by the newest fads. It ought to be based on the merit of a painter.

I say this because it's true. I don't doubt the world has no lack of artists, but we are still a rare breed. Those of us who can produce works of art. If you have to go to school for it, it is not in you. If you go to school for it because it is in you, there's little the school can do beside teach you the techniques. You were painting at four and I was writing at ten... It is not a bad thing. It is not something that ought to be moderated. Rather, if we decide that all men are endowed equally with the same gifts, we tend to shun the ones who are naturally gifted. And we elevate the ones who simply pay the money and put in the hours. And they come out painting when they should have been an accountant or a Lawyer. Do you understand, Akiane?

The world grows larger, so there are more of us now competing. So, the world has decided to shadow ban us, and make it so we cannot earn our meat. They want to turn someone like me---useless for everything else---and make me another brick in the wall. I'm the spray paint on the side of the brick building. One of my little pet dreams was a city that allowed Graffiti on the walls, so it would beautify the city. Obviously, graffiti is just a way gangs mark their territory, which amounts to the reason why that dream will never happen. Yet in some places, it is right to have an artist come and spray paint their art upon the wall. And it is beautiful. Why cannot you or I create on the traditional canvases, and make money, too? You made money. But I see so many artists turn to their art and say, "It is nothing." As if the enormous gift weren't meant to be fully explored. No... what happens is so many artists see their art and figure there is no money in it. For some of us, it is all we can do.

So there are extraordinarily gifted individuals who can paint like you, or write like me, and they choose to ignore that gift, and pursue monetary gain. And there are extraordinarily unlucky people like myself who need to write, yet the markets will not allow it because they are saturated by a third type of people, who by industrious studying of markets, trends and alchemic moldings of words or paint, they find themselves in the position of making money off the crafts that we ought to. And sure enough, you have made your money. But, I cannot yet.

Dear,
Ms. Lee

To Kill a Mockingbird is a masterpiece. Go Set a Watchman is probably the reason everything went to hell.

Writers have a responsibility to speak into the social discord. We have the necessary responsibility to speak into social problems, and to work out solutions. To Kill a Mockingbird was a solution to an age old question. It was a solution to Racism, Sexism and many other riddles. The core theme of the novel being "Justice." The acknowledgement of Tom's innocence, the acknowledgement of Mayella's guilt, the acknowledgement of Tom's inevitable sentence. It speaks to truth.

Now, there are radicals trying to remove it from the curriculum. Why? Because it is a novel portraying truth. Anything true, the modern radical is trying to destroy, or defame. The unfortunate truth is that Racism and Sexism have taken their reverse forms, so that the harder truths are impalpable.  However, turning Atticus into a racist was a poor publishing decision. The only thing I can see, is that this is an alternate universe. As it is an alternate universe where Atticus won the Tom Robinson trial.

The destructive catalyst to our modern Racism, is that To Kill a Mockingbird has become controversial and pushed into the realm of "Radical." The story is true, and it aggressively prosecutes False Rape Allegations, and it condemns the women who are abusing their unique position.

The danger of this modern day, and the danger of our modern world is the ignorance exuded by the populace's tastes, to promote Hate. Do blacks hate whites? Is the stereotypical image of them, travelling in gangs, obsessed about their skin color and hating the Cracker a true portrait? No. It is not. But, equally dangerous is the assumption that such individuals do not exist. And art ought to critique those individuals. A sickness of ingratitude filters through the populace. And as many faux remedies they create, it all stems from self love and selfishness.---Forgetting the childhood lessons necessary for understanding this complex world.

The danger, of course, Ms. Lee, is that your bastard child has been leaked to the public by a Money Grabbing Ms. Carter, and it was published irresponsibly. It may have been a first draft. A first draft is not the work. It is not where the work was meant to go. For, when a writer is creating, the subconscious juices flow and meld together to create masterpieces. A work such as To Kill a Mockingbird needed to be of its own accord, without the first draft published. It is not the authentic writer's work. The authentic work is where the novel had originally gone. What the novel, in all its creative glory, had become. Not what the novel was in its first incarnation. Atticus in the first draft might be racist, but Atticus in the true, Canon story is a hero. 

We need not defame our heroes, as the surrounding controversy has destroyed a beloved classic. It does not matter what an author's first draft was. Only what the author had polished it into.

Dear,
Alex Jones

Sincerely, I saw you arguing with my Doppelganger---I've seen him before, with the girl I liked, and I'm not even kidding you with this---and you were pointing out the flaws in my writing. I am sorry that I had never had an editor look at my work. I think it's pretty good for never having anyone look over my work. He had a sissy accent, kind of gay, and it looked like the two of you were arguing over YouTube. It was some new format your show took. Whether this was just a dream, or perhaps it was something that truly happened, I don't know. But the son of a cur looks just like me. But, I know it isn't me. It's something far more nefarious. I call him death. He calls me his brother, I call him my doppelganger. And, he stole from me. I've seen him wonder who Chantz was---which should have been obvious---and he didn't know who Paul Bunyan was. I saw that in my dream, and I immediately knew both of them. The dog in the Happy New Year tiara is Chantz. Which should be obvious, considering Chantz is Beowulf's steed in a number of my works.

So, please don't put down the writing. I'm doing the best I can with the resources I have. Though him, he is Satan himself. Death. Abaddon. Who all the Thirteen Kings take the form of. It's why the doppelganger theme is so prevalent in my writing. What he is, I don't know. Probably some beast that spat out of hell. But, the dogs on my book pictures are Miley, Scruffy and Chantz. I love dogs, and they're as much a part of my family as the others. We treat them like children, and I grow very attached to my animals. Even the fish, who I did a few poems of their tank.

I have to say you're onto the truth. If you just adjust your thinking away from deliberate conspiracies of the Government, to a sort of culminating corruption compounding itself into these problems, then you'd have your answer. I don't doubt that men like George Soros or Jeff Bezos are scheming to make more money. I don't doubt that certain democrats are scheming to usher in socialism. I also don't doubt that certain Privately Funded Military Groups or Anarchist Groups are attempting to establish enclaves within the United States Borders. There are other things, as well, that I don't doubt. However, Alex, all of them work together by demonic influence. You must understand people are not smart enough to work so efficiently on the large scale. People, when they are demonically inspired, act and behave in manners that produce causal chains of events that the people made unclean by the demons don't understand is happening. It snowballs out of control, until there is at last what looks like an intelligence behind the events. And certainly there is an intelligence behind the events. The chemicals produced in foods are only meant to preserve them, but the evil entities behind them know that they cause cancer. Then, knowing that it produces those results, they begin to be megalomaniacal, and what results is unhappiness. We ought to recognize that.

Though, it is not the government doing these things. It is rich men in business suits. And those men are only looking at the bottom line of profits. If ruining the ecosystem or markets are their way to make more money, they will do so. Some democrats are certainly conspiring to usher in a socialist regime. Some Anarchist Groups are trying to create autonomous zones like C.H.A.D.. But, at the end of the day, it all works together to produce the result we know is inevitable. And that is Christ's Second Coming. And if you have faith in Him, it doesn't matter what my doppelganger does, as he's only out for a short time, and will be defeated at the end of the age. I? I am simply the wise man who knows the name of The City of God.

Dear,
Joe Rogan

I watch a clip of you tearing Christianity apart. You said, "It has no proof." To be honest, it is the only religion that has proof. I will lay out a box of evidence that Christianity is true.

The first proof, is the prophecies in the Old Testament. There are direct references to Jesus in hundreds of verses of the Old Testament---some of them the Jews erase from the Bible, or try to reinterpret the meanings. Psalm 22. Psalm 2. Isaiah 53. There are others, but the most compelling evidence is those three chapters.

Then, the second proof, is archaeological evidence like the Great Isaiah scroll, which has Isaiah 53 in it, nearly verbatim. It also shows the Bible has been preserved through its translation. There is the Tel Dan Stele which talks of a battle that the Bible described. And it confirms David was a king. There's the Nebuchadnezzar Chronicles describes the Sacking of Judah by Babylon. Since evidence is most compelling in threes, I'll stop there. 

Third set of proof is the miraculous adherence of Christ's disciples to Him. These men died for the faith. It was taught to me that there is a three year period not recorded in history, and that three year period is the time Christ lived and taught. So, between AD and BC there is a three year gap which is when Christ taught. I'm privy to the knowledge that you're deliberately being lied to, and since you're so interested in Conspiracy Theories, the hiding of Christ by powerful men is the conspiracy. But, it is known that Christ's disciples died for Him, and men don't die for something false. They normally surrender the falsehood when faced with death, which is why martyrdom is a mark of Christian Conversion.

Fourth, and this is the most compelling evidence of them all, is the Laws Christ set forth. Confucius, Aristotle, Mozi, Lao Tsu, Plato, Maimonides, independently discovered aspects of the truth. Since truths must be confirmed by witnesses, each of these men had discovered different truths---yet each had gotten very specific details wrong. Christ, however, His moral teachings were perfect. No rational man can argue with them. And you, being a martial artist, knows that to fight can sometimes be moral, and Christ even maintained that truth when He said, "I come to bring the sword and not peace." The morals of the Bible are perfect, even the transition between the two covenants. From one covenant truth was obtained through observance of rituals and sacrifice, and since that didn't work, God placed truth on man's heart and allowed him to ascertain truth through the knowledge commonly observed by all men. Yet, what's significant about this is that geniuses, men with IQs higher than yours or mine, have found only glimpses of the truth, and often a lot of chaff. That is the best evidence that Christ is God, that a man who lived---his birth records and death records exist at the Vatican---and died, was homeless, a carpenter's illegitimate son, who was probably so poor he would never afford a book. That man came to knowledge greater than nine of the great sages of history. And He came to it on His own, and there is no reason to doubt it.

That is my box of evidence. I have far more, ranging from the arrangements of algebra, the order of the universe, the universality of constructs of thought, the ability for language to be comprehended, the similarities of patterns of behaviors in humans, the efficiency of nature, the symmetry of beauty, the emotions inspired by good, the observance of good and evil, love... But these four.

Dear,
J. R. R. Tolkien

Did you successfully create an English mythology? I'd say the answer is unequivocally yes. Reading the Poetic Edda---you sly one---I see the inspiration to your mythology. Even where you got the term "Middle Earth."

It used to be a strange thought to me, how Middle Earth could exist. Where is Middle Earth? It never occurred to me that our Earth was Middle Earth. My schema of the cosmos, taught to me from a young age, was always what science taught. I hadn't begun to think that you were operating off of a new cosmology. One which I had tasted in my dreams, where the Earth is Flat and the Ettins live in Jotunheim beneath the Earth in cosmology. The fact that the Poetic Edda seems to imply it, is fascinating to me.

