What is religion, if not a purifier of the heart?
If religion teaches you to curse
Or if religion teaches you to hate
Or if religion teaches you to deceive
What use is it?

If religion teaches you to subjugate
If religion teaches you there are races greater
And races lesser, if religion teaches you
That anything beside the Heart
IS what God looks upon for judgment
What use is it?

What religion must force converts
And kill and threaten
And tell its people to lay up hatred in their heart
What use is it?

It is a cursed religion.
One which I hate.

In the Bible, God, when He lives upon the Earth
The God of the Jews and Christians,
When He reigns for one thousand years
He will permit all faiths to exist;
Yet, the knowledge of His law will be preeminent
For it is even above His name.
God, for Him to be just, 
Must hold truth above even His own holiness.
That is why Christians are taught never to lie
While Muslims, their faith is a lie.

Penniless, penniless
Two geniuses were made.
What man, being wise
Doth with perfect knowledge
Guess first all presumptions true?
For a mistake, friends were made enemies---
A moot mistake of pedantic dragons.

The sky is like the fumes of a furnace's smoke
The embers dashed upon the mountains.
The lightning flashes, the thunder's war,
The eerie Indian Rain casts ember's glow upon all things
Enshrouded by smoke.

Criticize me for a mistake I made,
But know I am not a god.

For the wickedness of the feud
Was theft, bribery and violence
For the sum of fortunes made by digging up bones.
Flash twice, thou lightning,
For two wicked foes
The thunder rolls.

I am imperfect, and should a man
Pour over my work to find
A detail wrong or a comma splice...
A "then" spelled for "than" or vice versa---
Do not be like Marsh and steal from me.
Do not pedantically search my words for a place to pounce.

I am not like Cope. I shall weep bitterly
For the fire in my heart would dim
Like the sunset's furnace.
The smoke of my cloudy sky would be snuffed out.
I have tried with all my prowess to give the summation of my thoughts.
For, I am a poet, not a historian.
I am a poet, not a scientist.
I only speak what is the science of the soul...
What are the Forms lying beyond this world.
And my science is accurate.
It decries the hidden wisdoms of the world.

Neifert, B. K.. My Collected Writings. Kindle Direct, (C)2021. pp. 403 - 404.

Two can speak a word
Which is the same.
Yet, one from ill motives
And another from right.

It is not the words spoken
But their intent
Which makes an utterance true.

O, Providence's mighty hand struck down
The bricks of rebellious sons and 'twas found.
God need no man to prove He exists. Shot
Down were the bricks with lightning, of George Floyd.
Let his name now be made to ever rot
In hell, for the power of God, annoyed
Broke to rubble the emblem of black hate.
Another is to go up, God, please also, this, break.

Neifert, B. K.. My Collected Writings. Kindle Direct, (C)2021. pp. 280.

The Tyranny of the Modern Day
Is that an oppressive Capitalist Class
Is trying to erase the general knowledge of truth
From the lower classes.
And they emphatically do this
Because it benefits the lower class's aim
To exude ignorance, and thereby
Believe what they want about the world.
Yet, without knowledge of truth
The lower classes will have no ability to reason for themselves.
For truth will be whatever their Kings give them.
Thus, the manner in which Tyranny is encroaching
Is by the erasing of truth
And thereby inventing the notion that truth is subjective.
Any cursory observation in both language and science
Will prompt one to see that this is not so.
But, if the masses are so selfish as to want to be themselves
The sole container of all truths in the universe
It is invariably so that they will succumb to great oppression
Which they will willfully and joyfully submit themselves to.

Boys have x and y chromosomes.
Girls have only x chromosomes.
So, it's not sexist to say, "Guys"
When referring to a group.
Only men have both chromosomes
And so "Masculine" is also neutered.
If you said, "Gals," girls do not have y
Chromosomes, so the language is not inclusive.

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,
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,
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 Christianity'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 them 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.