Freedomain
Politics • Culture • Lifestyle
‘The Present’ Chapter Summaries 1-12
AI synopsis, very good! (SPOILERS)
May 10, 2024
post photo preview

 

Chapter 1 of "The Present" introduces us to Rachel, a 28-year-old journalist whose life is an emblematic dance between modern feminist ideals and the temptations of traditional femininity. As she navigates her world—both public and personal—she is constantly caught in a tug-of-war between her ideological commitments and her deep-seated desires for acceptance and allure. 

  

Rachel embodies the struggle of the modern woman trying to carve a path of significance in a slippery field, using her platform not necessarily for truth, but as a "change agent," a term she holds dear yet undefined. Her journalistic endeavors take her to picturesque but ultimately transient communities that disintegrate once her back is turned, highlighting her superficial engagement with real issues. 

  

The complexity of Rachel's character is mirrored in her relationships. At home, Rachel is contrasted with her sister Cassie, who represents a more traditional path—married young, deeply rooted, and more focused on family than career. This dichotomy fuels Rachel's internal conflict as she grapples with the fear of mediocrity and the allure of potential greatness, which she believes is thwarted by settling or compromising. 

  

Rachel’s journey through a restaurant scene, where she relishes the power of her minimalistic beauty and the command it gives her over her environment, sets the stage for a deeper exploration of her conflicts. She meets Cassie, whose life choices provoke in Rachel a mix of envy, disdain, and introspection. The narrative scrutinizes Rachel's feminist ideals, juxtaposing them against the realities she observes but does not fully engage with, such as Cassie's unexpected dive into discussions of men's rights—a topic that Rachel finds both alien and threatening. 

  

The chapter closes on a note of unresolved tension between the ideals Rachel upholds and the real-world complexities she faces, embodying the modern existential crisis of balancing identity, ambition, and the human desire for connection and acceptance. Rachel's story is a vivid tableau of the challenges posed by the pursuit of an authentic self in a world that constantly questions the validity of traditional roles and the new paths forged by modern ideologies. 
 
 
Chapter 2 
 
 
In Chapter 2, Rachel encounters her brother-in-law Ian and her nephew Ben in a moment that perfectly encapsulates the tensions between modern lifestyles and traditional values. Ian, who has dropped out of a traditional educational path to join a cryptocurrency start-up, represents a blend of contemporary entrepreneurial spirit and a nostalgia for more grounded, traditional masculinity. He is described as a solid, somewhat skeptical man who enjoys simple pleasures and has a nuanced, if cautious, distance from mainstream political narratives. 

  

The chapter delves deep into the dynamics of family life and the implicit challenges that come with it. Ian's approach to parenting, particularly his attempts to moderate his son's sugar intake, starkly contrasts with Rachel's more relaxed, modern attitudes. This scene at the restaurant serves as a battleground for these differing philosophies, where the tension between Ian's strict parenting style and the more indulgent tendencies of his wife Cassie plays out, culminating in a public display of family discord. 

  

As Ian struggles with his son's behavior in the restaurant, the narrative explores themes of responsibility, the impact of dietary choices on children's behavior, and the broader implications of these choices on family dynamics. Ian's insistence on discipline and boundaries for Ben reflects a commitment to traditional values that Rachel finds both alien and, in some ways, admirable. 

  

The chapter also exposes the underlying fractures in Rachel's perception of her own life choices, particularly through her interactions with Ian and Cassie. Her ambivalence towards Ian's blend of modern and traditional roles—his involvement in crypto and his physical transformation—highlights her own uncertainties about the balance between career ambitions and personal life. 

  

As the scene unfolds, Rachel is forced to confront her own prejudices and the realities of her lifestyle choices. The chapter ends with Rachel and Cassie reflecting on the complexities of navigating modern life, the pressures of conforming to societal expectations, and the personal sacrifices that come with balancing career and family life. 

  

Overall, Chapter 2 serves as a microcosm of the broader societal debate between progress and tradition, exploring how these tensions manifest in personal relationships and family life, and questioning the sustainability of modern lifestyles against the backdrop of traditional values. 
 
 
Chapter 3 
 
 
Chapter 3 of the story provides a deep insight into the complex dynamics between Rachel and Arlo, touching on themes of beauty, perception, and the impact of physical appearance on personal and interpersonal interactions. Arlo, having been born with exceptional physical attractiveness, experiences life differently from others. His attractiveness acts almost as a preemptive force, smoothing his path and shaping his interactions in ways that are both beneficial and isolating. 

  

Arlo's father, aware of the pitfalls of such a life, instills in him the importance of developing intellect and character, knowing that physical beauty, especially for men, comes with its own set of challenges and misconceptions. Despite these efforts, Arlo grows up with an ease and charm that seem to shield him from deeper conflicts or the typical struggles faced by others, which ironically makes him a subject of envy and fascination. 

  

The narrative also explores Rachel's fixation on beauty, shaped by societal standards and her mother’s influence, highlighting how deeply ingrained these perceptions are and how they dictate the choices and judgments she makes about herself and others. 