However, is Middle Earth flat? Or, is it like our world, a sphere? Because what I know of Middle Earth is that it's not really the Earth, but a continent like Asia. And that Arda lies to the outer bounds, as another continent. And in Arda, that is where the Valar live. How your Valar, like Othin or Thor, live on the Earth. Kind of like as if Asgard were simply another continent. I find influences of Columbus's discovery, a whole new world over to the West, resonating in your writing.

I must say, the greats borrow. I borrowed from Hieronymus Bosch, Bullfinch and Beowulf, though I didn't intend to. As they were driven into my subconscious by dreams. I know you suffered from the same illness. I'm aware of that. The "Elves" might as well be my "Satan Kings", although yours were benevolent and mine weren't. I wonder if you linked the Elves with the Ettins. That is what my mind would link them with. 

In the cosmology I dreamt---independently---there was something like Jotunheim underneath the Earth, and I see reflections of it in literature. The Gethens, created by Ursela K. Le Guin, are something like what I saw in Jotunheim, in my dream. That dream haunts me. So does my Beowulf story. So I understand the cosmology of the Viking's universe. I've been primed to understand it, and I hadn't begun to think that maybe Middle Earth were one of these kinds of things, that the very cosmology was different than our planet. To which, when did Middle Earth's events happen? There is a question. If Eurasia is Middle Earth, and North and South America are Arda, what exactly is the time when The Lord of the Rings took place? Perhaps it exists in the gaps of our time. Perhaps it is another time, existing simultaneously with our own? Perhaps it is when the continents were Gondwana and Laurasia? For in my cosmology---the one built in my mythologies---we exist in blocks of time called "Worlds", and they're separated by Kings---those very Thirteen Kings---who keep everyone within their appropriate block. And when the world ends, they destroy it, yet other worlds exist sideways to that other world. And that is the cosmology of Fairyland. There is Mars, Elysium, Jotunheim, Earth, Hell, Heaven, and twenty-four planes beneath Jotunheim, that each resembles more like hell the further down you go. It's a compulsory creation, worked out in my imagination from looking at Bosch's The Garden of Earthly Delights. Obviously it must have had an impact on me. But, I suffered from the same disease you did. I understand the disease intimately. The subconscious creations of these "Mythologies" overshadows the real world, and we must fight to overcome it. Yet, for you it was World War I, and for me it was my Notorious Youth.

However, what inspired you the most, I know, was the same thing that inspired me while reading over Bullfinch. You had seen Gandalf and the Dwarves, that they'd be known for all history---I saw the Grea and Brittos, and knew a story must be done combining the two---so we both set off to create mythology. Purely myth, meant to encapsulate important truths. And cement those dwarfs into all of human history you did. I don't think your, or my, writing will ever go out of print. Neither will the Poetic Edda, which I've found is the source of Middle Earth. And having that work to give perspective to the larger body of your works, I say it was most interesting. How at once you are Illuvitar, creator of Middle Earth and you have preserved your perfect rendition of The War of the Rings and the War of the Silmarils. That by faith we must know that is the true account---precisely because it is the most beautiful, and isn't bogged down in historical scholarship. Yet, at the flip, you did what I did and linked your mythology to the real world. Though, being that we both understand the stories to be untrue, they are by nature true for what they have to say. And they are works praising the King Jehovah Provider, the true God who created we.


Dear,
Freddy

You are leaps and bounds more intelligent than I. I cannot compare to you. I've often feigned intelligence, saying I had an IQ of 300. Seriously. Yes, I was a fool. But, I am a genius, too. My IQ is 157. Not 189. You're probably learning the numbers of Pi out to two thousand decimals. You're probably a musician, a poet, a master at physics. The world is yours, but I'd advise you not to take it.

The danger of intelligence is a contempt upon less intelligent men. However, even the most atheistic tribesmen who are hunter gatherers believe in Heaven--- To them, the soul travels to the Sun and that is the extent of their religion. There is nothing more nor deep about it. But, they believe in a soul and they believe that their loved ones reunite in the afterlife. And good thing, too, if we could all come with this template of having shed our superstitions, and just been taught the basics of religion.

However, as I said to a prominent YouTuber, Christ is our food. Here upon the planet, He's as necessary as our daily bread. Food builds up our bodies, but Christ our spiritual lives. The world may be round, old, and men might have come from apes, but the fact remains that there is a God. I cannot prove Him to you, nor ought I prove Him to you, as He can surely prove Himself to you if He wants. 

This gets into the fact that you are so intelligent, and you'll invariably find a lot of opposition to God. Think to yourself why this is, when Jesus' words were harmless. There's some real evidence for you, that a man who lived a perfect life, spoke words which even the most simple could agree with, is disparaged by all. Some will say they like his teachings, but not the Christians. And I hope you don't fall into that trap, as I've been abused by Christians more than most. I've been abused by atheists, too. I find all men are traitors, but we have to hold onto faith that there is good. Humans have very little aptitude for goodness on their own, and the more I go through life, the more I find that love grows colder with every generation and the shining lights grow warmer. Those shining lights are Christians. That this is the core of religious belief, that we hold onto the good in men, and understand it doesn't originate within ourselves. Rather, if we reject the source, we grow shallow, cold, rude, and petulant. And sure, you're going to grow cold in your life. We all do, but that is the renaissance of Christ, that He can reawaken in us a passion for all the good we knew as a child.

Your joy, your love, at the tender age I see you is nurtured. But, sin will creep in and people will try to steal it from you. It's illogical why humans have to steal from other humans the good things within them. Unless you account for a very real enemy who wants you to lose those things. But, we know that Christ is greater than he, and Christ has overcome the world, in whatever form the world may be. That human passions are illogical, often times outright cruel, but the joy and love experienced in childhood is a seemingly obvious antidote to that. And soon, you'll be with peers who will want to strip from you that joy. They call it jealousy, they call it lots of things. It's just sin. If you were beautiful, they'd try to fill you with lust and pride. If you were strong, they'd try to fill you with aggression. Because you are smart, they will try to fill you with doubts. And, if you hold onto your faith, they'll try to strip away from you the very real intelligence you have. And there is no logical reason why. Not when everyone can share in the joys and passions of this world equally, there's no reason for us to have to strive against one another, yet that very strife is the thing that runs the world.

The smartest man in the world, he receded to a farm and tended livestock with the love of his life. That is a wisdom I wish to pass down to you. That if you are gifted with intelligence, you'll see a vanity in the world which only a few things are truly good. They'll want you to fix the world, they'll want you to grab life by the wrists and fight it into submission. But truly intelligent people see the vanity of it all, and really all they want to do is live a life worthy of the gift of breath. Truly intelligent people know that life would be a lot better off without the striving and competition. They know that solidarity and unity, and even love are superior to all else. And certainly, the more we grow into our adult lives, the more these attributes wane and the more we recede into a vain life filled with superficial people and superficial events. Things which happened a month ago are seemingly earth shattering, while the great truths of history are forgotten, and even repeated. 

All I can tell you is that when you're older, you'll see the same things repeated in the next generations, and the things you thought were new might be, but likely in many ways aren't. You'll see that the childlike wonder and curiosity is discouraged, and everyone wants there to be a damned purpose for everything we do. I'm not saying you need to become an artist, heaven forbid it. Just, remember that what task you choose in life is only as important as the amount of joy it brings you. And also remember that the very meaning you strive for isn't found here, but is found in Someone Else.

Dear,
Ayn Rand

First off, I love your book "The Romantic Manifesto." Before all else is said, you have a solid grasp of understanding art. I agree with you that Capitalism is better than Socialism. However, right now there is an excess of Capitalism, and an excess of government intrusion. People are sacrificing their liberty for the goal of obtaining wealth and status. Nobody is particularly hungry---I had just eaten a chicken dinner with some mashed potatoes and tomato salad. I have milk in my fridge and tea in my fridge---it's called green tea, and it's delicious.

Businessmen are the ones facilitating the collapse of the States. To make more money, they are subterfuging the economy to force the nation into a state of dependency on them. It might seem strange, but there's a logistics company by the name of Amazon, which threatens to enable humans to live perpetually indoors, afraid of a flu bug that's going around. And I say that without airs, there's a moderately dangerous flu that's making people sick, and the businesses are lobbying the government to keep the country perpetually shut down and in a state of panic, while they manipulate the stock market and capitalize on our fears.

There are things called "Social Networks" where people talk to one another from all around the world, and everyone is collectively banding in this or that network, and sharing opinions that are, essentially, shaping the political landscape so no one is educated on what is currently going on. The News is a corporation, that is bent on getting ratings and selling brand of opinions like deodorants. There are conspiracy theories wild, everything from Lizard People to Socialist Uprisings, to Anti-Fascist mobs who look a lot like Nazi Youth with black faces.

I agree with you that people ought to be more individualistic. But, I disagree with you that capitalism is completely beneficial. Right now, it's not. Men get incredibly wealthy playing the public, and profiting off of them, and destroying the smaller companies through means similar to trusts and oligopolies. Something needs to change, Ayn, and unfortunately, I don't know what that change is. There is no good solution, as all options have been tried.

I agree with you that people ought to be able to profit, they ought to be able to work, they ought to be able to have property. Those are not exclusive to Capitalism. The problem is when corporations start acting like political entities, and start arbitrating and forming their own sovereignty and laws and legal structures. There's a whole list of things that are done with employment contracts that liken the business to its own state, and defiance of that state means the inability to earn bread.

I want you to understand this. I see you are scared of the way your world is getting, but I assure you it does get worse, and the reason it does is because of profiteering. I'm assuming a war will be waged over it, to stop the country from forcing its population to acquiesce to strange corporate laws. Yes, people will end up receiving stipends, but a few corporations on the top are the likeliest to benefit from it, because they enable the civilization to stay indoors, and not go outside and do the things natural to humans. Which is work, play, eat, commune, socialize, go to church.

And no one is religious today. The problem isn't a lack of atheism, or a superfluousness of mysticism. The problem is precisely a lack of moral values. Perhaps you mean a Satanic mysticism, and not Christianity. But, the thing that can save us is Christianity at this point. People need morals. They need to understand that right and wrong exist. Right now, people have moved beyond knowledge and no truth is understood. Truth is just another product which men sell to one another. And frankly, I don't want to earn stipends either. I want to earn from my books, which are being censored by Fascists in political office who don't want my work to be published.

And that's what's going on.

Dear,
Richard Rohr

Jesus Christ coming in the flesh is the Word of God being made into the flesh of the man Jesus Christ. Only in Jesus did the Word take on a body. It is that saying, "He who affirms Jesus Christ is Come in the Flesh" is one speaking from the authority of God.

The very sum embodiment of Satanism---which God spoke directly to me when I encountered this---was the notion that man becomes a god, or that man himself is God. Witchcraft is the manipulation of the world through Will. And I have no doubt that soon, it will be deemed as science. But it is not science. It is witchcraft.

Therefore, you are Anathema. And the Catholic Church ought to remove you from your office. You have tapped into the very fabric of the world, and you have declaired yourself the author of that fabric. Only Jesus is the Author of that fabric. Only Jesus holds together matter, spirit and law.