  

The interaction between Rachel and Arlo during the climbing scene further reveals the cracks in their relationship. Arlo's seemingly nonchalant reaction to Rachel's fall exposes a disconnect in their expectations from each other and how they perceive risk, care, and emotional support. This incident metaphorically illustrates their ongoing struggle with communication and emotional connection, exacerbated by their differing views on life's challenges and risks. 

  

Overall, this chapter delves into the psychological and social implications of beauty and the complexities it introduces into personal relationships and self-perception, set against the backdrop of a modern couple navigating their way through these intertwined challenges. 
 
 
Chapter 4 
 
 

Chapter 4 of "The Present" delves into the life of Cassie, contrasting her existence with that of her sister Rachel, and exploring the consequences of modern ideological pressures on traditional family life. Cassie, who leads a life marked by moderate aspirations and a desire for a harmonious family life, finds herself increasingly conflicted as societal expectations and reality diverge. 

  

The narrative portrays Cassie as someone whose life could have been content and fulfilled, anchored by her role as a mother and her participation in the local community. However, the infiltration of progressive ideologies into her personal domain—specifically the decision to place her son Ben in daycare—begins to erode her peace. This chapter critically examines the impact of societal changes on individual lives, suggesting that the push towards modern norms and away from traditional family roles leads to dissatisfaction and internal conflict. 

  

Cassie's husband, Ian, is depicted as a man who, lacking a strong paternal role model, adopts a modern, supportive role that inadvertently contributes to the family's dysfunction. His flexibility and passivity in the face of Cassie's decisions are presented not as virtues but as a failure to assert a traditional masculine role that could have steered the family clear of ideological pressures. 

  

The chapter also addresses the tensions arising from differing parental approaches, where Ian's more playful and less disciplined interaction with Ben contrasts sharply with Cassie's growing frustration and reliance on structure. This culminates in a crisis moment where the lack of clear parental boundaries and authority leads to chaos and injury, illustrating the novel's critique of abandoning traditional discipline and structure in favor of a more permissive, modern approach. 

  

Overall, Chapter 4 serves as a commentary on the dangers of deviating from time-tested methods of parenting and living, suggesting that modern ideologies often clash with the instincts and needs that lead to a stable and fulfilling life. The narrative warns against the allure of new societal norms that contradict the natural order of family and community, advocating for a return to principles that have historically anchored human societies. 
 
 
 
Chapter 5 
 
 
 
Chapter 5 of "The Present" opens with a dramatic and introspective moment for Cassie and Ian, as they sit in their car outside their home, grappling with the fallout from a distressing incident involving their son Ben. This chapter delves deep into the heart of modern familial and societal dynamics, questioning the sustainability and morality of contemporary parenting choices influenced by progressive ideologies. 

  

As they await Ben's peaceful awakening, Ian initiates a profound discussion about their life's path, likening it to rigid train tracks laid down by societal expectations rather than personal convictions. This metaphor underscores a central theme of the narrative: the loss of individual agency in the face of societal pressures. Ian's reflection prompts a candid introspection about the couple's adherence to external advice over their own instincts, suggesting a fundamental disconnection from traditional values that champion family and personal responsibility over professional achievements. 

  

The economic irrationality of their current lifestyle is laid bare as Ian calculates the financial and emotional cost of outsourcing childcare. This economic analysis is juxtaposed with the emotional turmoil experienced by their son, portraying a vivid picture of the unintended consequences of modern economic behaviors on family life. Ian's argument that much of Cassie’s paycheck is consumed by daycare and associated costs challenges the practicality of both parents working outside the home, highlighting the diminished returns on their investment in their careers at the expense of family cohesion and stability. 

  

Furthermore, Ian challenges Cassie's prioritization of her career over her family, questioning whether the societal valorization of professional over familial roles might be misguided or even harmful. This confrontation is emblematic of a broader critique of modern feminist paradigms that, according to the narrative, undervalue motherhood and traditional family structures. 

  

The tension between the couple escalates as they discuss potential changes, including moving to the country to escape the unsustainable lifestyle they lead. This solution is proposed as a return to simplicity and a reclamation of autonomy in crafting their family life, away from the overbearing noise of urban existence and societal judgments. 

  

The chapter also subtly introduces the theme of men’s rights, linking it to broader societal issues such as the economic impact of dual-income households on wages and the cultural devaluation of paternal roles. This is intertwined with the personal narrative, making Ian's interest in men’s rights a significant element of his character development and ideological stance. 

  

Chapter 5 of "The Present" thus serves as a critical reflection on the modern dilemma of balancing work and family life, questioning the sustainability of current societal norms and advocating for a reconsideration of traditional values as a foundation for personal and familial fulfillment. 

 

 

Chapter 6  
 
 
Chapter 6 of "The Present" vividly portrays the character of Oliver as he navigates the complexities of his professional and personal life amidst societal decay and family bonds. The narrative delves deep into themes of societal collapse, personal responsibility, and the importance of family and faith in facing modern challenges. 