I'm an accomplished Mason, though I've never joined freemasonry. St. John himself would speak of the matter, that Word is the organization and sense of all creation. It is the order, the understanding, the truth of all creation. And a witch manipulates that truth, thereby blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

Did you blaspheme the Holy Spirit? Did you conjure delusions and illusions? Did you, like the Babylonian Magi, twist signs and wonders to influence the king? Did you read the signs of the flocks of birds, stand within your Enneagra, did you throw yourself into ecstatic states of mind? Did you alter physical reality with your mind?

That is all witchcraft. Violating the tangible reality, violating the sacredness of truth by warping creation on your own will, by warping existence, that is a science of witchcraft, and it ought to be condemned. For it is only demonic intelligences which create those manifestations. And for that, it needs to be rejected. You have a choice when you read this. Either mingle the occult with Christ, or abandon it. And if you mingle, your drink shall be the mixed wine of wrath.

Dear,
Jude

You asked our brother, “Why won’t you reveal yourself to the world?” I will set out to answer that question for you.

I, you too, thought very well that you could fix the world if you made it better. If you spread love and kindness. If there were but love, the world would be better. If there were but money flowing in the street, and nobody had any need. But, remember Adam and Eve in the Garden had no need. And yet both still sinned. Remember that Satan in heaven had no need. And yet he still sinned. Remember that Judas Iscariot had the money changer, and wealth and honor, but he still sinned.

There’s a false presumption that perhaps you and I have created, that we have created, that if you jus sought to fix what is broken in a society, it would mend all ills. That men would no longer go astray, and that there would be a paradise on the earth.
	
Who beside God would enforce this? Certainly a government of man, or as John Lennon put it, “The Brotherhood of Man”. They would enforce these laws. And like my “Fifth Angel’s Trumpet”, it would be called an “Anarchy”, when in reality there would still be laws. The youth’s heart is in that book. All of a Youth’s best wishes. And they come crumbling down. As will the Beast System---which will seek to exercise authority upon the Earth and chastise injustice.

There’d be nothing more oppressive than forcing men to never be robbers. If every second of every day were monitored, and every ill deed were caught on camera, and prosecuted. There’d be no end to the misery---it would effectively be hell. And that is why there is grace. That is why there are Good Samaritans. Because at the existence of Evil, at the existence of injustice, there is more freedom for a man to do what is right. And that freedom is slowly waning away, vanishing with the midnight wind.

Should the Communists, the Socialists, the Social Justice Warriors, the Black Lives Matter, the Antifa, the Fascists, the Utopians---should they get their world, it would be an utter hellish world with no freedom. None to do good, and none to do evil. Every choice would be made by some force which is not God---and perhaps that is what hell is to God’s heaven. If man will not succumb to Grace, and be indwelt by the Holy Spirit and enabled to do good by it, then Satan will indwell those same men, and force them into subservience to a wicked plot. That men will be succumbed to the misery of peer pressure, social justice and freedom will be abandoned for the Utopian dream which sanitizes men of all their vices. And that is what Satan likely wants. For men to be sanitized of their vice, and beholden to his wicked authority. Never having choice anymore, but suffering under his Utopian vision.

There is nothing more scary to me than this. It has been my observation when in school that the school’s decision was to restrict freedom to stop students from partaking in vice. Rather than allow a few odd students the freedom to undermine their school careers, rather than give a few students the freedom to be fat and unhealthy, they took from us the freedom to make those choices. Rather than suffer the bad eggs to make bad decisions, they stole from us the decision altogether. And in turn, they take from us the freedom to make good decisions, and they take from us the luxury of having those good things.

And that is the reason the world cannot understand the Son. Because the Son is freedom. He is alleviation of the stress of having committed wrong, he is alleviation of the consequences of having done what was not right---he is the freedom to choose good and thereby be a good Samaritan. For, if the world were so sanitized that there could no longer be Good Samaritans, than the world would be sanitized of all its freedom. And that world would be misery. It would be hell.

For Christ is the freedom to do what’s right, and the forgiveness to be cleansed of what’s wrong. The world does not see this, but only sees sin and it wishes to remove all of it, and so sanitize sin from the world. And in doing that, there can be no thing good in the world; for doing good is working against sin. For, the world understands sin, but it does not understand mercy. And mercy is the best part of this world.

Dear,
Richard Dawkins

My first word to you was a bit of a joke. Just to show you how much you don't know. The answer to the question, I'm not entirely sure. But, I imagine you having asked it... What is the limit to the universe? Is the Planc length the limit of measurements? And if it is, Pi cannot be calculated past the negative thirty-fifth exponent. Or, maybe, it'd be used as a ratio to align quarks. Etc., Etc. Etc. Maybe the infinity of Pi would be something like a ratio calculating the negative space.

So be it, I'm not a particle physicist. I do, however, like to learn Quadratic equations and Euclidean Geometry on my own.

With that, I'm going to say I believe evolution, and the earth were a sphere, and that the earth is old. I don't know. I cannot know. I have faith---because it seems like scientists wouldn't lie to me about it---that these things are true. However, I have more faith in there being justice, goodness, righteousness, and even evil. I have more faith in the intrinsic value of love than I do any science. I would sooner believe that the rockets we use to travel in space are doctored with a trick window, than stop believing in the intrinsic goodness of love. If you asked me to choose between science and it, I'd be the first to say that the Earth is Flat, 6,000 years old and evolution is a mythology atheists tell themselves.

It is because I observe moral truths in the patterns of human behavior that are intrinsic in us. And I don't think God was lying to us when he made the Earth. Rather, it had been my understanding of Genesis that it is a story. Meant to convey a meaning that man has an inherent conscience, and also that man should rest one day a week. And also that God did in fact create the universe. 

What's amazing about a story is its metaphor. They are more important than the literalness of the story. However, I think Genesis did happen literally, and if you'd care to listen---since Christians don't listen, will you care to listen?---that God created the Earth the same way I have written my first novel. Should you catalog the literal way I wrote the novel, you'll find that different parts of it were written out of order. The middle was written first, the beginning was written second, and the end was written at different times. It would be no less true, that I had written the work that way. It's just not the way my characters would have observed it. Erin and Marc---at first---were to have a whirlwind romance and instantly fall in love. But, as I wrote the story, they did not fall in love instantly, but organically. Literally detailing how I wrote that book, it would be completely out of order with how the book is written. That is how God would have created the Earth.

And we know God created the Earth because there are patterns in human behavior that reflect the Bible's principles. There are morals simply laid down by Christ which are perfect---and your selfish gene cannot compete with it. It is exactly the fact that human beings aren't selfish. They are now because significant damage has been done to them over the past several---I truly don't know the time scale to give you, but it's been seen in my breif life. However long I've lived, and however many epochs I've lived to see. It is precisely that I remember love. Maybe you're too young to remember it. You very well might be. Maybe I remember ancient Rome and Babylon... Maybe I remember the years Christ preached and taught. I remember love. I remember how it satisfied me. I remember all the good, and I've slowly been steeped in the evil. Which, if you ask me, comes from all sources. I've dealt with bad eggs from all walks of life. I've been kicked out of churches, I've been taught Feminism from the pulpit, I've been taught Global Warming in Sunday school, I've been taught that morals are a choice--- It's those things which I rebel against. I can't help it. Because I know intrinsically that they are false. That man does not get to choose right and wrong, and that men are not selfish. Because I remember when men weren't selfish, and they were far more satisfied than we are today.

It's funny, because I've seen a lot over my years. The most happy I've ever seen civilization was when there were no atheists. When everyone was Christian. You could ask just about anyone, and they'd tell you God exists. Everyone believed. I can't tell you when that was... Only that it was. I can't tell you when it existed in time or space, or even whether it still exists, but it happened to exist. But, the world changed very rapidly in my short lifespan. It went from a place that was nearly paradise---safe, and you could feel comfort. To a very sordid world where you couldn't trust anyone with your own grandmother. And the only thing that has changed is belief in God's existence. Nothing else. Not the virus---though, religion tends to help people cope with those things. Not the iPhone---though it has made people significantly more selfish. There's a whole other world where I came from. One that is disappearing, and I remember it being far better than the one we have today. And that world, Christ reigned on everyone's heart.

And with that being said, all my happiest moments, all my goodness, everything I value is wrapped up in the person of Jesus Christ. And all my worst is wrapped up with people who don't believe, or could be summed up as Pharisees and Sadducee. Christians who simply don't get it.

It's not important whether Genesis happened, only that Jesus did. There are a thousand and one reasons for me to believe on Christ. And the evidence, I have to say, is overwhelming. As Christ said, "There will come a day when you will long to see the days of the Son of Man. And Lo, that day is shortly coming." 

Plainly put, Mr. Dawkins, you're wrong.



Dear,
Steve Austin

I respect your belief. The Golden Rule is the most important part of life. I saw a preacher struggle with what you said. He thought you said, "If I'm good, I'll go to heaven," and "If I'm bad, I'll go to hell." That's not what you said. You said, "I don't believe if I'm good I'll go to heaven, or if I'm bad I'll go to hell."

Then you said, "I'm not an atheist." You said, "I'm not an agnostic." You said, "I went to church." 

However, if you want to go to heaven, just believe on Jesus.

You won't go to hell if you never had sex before marriage. Or, if you never felt compelled to do good because of some evil in your past---that's called breaking the Sabbath. If you never murdered. If you never slept with another man's wife. If you never kidnapped. If you never struck your parent. If you never practiced witchcraft or divination. If you never worshipped another god beside the LORD. If you never killed a child. If you never had sodomous relations---with animals, children, or with other men.

If you never did any of these things, you won't go to hell. But, you also won't go to heaven. Just like you said. I don't believe hell exists, except for someone who broke a law that will make them guilty to go to hell. So, I agree with you on that front. But, there is paradise, and even with the wealth you've attained, you can still go if you just accept Jesus into your heart. 



Dear,
Redacted

Dear,
Bob Jones University

Dear,
Bob Jones University

Bob was not a prophet. John Paul was a righteous Pope, and his criticisms of him were not true. His criticism of Calvinism was false. How can these two faiths be reconciled? They cannot. Yet, each possesses in themselves true belief, and doctrines of the Holy God. Works are equal with faith. And we are predestined according to the divine mercy of God. Our names, however, can be written out of the book of life. They can be blotted out.
I have thought thoroughly on Billy Graham. He was not a great detriment to the faith. Neither was he the great evangelist. Like all men, he had flaws in his doctrine. Like all men, if one peered into them, they’d find faults in what they say. Men will criticize me and say, “He swore.” Rightly, I did swear, both uncouth oaths and cuss words. I have blasphemed. I have done all sorts of evil things. And rightly, one ought to be critical of me, if I speak anything beside the truth, let that which I speak be rejected if it is not the truth.

I am a true prophet, though. By that, it is “Interpreter.” I understand God’s word, and can interpret it, and its direction in our lives. Many men claim that prophets are men who “Predict the future.” Jonah predicted the future, yet Nineveh was spared, was it not? Did his prophecies fail? No, they turned the country around, and they were given great entreaty by Christ Himself, saying that at the end of the age they would be a witness against this people.

With that said, a preacher had Dream Paralysis where he saw Bob’s familiar spirit. It was a Nephilim; an outright scary figure if one asked me. It’s not to say that men oppressed by demons are wrong---there are demonic apparitions all around me. No, it is that when you call the demonic an “Angel”, or confess it in public to be “Michael”,---I had once said angels were grumpy too. But, it was not an angel, but was a Giant. An apparition of two specific beings who were downright evil, and set me on a course of doubt. The first came to me, and all but caused me to make the most stupid speech ever. I had correctly prophesied the Psalm, I remember, but this being twisted my head all around. May God forgive the foolishness, for I was unwise at that point in my life. It has all been used to better me. Then the same being came around again, with another, and told me my writing was an idol. Is my writing an idol? No. My writing is critical to the work of the cross---not that it needs written, but that I am blessed with writing it. For all work appointed for salvation can be done by others, but it was given to me to do. And for that I am blessed.

Yet these beings came to me, and falsely at that. They tried to hinder my work. All but set me on a path to destruction if it weren’t for the LORD’s grace. She specifically cursed me, and my writing. She told me a pack of lies, yet it will be her who is judged. Not I. Because she tried to hinder the gospel with her speech, and my work was to accumulate knowledge and speak it.

Had Bob been a prophet---which he is not---he would have been right in discerning our brothers and sisters in the Catholic faith. He would have been understanding of the truth in Calvinism. He would have been ecumenical. For the Gospel is preached not just by protestants. It is preached by Catholics and Seventh Day Adventists, too.

This gets to the reason I am writing this letter. I saw in a fortune cookie, “There is nothing so unpopular than the truth.” People heap up for themselves teachers, and preachers and every spiritual thing needs to be discerned. Well, I discern that the being he saw was a familiar spirit, a Giant---it was not Michael the angel. I am classified to understand the mysteries of the world because God has revealed them all to me. And I say that Bob was not a prophet; for ecumenicalism was the desperate prayer of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. Not for division.

What unites us is Christ. When Paul preached against works, it was works of the Law. Not the works which Christ preached in Matthew Chapters 5 – 8. Jesus said specifically in that instance, “Those who follow these, shall be likened to a builder who built his foundation on rock.” If you were a true preacher, you would preach Christ’s words, and would have warned of these days, when men must be willing to give up their lives for the cross. Very little is preached on that. No, instead, I have false prophets telling me I’m lazy, and that my directive was to work at an unfair salary, being forced to work on Sabbaths and Holidays. As is the custom of today. Yet in Jeremiah it explicitly warns about such behavior. 

I can spot a false prophet. Jesus called Herod a “Fox.” Which would be like calling Biden an “Ass.” Our deeds were called “Filthy Rags”. That is, “Bloody Rag”, which would be like saying “Shit.” Maybe even more vulgar. I do not write scripture. But I speak of the liberty in Christ, that what He truly wants from us is to flee. How we flee, it is without my knowledge. It doesn’t seem like there is anywhere to flee, so He must mean to be ready to lose life and limb, to allow oneself to be abused, to reject the calling of the sword, and to give up material possessions for the sake of salvation. There is no other way, but to slowly lose the ties to this world, until you are completely free. Thus, the yoke of His is light.

If Bob were a prophet, he’d speak words like that. Instead, he criticized legitimate Papal authority, and he criticized one of the most solid Biblical movements in history, in Calvinism. He criticized Billy Graham---who was neither greatly evil nor greatly good, but rather had a small office and surely has earned much treasure---and it seems like Bob ended up on the wrong end of every movement. I will not critique the obvious. Such is worldly. The truth is if Bob were a prophet he’d preach the Gospel. He’d have warned about these times, like I have. He’d have known what was to come, like I have. He’d have been able to give a correct answer onto the meaning and reason why things are falling apart. He would not have been like the wicked messengers telling me things which were bold faced lies, trying to get me to doubt my office and role. For it is my role because God loves me. And it is my desire, which He gave me. And the hindrance of calling me false---when I have proven myself not to be time and time again---by sending agents whether physical or spiritual---rather, Bob confirmed a familiar spirit were Michael. And if it were a different Bob Jones, then the rest will be true, except for that one part.

Dear,
Frank Baum

It amazes me how grossly stories are misrepresented. It gives credibility to the Postmodern claim of an interpretation’s subjectivity. However, those who try to turn the Wizard of Oz into communist literature, I think the literary theories implemented in that kind of mystical reading are the exact kinds we ought to avoid.

I see it with the Bible a lot, where people interpolate meanings into verses. They give mystical significance to outright straightforward stories. Each character given a symbol, often misrepresented. Often, also, because they look at the time period and derive their meaning from common elements within it. But timeless stories are not like that. They don’t need their time period to be understood. The Prodigal Child is easily interpreted as a man who has lost his way, but finds it back to the LORD once having his fill of his sinful ways.

Much that the scarecrow probably doesn’t represent a farmer, and the tin man probably doesn’t represent an industrial worker, and the cowardly lion probably doesn’t represent a philosopher. Toto probably doesn’t represent teetotalers either. Rather, the Tin Man represents a man who falsely believes he has no heart, the scarecrow represents a man who falsely believes he is not intelligent, and the cowardly lion represents a man who falsely believes he has no courage. And Dorothy---the exact reason we know it cannot be communist literature---learns the most valuable lesson of “There is no place like home.” Which, is the meaning of the story. Maybe a prodigal child sort of tale, but even that is sort of evading the obvious meaning.

To make the Witch Eastern Robber Barons is kind of missing the point, that a witch is itself a female. I don’t think capitalism is represented by a female. And the good witch obviously doesn’t represent communalism. Rather, it doesn’t represent anything except what it is. People like to put symbols into the stories, when the stories are simply aesthetic. Maybe some subconscious force causes it to be written, but I highy doubt Dorothy’s shoes are silver because the laymen wanted to invest in silver. Likely, they’re silver because the brick road is gold. And it leads to the celestial city---and there is no religious meaning to it. Rather, the city is ran by illusions. It is ran by a benevolent wizard who uses science to mystify the population. The Munchkins represent nothing but clever inventions, a peoples whom the witch must oppress. As, there is something necessary in understanding a witch oppresses. If a feminist read it, they might think it is misogynistic, and thereby interpret the whole poem under that ridiculous schema. But a communist gets to the story, and believes the story is about communism.

Then, a capitalist gets to the story, and believes the story is about capitalism. Neither are true, they’re just postmodern examples of people imprinting onto the story what they are thinking at any given moment. It might be true that the metaphors represent that to your way of thinking. But as a child, the flying monkeys were foul, the witch was scary, Dorothy was lost, Toto was cute, the Cowardly Lion, Tin Man and Scarecrow were affable and exotic characters---kinds of foils against Dorothy, which again, nullifies the esoteric meaning. It could be that the circumstances in one’s life causes one to sympathize with Dorothy, that she is fighting against an engine of capitalism. But, likely, she is not.

The story is---as a story ought to be---timeless. It’s a simple fairy-tale, where the metaphor is about bravery, intelligence and honesty. Maybe the Tin Man represents a factory worker. Maybe the scarecrow represents a provincial farmer. Maybe the lion represents a comedian. Dorothy represents---what exactly? Just the teenager---the adult form of a child, whom children have the most adoration because they are not yet adults, yet are not children either---who finds herself on an adventure. And that adventure is growing up, and finding out about this exotic place, that the best place for someone is home. That you can travel the world, and you don’t really find much. Maybe everything in Oz has a representation of some kind to the real world---that I’ll agree with. But, only in so much that the main character has to return from her journey into the world, back into the home she has built around her. Which, the metaphor is clear, it is about a young woman having an adventure, and finding out there is no place like home.

Dear,
Mr. President

During my time under your administration, I heard a clear directive that you were not supposed to be in that situation. By the grace of God you lost the election.

However, Biden has proven himself to be destructive to liberty. You did not win the election, therefore, you are not Antichrist. However, leave this be. The country is not worth saving. Its people are wicked to the core. Had you been their leader, you would have led us into WWIII. I didn’t want that on your conscience. You’re a good man, and you don’t deserve to be pressured and made into a laughing stock.

I have nothing to say right now, other than the fact that Biden has finally gone too far. It was going to happen. There will be a reckoning. Let him be the fool. The country is wicked. I can see it. Maybe you cannot. But I see it. Right now we need to succumb to Babylon, and not fight against it.

The truth is, the country needs disciplined. It needs to stand up for its rights. You could not do that on your own. In fact, you let the country shut down, Don. That mistake was crucial.

Just like in my life, there are forces stopping me from getting what I need. There are active forces preventing me from earning a living from my writing. Those forces are what holds the people back. In fifty years time, it’s likely that all will be living on stipends except a few. And people cannot live like that. We need work and occupation. The danger to our society was the large corporations eating into the freedoms of the common man. Biden is just a fascist, succumbed to the interests of large corporations.

The fact is I will not get a vaccine. Not because I think it’s unproven. Not because I think It’s unsafe. But because it should be my choice. Had I felt not pressure from the government, no coercive force, I would be already vaccinated. But, I know it’s not a government’s right. And you said you were for freedom. Why did you shut the country down? Why did you do that thing I saw you do in my dream? I won’t reveal it because I know everyone makes mistakes. Unfortunately, the danger now is that our freedom of speech and autonomy is being taken from us. And that’s something which the private citizen needs to keep.

Americans didn’t get vaccinated because we felt coerced to get vaccinated. It was something no American had ever experienced in their life, the government intruding on us. How many of us are vaccinated against Polio, or Small Pox? Almost all of us, because it wasn’t forced on us. It was something our good willed nature left us do. But, knowing that this vaccine would be forced on us---and the subsequent vaccines which would most likely be routinely administered—-Americans don’t like to lose our freedoms. There are millions of us, and I will go to jail if I have to. It’s my part to play in this, however, yours could have destroyed you.

Sincerely,
B. K. Neifert


Dear,
Mr. Dahl

Willy Wonka, in my mind, represents Satan. Not God. Some people I’ve heard call him God. No, he represents Satan. And his Candy Factory is sin. Mr. Wonka takes the troop on a tour of the chocolate factory, showing all of the delights. It’s his glibness that makes me find the Devil in him. The candy is there, and danger lurks at every corner. Though, if you walk the path, the narrow path---if you partake of the sins ethically---you end up owning the chocolate factory. Or, in laymen’s term, you receive the goal in life of the desired outcome. Riches, honor, satiation. 

It’s an important metaphor, how the children all eat from the candy. They divert in their own ways. The movie with Gene Wilder has the best rendition of the story, where Grandpa and Charlie nearly destroy themselves. Why? Because it represents grace. The sin is just as dangerous---and in that story, the children do not make it out alive. But, through the parenting of the Grandpa, Charlie is saved.

Of course, the children each have their own behavior problem. One is overly competitive, another is vapid, another watches too much TV---this one I have actually fallen victim to---and another is spoiled. Charlie, however, is humble and while he partakes of the treats in the chocolate factory---those which Wonka glibly shows the children, knowing most of them will meet their doom---he does so responsibly., and he gains possession of the whole factory. He has access to it---through hard work.

That is to say that sin is something invented for a purpose. Killing is meant to destroy wicked men, and thereby be used through justice. Perhaps Charlie becomes a judge, and now has the authority to sentence men to death. Sex is meant for procreation and building a relationship with a woman, and perhaps Charlie finds a wife. Cussing is for an expression of disgust, when the disgust is warranted for the equal reproach---or, perhaps to use as an exclamation---and thereby perhaps Charlie becomes a writer. Theft is meant to take back what someone else had stolen, and perhaps Charlie becomes a Claims Repossession man. Perhaps he becomes a Tax Official. Thereby, every sinful act has its proper use, and only the good child raised by good parents will attain it.

Satan will lead the little villains off to destruction. They will see the temptations, and not eat the candy for its proper use. His glibness, his callousness, is more concerned about the candy, perfecting its flavor, its thrill, its experience. And the children tempted by it fall victim to the vices, and get eaten up by the industrial machinery.

With that said, the story is a metaphor Grandpa walks with Charlie through the factory, yet parents him from the bed. A story is a story. The story is not about Grandpa’s laziness. The story is not about classism, communism, capitalism or anything like that. It is about---for all intents and purposes---the proper use of sin, where it no longer can be called sin.

Dear,
Redacted

Dear,
Dr. Boghossian


Why do you feel the need to proselytize your belief? It seems like you believe that “Faith” is blind obedience to an archaic law. Well, I’ve studied history and it seems like that archaic law is the subconscious of man. Men inherently pattern themselves off of that law, whether we want to believe it or not. So, let’s get back to the fact that you feel it necessary to proselytize. Belief in life after death---in my opinion---seems paramount for human flourishing. Without it, our freedom has been severely diminished in the light of “Science.” Science, which tells us that a flu virus is serious enough to shut down civilization. We must suspend our freedoms in the name of science. You cannot blame that on religion. It is purely science.

Second thing, since you are so big on empirical knowledge, what empirical knowledge says that men are half way between? That they can be both genders at once, just by feeling it? That seems more like faith to me, than the faith I ascribe to, which sees a man is clearly a man, and a woman is clearly a woman. Which, leads us to what faith is. Lao Tsu, Plato, and other philosophers had found it. In the Tao Te Tsing, Lao Tsu is speaking of an underlying substrate which exists beyond human perception or human ability to speak. Seeing that different languages speak different words for different concepts, the fact remains that the concept still exists. It, then as Plato would say, is embodied in the concept of Word or Logos. Take that one step further, what we find through Word and Tao is the teachings of Christ Jesus. That His teachings were preeminent, and spoke the most amount of truth. Seeing that I imagine Jesus teaching every word of the Bible, and telling stories of David, Moses, quoting the Law verbatim, what we find in that is still truth.

Unfortunately, you’ve looked at two chapters in Genesis, and determined the whole Bible were false. And, certainly, a certain substrate of Christians believe in those chapters. And this is where the problems arise, is that you think of Christians as backward bumpkins believing the world were six thousand years old. Certainly, the great bulk of Christians know evolution is true, and know the Earth is old. It’s not something that makes us shutter, and when I think of God, I think of a being big enough to create the world. For, how many worlds are there? How many worlds has God created? It could be that we are in one world with a universe, and Genesis is talking of the Prime World, the first of God’s creation. Or, it could just be that God created our world---literally---as the book of Genesis describes. It was just like an author writing a book. At different times, the LORD took up the pen, in seven days, and ordered the universe. When game designers create RPGs, they create it in different ways. First are the environments, then the textures, then the animals, and finally the sprites are put in with their dialogues and stories. Why would God create the world any differently?

This gets to the problem with your empiricism. Matter is being created with light---which seems to be a blaspheme---and seeing that particle physics are doubting the very universe we live in, the fact remains that we do not live on a two dimensional plane. Rather, it is faith---knowing the objective world, and seeing the invisible planes of creation and the ordering of the universe---that tells us the objective world is real. Because it must be---for if it isn’t, imagine the disorder and chaos that would ensue? And given this fact, imagine if Will were proven to exert power over the universe? How close they are to determining this, and then the entire house of cards fall for Western Empiricism. Yet, Western Empiricism works on the premise of a sound, grounded foundation. It must, therefore, look at ethical forms of technology and ethical forms of knowledge, that certain kinds of technology are dangerous, even blasphemous. And if we look at the world like this, it proves what Christ had already said. That the mountains can move with faith, and the trees. Not that these things are subject to will, but that faith is seeing the truth, the substrata of what is tangible underneath the artifice of words.

Faith is more like algebra than it is blind. Algebra is blind, but it is a logical way of looking at the world which is proven through empirical data. Faith is this, only with morals. It is a moral algebra, which when understood to the most difficult aspects of Particle Physics, Quantum Mechanics and Chemistry, it proves the ordering of the world, and a moral nature which must govern our ways. It proves itself above all other things, that there are certain things which are unnatural, and therefore unethical. That certain ideas ought not be entertained. Because it creates scientific disasters. And faith understands the moral reasons for this. It attains the ethical foundations of the world, and it proves itself because it creates happier societies. And if we fear death---for fear of death is a vice, which makes men unhappy---it is because men fear the afterlife. It is because they covet this life, and if all men fear losing this life, the fact remains that nobody will ever live it. And in that, unnatural states of technology will have to compensate for this, and create artificial realities and things which are false light. It will confuse the nature of organic reality, and trap people in Hell. For that is what hell is, I’m certain, is a technological prison, a hallucination of the dead body where nothing is real. And it is faith that finds the substance, and cures the paranoid delusions. Seeing the world for what it actually is, discovering the nature behind our artifices, that is what discovers the true reality, and Faith is seeing the moral nature of that reality and knowing the destruction aberrations of that moral nature create. And because of this, we are suffering under the aberration of faith right now, and this is why the world suffers. Or, perhaps why it rejoices while the common man loses the beautiful amenities that kept us happy. For, why does the world rejoice, and I mourn? Like Christ said? Because the world abandons all truth, even the most fundamental like Man and Woman, and they deny the power of Word and abandon even the Scientific Method for the sake of, what is in all reality, Witchcraft. And when science ceases to be science, and it becomes witchcraft, then we will know that it is against Faith, which is the Moral Algebra that if understood, helps man create beneficial patterns of being.

Dear,
Genetically Modified Skeptic

I've looked at all the same evidence as you. I'm well versed in evolution. Well versed in modern science. I find a completely different conclusion. Here's why.

First off---and you can watch the Yale Lecture---they describe what the Bible actually says. Kind of verbatim. That Abraham was one of the first people to have direct revelation from God, and he lived in Mesopotamia, so why does this "Cult of Righteousness" spring up in Mesopotamia? Around the time of the making of Hammurabi's code. The Biblical genealogies place Abraham right at that time period, which would be less of a miracle, if it didn't do that two other times. Some scholarship even goes so far as to identify that God had a son---so, it can reasonably be assumed that the Trinity was always worshipped. What's even more spooky, is that Jews in th[e] centuries leading up to Christ knew that God had a Son, and predicted His Son would be the Messiah. Even more spooky than that, is that Zechariah names the Messiah as Joshua, which if you know anything about Jesus' name, Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua. So, the Bible kind of names Jesus to be the Messiah. And we have evidence that the Trinity was worshipped, even as far back as Mesopotamia.

Second, Moses' lineage lines up right with the cult of Aten. You can do the math. And some other historical facts line up with that, too, which I was reading in my Dad's textbooks. It mysteriously vanished recently from textbooks, to where you're taught now that the Jews basically were a creation of Persia by some crazy prophet named Isaiah II. Which, certainly, cannot be true because we have historical records of Judah existing in the Tel Dan Stele, and the Nebuchadnezzar Chronicles. So, really, it ought to be established fact that the Jews, specifically Judah, existed prior to Babylonian Captivity. As the whole biblical minimalism movement hinges on that. And, frankly, it's not true. What is true, is that the Jews forgot their religion several times. It's recorded in scripture, which can only be a historical account of a people. Certain details show up such as the Bronze Serpent or the King's lineage which stays pretty consistent through the whole of the Bible. The Genealogy in Matthew lines up with the King's Genealogy in the book of Kings. And before you contest that fact, may I remind you that I read the Book of Kings, and can use the Kings to orient myself in the Biblical timeframe. For instance, when the King is Hezekiah or Joash, when reading the prophets, it annotes two very different time periods. And that same Genealogy I use every day to orient myself in Biblical time. The fact that it is so accurate---with some minor problems, but I don't think the Bible ought to be perfect, as then men would worship it and not God, which kind of is the problem facing modern Christianity today---that I find the Genealogical accounts to be about 99.9% accurate. In modern manuscripts, where the Genealogies are accounted and updated, the only error in the Gospel of Matthew is "Admin.", which really isn't that much. I think the Bible gets a lot more right than it gets wrong, and really, the only things it does get wrong are factoids, which accounting for the overwhelming amount of things it gets right about human sociology and psychology, and even details and predictions, it's pretty much a mystery as to how it cannot be accepted as the Word of God. As, the reason why Moses lining up with the cult of Aten is important, is that the Pharaoh randomly decided to convert to monotheism for no apparent reason. In my estimate, it's probably because he saw the Red Sea Parted and the firstborn child of every Egyptian die.

Third, there's the fact that the Bible tells us a lot about Prehistory. It gets a lot of details right. I heard it claimed in some circles that Babylon never existed. That's an actual theory floating around, just as absurd as Jesus never existing. But, let me tell you why I know Jesus existed. First off, the Vatican contains His death certificate, which said, "He who claimed to be the King of the Jews." I know someone who saw it first hand. And, there's also records of his census. And, then there's some textual evidence that Jesus lived. Namely, that Jesus sweat blood which is an actual medical condition, and that Jesus had a heart attack on the cross. The water flowing from His wound was the water sack surrounding his internal organs, which is pretty accurate, and confirms that Jesus did in fact die. Now, we know he raised because the religion's still around. Men don't actively die for a lie. The apostles who saw Him resurrected were willing to be burned, impaled and crucified to keep that testimony.

Then, theres the predictions the Bible gets right. Namely, Psalm 22, Psalm 2, Isaiah 53, Jeremiah 31. If you account for prehistory, the Torah even predicts Babylonian Captivity and Isaiah predicts Cyrus would restore Israel to Zion. Which, given that Isaiah 53 is in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it's almost a certain that those prophecies weren't edited in later on, but actually existed.

And for the Bible being a bunch of Sumerian myths---really, that's impossible. The more probably truth is the Sumerian myths were sourced from earlier material, and that earlier material became the reference point for Moses when He wrote down the Torah.

Yes, the Bible is God's word. It's not perfect, and that's why you need to have a relationship with God, because only by that relationship will you be able to be a good person. You cannot be a good person without God's help. That's what the Gospel teaches. There's no way to be forgiven without the Blood of Jesus, and there's no way to walk in accordance with Truth unless you have God shepherding you. As Tolstoy said, "It's not given to people to judge what's right or wrong. People have eternally been mistaken, an[d in] nothing more than in what they consider right and wrong." This is why Christ needs to be our teacher and shepherd. Because a few geniuses like Mozi, Confucius, Lao Tsu, Aristotle, Plato, [Maimonides], Socrates etc. have found bits and pieces of truth. But I adjure you to find a place that has more truth than the Bible does. Even the verses on Genocide speak truth, that some cultures are irredeemable, but let God damn them, and not man; let God give the command on when it's ethical to go to war, and let no man be given that burden. That's the highest command in scripture, is to allow Christ be the judge, and not ourselves.

Dear,
Mr. Jani

Your critique of Self Help was masterfully produced. I actually read Dale Carnegie. To me it's a course on ethics. I look for different things from books. I'm less concerned about making it in the world, and I'm concerned on finding the truth. Just simply that. There's a thousand different quotes from a thousand philosophers, from a thousand countries that say the truth is unmarketable, and nothing is hated more. So, obviously, if my marketing strategy is the truth, there in lies the strategy failure. But I'm okay with that, as I know another maxim is true. The truth is the only thing that has longevity.

Which brings me to the meditation I was having in your video on the Toxicity of Self Help. I thought of Jesus. Simply, the better way of being is to allow oneself to feel pain. To allow oneself to mourn. To be affected by the misfortune of others. To allow oneself to love. That's one of the reasons I liked Dale Carnegie, was that he taught practical messages for loving other people. I didn't see it as a Self Help book, more than a practical guide to ethical dialectics. Like the Ben Shapiro model of having audiences ask you questions, and then subsequently wrecking them isn't the dialectic I think is ethical. Rather, I think people come to truths, and it's more important that we figure out what the truth is. It's a Postmodern concept, but my idea about it is not Postmodern. When people say, "My truth," they usually mean how they experience something, but rather, if it's truth it's universally applied for all people. Even the scales and balance of prosperity has axioms. The more wealthy are higher appraised for being wealthy. The impoverished are seen as less than.

Which gets me to what I feel is the illusion of Self Help. I think there's a very real corruption in the society that rewards bad behavior and rewards unethical ways. Which is being harshly criticized and blamed on Capitalism---but it's not actually capitalism. Capitalism and what this current world exhumes are on two different axises. The real issue is a moral one. You can see it in commercials saying ,"Impatience is a virtue," reversing the ancient wisdom. Or another hashtag, "Sin works." Frankly, in a just society neither of these statements would exist. But, the first indicates that if you don't rush, you're going to have your success stolen from you by someone else. And the second indicates that acting unethically gets you further ahead in life, because it gives you the edge over your opponents. But, what it actually does is disadvantage the people who are genuinely innovators. We've seen this in many historical examples, of geniuses having their ideas stolen by someone who could market them, and then being left impoverished. The fact is, this is why I believe in Christ. Because this is the world. This has always been the world. Alexander gets credited with the victory, but the names of his army are nowhere to be found. Great men are the ones who have manipulated and controlled. Which, likely is what you dislike about self help. Both the manipulative nature of the industry, but also the illusion of progress. In my situation, nobody wants to hear the truth. And if they did, I'd be a rich man. I'd think. But nobody wants to hear about Jesus, and everyone wants to believe that sin is okay, or even noble. When, in fact, it isn't because it disallows people from achieving what is rightfully theirs. The fact that there is a self help industry, to help bypass work---which is really what it is all about---and thereby get success through hacking public perceptions, is itself a part of the corruption. It should be, that a man with an acreage can farm it however he wants, and profit off of it. But the true tyrants are the ones who come in and block that acreage from being usable. As the Proverb goes, "There's much increase in the tillage of the poor, but by ways of corruption it ceases to be." The fact is, that for me writing is my acreage, but a zeitgeist specifically developed to block the truth keeps me from making an income. I'm aware of it. After 200 attempts at publishing, it's not being published because it's been cultured that what I have to say is unpopular. But, one thing I know is that truth persists. And that's really my marketing strategy in the long term. It may be that I become a wealthy man, and it might be that I don't. But, I have to tell the truth. As, there won't be anyone but a very select few rich if I don't. And like any medicine, it's not very palpable.

But, that's my thoughts on self help.

Dear,
Red Pen Logic

I find it amazing what you said about Christmas. I completely believe you, too. Is Jesus becoming more real to you? He's becoming more real to me, too. The more I dig, the more I find out that Atheist's claims are completely bunk.

But, a good answer I used to give---specifically about the Virgin birth of other gods---was that God winked at humanity through other mythologies. Like Virgil's Aenid is supposed to be very similar to Christian morality. So through everything else.

The fact that Christ's birth would be virgin is predicted in Isaiah 7---I think the Jews changed the meaning of the word ex post facto, as in Zechariah 6 the word for "Sprout" they turned into Chametz. Ironically, in Zechariah 3 and 6 it has such a complete exposition on the Gospel, that it's more convincing than Isaiah 53. You should check it out sometime. It literally names Jesus as the Messiah. "Joshua" in Hebrew is the word "Jesus" in Greek. So, it literally names Yeshua as the Messiah in those two chapters.

But, the fact that other mythologies would claim divine virgin births, as I was explained by G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis, was what Paul was explaining at the Sermon on Mars Hill. God interacted with other cultures indirectly. It was just that the full revelation of God would come through the Jews and their heritage. Finally culminating into the Birth, Death and Resurrection of the Messiah. Where we'd get the pure version of What God had for Man. It wasn't interpreted through prophets---though I believe Jesus, in His secret teachings to the disciples, would quote verbatim Paul's letters and even the Old Testament.

Just some food for thought. Thank you for the Christmas Present! It's now us who are the intellectual heavyweights. We're now the underdogs, and that's why we're beginning to find truth. We're just as convincing as the Atheists were ten years ago. Don't forget it. They've been sufficiently beaten, but that's also why they're on top. He who is first is last, and he who is last is first. We're now the intellectual force. We're now the voice of reason. We're now what liberals and atheists were ten years ago. Just as grating and secretly convincing. Remember that.

Sincerely,
B. K. Neifert

Dear,
Spinoza

A mechanical god, one with nature, the laws of physics and the laws of morality---impersonal, unaffected, is not a god. Lucretius is my current muse. And I love every verse of his. Every part of his poems, masterfully translated into my language, is beautiful. The entreaty to Venus, or love, the entreaty to abandoning religion because of its immoral nature. These are things I cautiously accept as true. However, though morals, science and nature are self evident in itself, this is not god.

You say God is impersonal, and does not interact with human beings. I completely disagree. Every aspect of my life proves there's providence behind it. Sometimes I'm amazed at how well God listens to me. Sometimes I'm even paranoid that some force malicious is listening to me, and bringing to bear all my prayers. But, that's not so. Rather, God does interact with men, He does change and bend the laws of physics, and He does have a personal relationship with His subjects.

It may seem narcissistic to believe that God listens... when in fact He actually does. And blatantly, I see your god being believed in in the end days. And a great disorder it will create. Because, there's one problem with your theory. Just one. If there is no one to judge---and morals are self evident---why follow them? If no consequence will fall eternally upon the brow of a man who rebels---certainly, men like Genghis Kahn and Nero had far more exorbitant pleasures than any men in history. The Aztecs, likewise, committed cannibalism without censure. It was praised.

While Lucretius is right, that religion is often a guise to the worst kinds of evil---so would an evil of sorts be created by believing all god were, is the forces of the universe. For, then nothing but man could make man accountable, and therefore, law---whether benevolent or not---would be the sole arbiter. Thus, naturally, rich men would be better suited for this system than the poor. The prideful than the humble. The warrior over the worker. Some may say this is always been--- True. But, it ought not be. And because it is, something must hold it accountable, otherwise the outcome is misery for the masses, and sublime pleasures for the few who rule them.

With that, I've studied history, and it seems to me that God had shown the Laws we ought to live by in three stages. First, with Hammurabi. Second with Moses. And third, with the Messiah Christ. And each dispensation, the law was revealed slowly, never changing but rather reaffirming the truth. For, in Abraham's day it was simply the invention of law that needed to be. In Moses' day it was the necessity for man to have relationship with his Creator. And finally in Christ, it was the necessity of understanding men are Sabbath Breakers, and need to be forgiven. 

With that being said, the law hasn't changed. In the Torah, it says a man guilty of innocent blood ought to stop and change his ways, and he will no longer be guilty of innocent blood. With that, God will change and rend the times and laws and seasons to place you far away from the old man, so that you forget him completely. For, that is the mystery of the Prophets and law, is mercy. And God---being far more advanced in mind than any of us---is the only one who can arbitrate and therefore cleanse our souls from wrongdoing. For the world is apt to judge so harshly that a summary offense will become a fatal fault, and a flagrant capital offense will be considered perfectly justifiable. And should either offense be made, God will cleans that offense from man with the Blood of Christ, therefore, making that man like he had never sinned.

Dear,
Dr. Pinker

I will sidestep your saying archeology does not support scripture. It does. I will sidestep your argument that science does not support scripture. God is omnipotent.

What I will say, is that in your interview with Penguin you said, "This world seems to be exactly what the world would seem, if there were no God. Good men suffer, and bad men don't." I paraphrase. But that is the summation of why you don't believe in God.

I wrote you an email, saying, "This world is exactly what you would find, if men had no fear of God." I hope you infer from that where my argument will go.

Religion is not a noble lie. It is not something, like Plato posits, that men create to help regulate the populace, and allow for the most amount of happiness. It'd be easy to go that route, with severe amounts of doubt, but the tangible proof only can affirm what the Gospel teaches. The concrete historical evidence and the actual factual evidence. However, I've written about that evidence to other writers, whom I have published the correspondences.

However, what you said about creating justice for the purpose of helping people make choices---is that not why there is hell? And if bad men were to go unpunished, what would prevent them from making this Earth a hell? Men are unable to rationalize---without religion---the effects they have on others. Most religions were creations of men to help men get along, and so build societies which could work. Because the general Laws found in most religions are paralleled across all cultures and civilizations, with many exceptions.

Yet, without God---and you should know, as a Jewish Man---Who would ultimately judge, as that is what God means in Hebrew, isn't it? Is "Judge". And without fear of Him, what restrains a man from accomplishing all his desire on the innocent? Obviously a conscience. Yet, many cultures had their consciences removed---some even by religion---so to what effect does this have? Tangibly, scientifically, we see as many appeals to authority and law as there are civilizations. Yet, the human heart already comes wired with knowledge of equity. Where does this come from? And the worst individuals are those who see the abuse given to them, and then go out and try to rectify it with their own brand of justice. Is there no other one worse than this? Then the man whose only law is one appealed to himself? Therefore, Who is it that arbitrates the holy law? It must be God. As there are many pointless abuses caused by Human Justice which ought to be obvious. And when every man walks according to the justice he creates in his heart---what can there be but war? And in that, is why it seems like God is absent. Because men have gone astray from His law, and the cause of that is hardness of heart and unbelief. And a refusal to accept the entirety of His law. Which men, given free agency by God, can choose Him or not---as that is the only choice. And by not choosing Him, they choose to live by their own standard, and thereby create enormous amounts of suffering ipso facto. 

Dear,
Dr. Shermer

Christ prayed before the cross that the church would be unified, so men wouldn't doubt Him. Sweat blood actually. Which is an actual medical condition. Then, he died of a heart attack where the water lining cushioning his lungs and heart was ruptured, and it poured out His side when the Roman pierced Him.

Frankly, out of those 34,000 denominations of Christians, a very small number of them are heretical in the traditional sense. Christianity is complicated. And like all complicated things, people are going to have differing opinions about minutia stuff---such as whether there's free will or choice, which is probably what fractures the church the most. In my estimation, both. I believe Free Will and Determinism exist simultaneously. It's just human folly to believe that it's an either/or problem.

This gets to the meat and potatoes of why I believe in Christ. A Carpenter's Bastard, somehow develops a moral philosophy more cogent than Aristotle, Plato, Mozi, Confucius, Maimonides, Socrates, Lao Tsu and the entire schema of prior Religious Thinkers combined. I find that a miracle in itself. The fact that Christ's morality is more cogent than any other in history. Men find radical grasps at it---but Christ's is so self evident and He with no education finds this. He's either a genius---a very superb genius---with godlike intellect, or He's actually God.

And, it's unlikely His apostles would have even suffered an ounce if they had believed He didn't raise from the dead. People don't die for what they expressly don't believe. Men don't fight in revolutions for a cause that they think isn't worth dying for. So, it's about a 100% chance that the disciples saw Jesus after He died. And, the medical evidence found in the Bible suggests that He only could have died. 

And if you're going to suggest that he had a twin---I highly doubt that's the case. As, His birth records and death certificate are still housed at the Vatican, and no record exists of Him having a twin. I've had professors who've seen the certificate, and the Vatican hides it because it says something different than what the Gospel say. But, frankly, it's just what the Pharisees wanted to put above Jesus' cross in the first place. So, it's actually more convincing on that account.

It's almost hard to deny the evidence that Jesus is God. I've studied it for so long, listened to so many different debates on it---even what Academia commonly distributes about the Gospel and Judaism confirms what the Bible says. They interpret the facts, but the facts on their own prove what the Bible has already been saying. A good example of this is the so called "Cult of Righteousness" that turns up in Mesopotamia around the establishment of the Hammurabi's Code. Well, genealogically Abraham lines up right with that, if you backdate the records of Genealogies from the Persian Restoration of Israel. And Moses, coincidentally, lines up right with the Cult of Aten. And that's interesting because what on earth would cause a Pharaoh to abandon polytheism? I'd think seeing frogs fall from the sky, the Nile turn to blood and the Red Sea parted would be a good reason for him to convert to Monotheism.

Anyways, there's also the direct reference to Jesus in Zechariah 3 and 6. It quotes Him by name. There's Isaiah 53, there's Psalm 2 and 22, which are all proven to exist prior to Christ and Christianity. There's plenty of evidence that Jesus is the LORD. Too much, actually, for it to be ignored by someone like myself.

Now, I'm a big fan of Lucretius, as I just bought him today. I understand your arguments. But, the fact remains that it would make sense that if there were a God, He would directly reveal Himself to the world. And I think He did that through Prophets and Apostles, and at the center of that He came Himself and demonstrated what He meant. Leviticus 27:29 literally says that a man devoted to God must die. Abraham had to sacrifice Isaac, and God stopped him and said "I will Provide". I'm a student of literature. That seems more consistent, in theme, than most books have. 

There's a few errors in the Modern Bible. But, even that, I think Kierkegaard is right that the faith is more important than the object of faith. Because the Bible gets significantly more right than those very trivial details it gets wrong. Very trivial. And frankly, I don't trust Archeology is a complete enough field to reject the Bible's claims. And what the Bible says is often corroborated by Archeology, like the Tel Dan Stele, Nebuchadnezzar Chronicles, Isaiah 53 in the Dead Sea Scrolls---there's tons more. And then the ubiquity of flood myths. Even in the Americas there's flood myths. I mean, it's almost 100% certain that God is the God of the Bible.

Dear,
Skeptic

Well, when describing miracles, I've seen many. And I don't think it's a matter of faulty memory. For one thing, I dreamt Hail Britannica before I wrote it. I also get, like the voice of my conscience, words. Often spoken in malapropisms that I would understand, and then when I search the word, I find the exact word I'm supposed to use. And that word is often a word I'd never heard used before. So, as I write, there is a little still voice telling me the perfect word, which I know most writers struggle with. In my own life, I saw a blind and deaf man healed of his blindness. He was blind. He was deaf. And when I left the building, after the Gospel was being preached, he stumbled out the door of The Barnes and Noble able to see. And I know he couldn't hear because he was spoken to, and I saw quite a look of astonishment like he'd never had that experience before. I've seen two demons cast out, I've seen people's eyes turn black as the pit of night, I've seen prophecies fulfilled. However, this is all hearsay, isn't it? 

Well, what's not hearsay is Isaiah 53. It can be about nobody beside Jesus. It is historically been a part of the Bible at all times, and because of that, I have no doubt that the rest of the Bible, and its predictions, have been preserved in the Bible's text, too. Such predictions are Deuteronomy's prediction of Israel obtaining a king, the collapse of Israel and Judah because of sin, and the restoration of Israel. All of this is predicted in Deuteronomy, and we know this because it's what the Prophets like Jeremiah and Isaiah spoke, having no evidence that they were forgeries created by the Persian Empire because the subject of the books are too invested in the material. It describes a siege in realistic ways that only someone who's witnessed it could describe. Then, Isaiah predicts Cyrus would restore Israel back from Babylon to the Holy Land. And if that's not enough, Isaiah also predicts Christ in no clearer terms than Isaiah 53. There are other chapters of the Bible, maybe about four hundred of them in the Old Testament, if taken in their literal context are talking about Jesus. And when you know this, the Bible is far more understandable.

Then, two miracles I've heard from witnesses were a man who spoke at the United Nations. He had a genetic aberration for heart disease. And he died of a Heart Attack. He was, like many others, healed from that heart attack and so completely healed that his genetic markers for Heart Disease were removed from him. So, even if homosexuality or serial killing are genetic, God can remove that genetic material from you to make you completely whole. And why couldn't He? And God distinguishes that both killing and sodomy are equal in weight as a crime; both deserve the penalty of death. And should a generational curse---as Solomon pointed out---be written in the DNA of someone, God can surely remove it completely, like a circumcision knife does the foreskin.

Finally, one more miracle which I found absolutely convincing, was an Muslim man who was an Imam. And he found Jesus through reading the Quran. In several ayahs it literally says Jesus is God, and to believe in Jesus. It says Jesus is the "Word of God" and the "Spirit of God" and that Jesus performed miracles. And Muhammad says that God created the Universe through the "Word", Who is Jesus, therefore making Jesus God in Islam. For, if Jesus is the Word, and the universe was created through the Word, then the world was created through Jesus, and any being Whom can create from nothing must be a god. And it is blasphemous to believe in three gods, there must only be one. This same man was nearly killed by His family, and an angel of the LORD wounded his assailant with the sword, so the man whom I speak of went free and lives to this day preaching the word of God joyfully.

There are many miracles like this. Both light and dark. Some men have witnessed a man like a dragon fly through the air, and breathe fire from the palms of his hand. Some men have witnessed the dead raised, as I was raised from the dead when I was overcome by a wave; and it was by spiritual force that I was even healed; even on that day I saw the shadow of Satan on the shore in his dark robes. On that day I spoke with God and was revealed mysteries which I shall not speak. Men have created matter through light, thus, the greatest miracle of them all, Creation, is seen to be feasible even by our paltry science. There are many miracles. And that is why the faith is confirmed.

Dear,
Mr. Schlossberg

I know it is just a fictional story. Yet, if I had some words to share with Danielson, these would be it.

"Karate is a good hobby. Mr. Myagi used it as a way to purge aggression. Meditation is good, and karate is a good tool at purging aggressive tendencies, and cooling down the shadow.

"However, brawling as a form of self defense is wrong. Violence begets more violence. The only time one should fight, is in wartime. And in wartime, there must be a complete end of one of the two opponents. As only then can there be a resolution to the conflict.

"Law's recourse is to prevent violence from spilling into the streets. And as for Johnny, forgive the man. He needs forgiveness. As I need forgiveness.

"The only end to the conflict is to forgive. There can be no other way to resolve this, without bloodshed. And if there is bloodshed, it is no different than a turf war between two rival gangs.

"Law begets order. Fighting begets a cycle which, gotten out of control, will end with either of the two sides warring for an entire generation, until one side is fallen.

"I know you're not real... But your story is real to me. To fight brings a cycle of violence, yet the recourse of law brings order.

"Myagi trained only one student. His reason, was because he used Karate as a mentoring tool. Not as a means to make money. Not as a means to teach kids self defense. Each child requires special attention, and he was like a father to you, Danielson. With that, you cannot teach many students Karate. You must only teach one. It is the Myagi way. (Which I hope the show teaches.)

"There needs to be forgiveness. As forgiveness is like a cool water over a hot flame. It makes the soul purged of its anguish. War is to be fought by nations, and declared by law. Which is how our great nation was founded, was through the order of law. Every bullet fired was ordained by the edict of law and self governance. It was not created by rebels, who then fought. It was created by well orchestrated men, whom by recourse of Law gave the precedence for war. And in that, we won our freedom. It was not mobs of men fighting in the street, as that kind of thing can only beget a cycle of violence which would perpetuate, and lo, it does."


Dear,
Dante

Your masterpiece is one of my favorite muses. The flame who gave the Pope advice, insidious. The rich being trodden down for their anger and sloth, magnificent.

However, you put Boniface in hell. He was hated by the world, I know. For, he tried to use Ecclesiastical authority to bind the kingdoms from war. In my estimation, the turmoil which would ensue from his beating and eventual death are likely the cause of the Dark Ages. The Hundred Years War and The Black Death.

Had Ecclesiastical authority proven to create peace, there would have been no hundred years war, and no black plague. How do I consider this? The influx of rats were initiated by superstition and uncleanliness. For in France it was not uncommon for there to be Sodomites, prior to the martyring of Boniface. That was the culture. And the unclean attitude created the corruption which denied Papal authority and thus led to a hundred years of war for none would have the Papal decrees of peace; and the uncleanliness created by superstition created an influx of rats from the hatred of cats, thus their fleas, thus the bubonic plague.

Boniface likely was trying to keep the peace, and the kingdoms, with no regard to Papal Authority, took him and beat him. And like a slave, Boniface died from his wounds from a fever. Yet the world hates him, and so do you? For what? Trying to bind Europe with peace? Trying to govern through Church authority? And yet today, it's said how much authority the church had, and that all the wrongs of the world are committed by Catholics. Yet, in my estimation, when a Pope tried to exercise that authority, the Kings conspired and put him to death. And the greatest poet to ever live puts that Pope in hell because of common hatred. 

It seems to me that Boniface is an example of how little power the Church had over the governments. They did what they wished. And when the Crusades happened, it was not the Church and its piousness, but the incursions into Spain from North Africa, thus a political motivation, not religious. As why would Boniface be martyred, and so hated? Why would Dante put him in hell? I do not conjure your ghost. Why put him in hell, Dante? For what? Trying to breed peace? Blessed are the Peacemakers. Yet, Boniface could not bind the warlust in Europe, and thus erupted into one of the bloodiest wars in history, and one of the longest. One hundred years of war, mingled with Plague. To which Joan of Arc, a true prophet, stopped the war; and she too was martyred!

Yet at least Joan has honor. What of Boniface? Placed in hell! Yet, Dante, no poet is perfect in knowledge. Nor are any poets purely reasoned based on the truth, and their modern age corrupts them. For that you are forgiven; for I too, must have some wrong in my masterpieces which are taught to me by the prejudice of my age. For that, I forgive you and say your work is the most brilliant, even better than Virgil. Yours is the greatest work of art in letters, no comparison. That and Milton's Paradise Lost.

Dear,
Kirby

The Beast, Antichrist and False Prophet will be a collaboration of 22 individuals. Not three. However, each of these public individuals correspond to the head of an actual demon, which has taken on flesh. In the end days, demons will take on flesh, and convince people they are "Aliens". I have seen the form the Dragon will take, as it has a sculpture in Hindu Temples. It is obvious that it will deceive the nations, pretending that aliens are in fact extraterrestrial beings, when indeed they are demonic apparitions meant to deceive.

However, the Beast will be three heads from the principality of Moab, three heads from the principality of Tyre, one head from the principality of Ziddon, two heads from Babylon, and one head from Assyria. The Dragon will be ten heads from Egypt---as the Nile is likened to a dragon. And the False Prophet will be two heads from Ephraim in alliance with Syria.

However, each of these heads will correspond to a demon, who controls them; and this demon looks like its description in revelation. The heads and crowns relate to their office. Some heads will have titles of nobility, while others will not. The Whore of Babylon relates to modern day Turkey, and Istanbul. From there, the whole entire world receives commerce. Istanbul is called "The City on Seven Hills." I had actually received this from a vision. Jordan will be the capital of this principality at the end of the age. I had seen this in a vision.

That is the entirety of my knowledge on this, and I have mythologized it in my poetry. Giving each of the figures a type---however it is just fiction. It is just to acclimate the reader to understanding the Nations in Revelation. The Philistines, Ammonites, Amorites, etc. have their role to play, too. However, I am not yet sure how they fit into it. Perhaps they are part of the ten heads of state who rule with Egypt.

However, the Mark of the Beast, the name of the Beast is "Sin", and "Sin" was a Moon Goddess of the Babylonians who the people's would worship by having sex with the virgins in the town square. Sin is the name of the beast. And his number is "666" or two thirds of a man. A man with his Spirit removed from him. To make him a beast like Nero. Often, I place Nero in the category of "Ephraim" or the "False Prophet", because Nero had converted to Judaism, which was the reason he persecuted Christians. 

That is the entire knowledge I have on this matter.

Dear,
Ted

Why do you depict reason as a demon? In Christian Theology the Logos is one with God. Logos, in Greek, is Reason.

This gets to a fascinating coincidence today. I, on January 21, 2022, saw a description of a very rare phenomena. It was a supposed "UFO" sighting over Nuremburg. Now, there are no aliens. I know that for a fact. As, making the symbol I saw into a UFO spaceship nullifies the symbol of the actual events being described. By multiple witnesses. There were two crosses fighting on the eye of the sun, and this was right when Catholics and Protestants were about to really go at it.

William Wordsworth writes a story called "The White Doe of Rylstone." The events are dated at 1569. And, this very rare historical artifact shows up in verse 258 of Canto III. On the same day I discover it. Now, the plot thickens. I have annunciated the same meaning to this symbol. We both concur that it's about church division.

What this means, is that there is communication. Two people, from two completely different time periods, discover the same symbol from the same event. We both conclude that it's a metaphor for religious war between the Protestants and the Catholics. If there is meaning---and hold off on the miracle for just a second---it means there must be a god. Why? Because for meaning to transcend personal interpretations---to actually exist---requires the existence of truths which science cannot measure. In short, Logos. If there are truths which lie beyond the physical world; truths which cannot be measured by science or instruments, then there must be a higher authority and a higher ordering of the universe.

Now, I'm confident there aren't time travelers, or UFOs---in the traditional sense---I'm confident these were signs by God. As, one serendipitous thing has happened. I found this on the same day I read the specific Canto by William Wordsworth in the White Doe of Rylstone. Such a timing would be astronomically impossible to intersect in time and space. Now, the Demon of Reason can pop up, and say that some extraterrestrial force set those events in motion. I highly doubt that. Such an assumption would require them to have such a mastery over time and space, and also a mastery over human subjects, and a mastery over computer technology, and a mastery over communication, that such a coincidence is impossible to be created by any intelligence, other than God's.

With that said, to find the meaning of the symbol means there is meaning to be found. It means there is communication, beyond that of physical matter. And, that would be just one, small thing, if not for the myriads of other things I've witnessed. Such things which could only be Supernatural and miraculous. I describe one event. Therefore, reason, if it is a demon, cannot be reason at all. And even that, sort of, is kind of miraculous that it could even be so perfectly timed for this email.

Sincerely,
B. K. Neifert

P.S.

Slippery slope is not a fallacy, if the sufficiency of each causal chain necessitate. That would make it syllogism, which is perfectly logical.

P.S.S.

I've also seen Russian rivers run like blood. I've seen children's eyes go black as the pit of night. I've seen blind and deaf people healed. I've seen God's story written in the stars. I've seen people healed completely from illnesses. I've seen people raised from the dead. 

If you can believe in aliens, and they'd be capable of contriving an event so specific, then why me? Personally, I know you have no faith. So, be deluded. You'll be as mad as I was believing in all that mumbojumbo.

Dear,
Dr. Peterson

Yes, belief in God in very difficult. Christ said, "If you had even a grain of faith the size of this mustard seed, you could make the mountain move." Who has ever had even a grain of faith?

It is because we don't, that is why we need Jesus. Even if I've healed the blind, the deaf, the demon possessed, the lame, the sick, the hungry.; even if I've prophesied the world's end, and knew without a doubt. Still, that little tiny grain of faith is nearly impossible to obtain. Because men are not perfect.

Christ did not come to the world as a teacher of ethics. There were many teachers before Him. There was the Old Testament. There were many people---though scattered abroad to the four corners of the universe---there was some grasp of God's word in every culture that ever existed. Christ did not come to teach us morals. He came to redeem us from the penalty of not obeying them.

By Christ's moral purity, we know Him to be God Come in the Flesh. Yet, even we doubt---all Christians---when faced with certain suppositions. What makes me doubt, is of course, the concepts of science fiction. Yet, I have to retain my faith in spite of it, for there is one truth. I am not perfect. I need Christ as a crutch to help me in this world, and I need him as a purifier to get to the next.

For, if I by my own deeds thought I could attain to eternal life---as you noted---there would be no possibility of me attaining that life. For, without Christ---since His law is self evident and written on our heart---we would have no hope of ever attaining to eternal life, or fellowship with the Father.

For, every sage in history has attained to similar moral understanding, with many follies. Yet, Christ died and raised to redeem us from our folly. For without Him we should be without hope because of the great separation of our sin. Satan had tried to hinder this, yet I prevailed.

Dear,
Chris

On a video with Vanity Fair, you mentioned there were multiple versions of the Ten Commandments. I had believed you, and looked at the verses you put down. One of those was Deuteronomy 34:27. Deuteronomy 34 stops at verse 12.

It also occurred to me that your Ten Commandments are being followed right now. And, the result has been catastrophic. I would say you laid down modern ethics nicely, in your Ten Commandments. And, it's brought so much disaster to the world. I can't even begin to start explaining the ways in which your Ten Commandments are insufficient. For one, you proscribe against disciplining children. That alone has brought catastrophic failure to the West. Then, you claim that someone ought not censure Homosexuals. That has created such division in the world today, because it's plainly wrong and foul. It is a purely hedonistic thing, and it makes sex inconsequential. It makes sex a hobby. One toyed with by many, and the result is unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Aside from that, you greatly condemned rape. Which is very noble of you. It doesn't take a wise man to know that's wrong. But God had already condemned that under "Adultery". Which your abysmal understanding of scripture---and outright incompetence at even suggesting verses to read---shows you know absolutely nothing about the Bible or its morality.

I, however, do. And I've written much on the moral nature of the Ten Commandments, the greatest of them being the first. As, there is a need to believe in God's existence because without it men are fearful of death to the point where they will grind civilization to a halt if it means saving themselves from the inconvenience of death. Personally, I'd rather see more of the world than a little crappy Facebook avatar, and some cute graphics. I'd like to be free to move, eat, shop, and associate whenever and with whoever I want.

For your brother Peter's sake, I do not speak the full weight of my mind toward you. You are dead, and rightly your philosophy on life cannot work. It is proven not to. In five years we have gone from a flourishing society, to believing exactly what you do. And the result is tyranny, war, confusion and unrest. I believe when you passed, you had sparred with God in your tyrannical way, and God had given you your desire. To conform the world to your piss poor morals. And, we see it is disaster. So, relinquish yourself unto hell. Peter cannot be comforted in your salvation, you wretch. Because after receiving manifold counsel from him, and manifold warnings, you had hardened yourself and bitterly refuted your brother. And for that, you have shown yourself to be a fool. So, relinquish yourself to hell, you have failed. For our sake on the Earth so we do not have to suffer under your dictatorship of morals.


©2021 - 2022 B. K. Neifert

All Rights Reserved