  

Oliver's day is characterized by the frustrations of a slowing economy and a malfunctioning supply chain, reminiscent of his childhood struggles with a dysfunctional bicycle. This metaphor subtly underscores a broader societal decline from a past of perceived efficiency and promise to a present fraught with inefficiencies and unfulfilled expectations. Oliver's reflection on the empty highways, once bustling with commerce, serves as a stark symbol of economic stagnation and the diminishing vitality of urban centers, which he views as black holes consuming resources without awareness or appreciation. 

  

The chapter shifts from the macro troubles of the world to the microcosm of Oliver's family life, illustrating a stark contrast between the failing societal structures and the robustness of familial and community bonds. The family gathering is depicted as a sanctuary, a vibrant tableau of generational continuity and moral fortitude against the backdrop of societal breakdown. Here, traditional values are celebrated, and the importance of family support, faith, and collective resilience is emphasized. 

  

The interactions at the family barbecue are rich with discussions about the changing world, echoing themes of preparation and survival in an uncertain future. The family’s dialogue reflects a conscious rejection of modernity's failings and a return to foundational principles of self-sufficiency, community support, and spiritual faith. The narrative critiques contemporary dependency on unstable systems and advocates for a proactive, preparedness-oriented approach to life’s challenges. 

  

Oliver’s reflections and interactions highlight a yearning for simpler times and a critique of modern complexities that disconnect individuals from their community and spiritual roots. His mother's anecdotes and the family’s collective reminiscing serve as a powerful affirmation of their values and the strength derived from their close-knit relationships. 

  

This chapter, therefore, juxtaposes the decay of external societal structures with the vitality of traditional, family-oriented living, suggesting that the latter holds the key to navigating the challenges of modern life. Through Oliver's story, the narrative advocates for a reevaluation of priorities, suggesting that true fulfillment and security are found not in the pursuit of material success but in the richness of faith and family. 

  

  

 Chapter 7  
 
 
Chapter 7 of "The Present" delves into the intense and emotionally charged family dynamics following Jayda's outburst and departure. The chapter explores themes of sin, responsibility, redemption, and the profound challenges of engaging with someone deeply entrenched in ideologies that clash with the family's values. 

  

The family, deeply rooted in Christian faith, gathers to discuss Jayda's confrontational stance and her apparent rejection of their values. The narrative portrays their struggle to reconcile their desire to help Jayda with the harsh reality of her opposition. They reflect on their previous attempts to reach out to her, which were met with resistance and dismissal, highlighting a generational and ideological rift that seems insurmountable. 

  

The discussion becomes a broader reflection on the societal shifts they perceive as hostile to their way of life, emphasizing a sense of cultural and moral crisis. They lament the loss of community, the erosion of shared values, and the rise of a culture that, in their view, prioritizes individualism and rebellion against traditional structures. This is juxtaposed with their firm belief in the transformative power of repentance and forgiveness, though they grapple with the painful recognition that not everyone is receptive. 

  

Oliver, a central figure in the discussion, articulates a grim outlook on the possibility of reconciling with Jayda, suggesting that her path may be too far gone to return from. He equates her behavior to broader societal decay, driven by a rejection of divine guidance and an embrace of secular, state-supported existence that negates personal accountability and spiritual growth. 

  

The family contemplates the tough choices ahead—whether to continue trying to save Jayda from her self-destructive trajectory or to protect their own spiritual and moral integrity by distancing themselves. This dilemma underscores the painful realization that while they are committed to practicing Christian forgiveness and intervention, there might come a time when letting go is necessary to preserve their own faith and well-being. 

  

In this chapter, "The Present" confronts the harsh realities of familial and societal discord, the limits of intervention, and the deep-seated challenges of witnessing loved ones turn away from cherished beliefs. It captures the profound sadness of potential loss, not just of Jayda but of the societal cohesion they once knew, marking a pivotal moment of reflection and decision for the family. 
 
 
Chapter 8 
 
 
Chapter 8 of "The Present" portrays the character Rachel as she grapples with the complex and controversial topic of men's rights, a project that leads her into a crisis of professional identity and personal ethics. Facing relentless rejection from publishers who disapprove of her approach to the subject, Rachel reflects the frustration of trying to bridge understanding in a polarized society. Her query letters, filled with attempts to present a balanced view on men's rights, are met with criticism and outright dismissal, isolating her within her professional community. 

  

The chapter delves deep into the ideological warfare surrounding men's rights, highlighting the vitriolic backlash against men who feel marginalized and the societal insistence on viewing such sentiments as misogynistic or regressive. It shows Rachel navigating the treacherous waters of modern journalism, where the middle ground is often the most contentious and lonely place to stand. 

  

Her personal life also mirrors this conflict, with her partner Arlo providing a sounding board for her frustrations and fears. Arlo, who prefers a life devoid of confrontation, contrasts sharply with Rachel's driven, confrontational nature. Their dialogue exposes the emotional toll of Rachel’s professional struggles, as she seeks to make a meaningful impact through her work, only to find herself thwarted by societal and editorial gatekeeping. 

  

This chapter effectively sets up the philosophical and practical dilemmas facing individuals who dare to explore unpopular or misunderstood topics. It questions the possibility of true neutrality in journalism and whether societal change can be fostered without personal sacrifice or backlash. As Rachel's story unfolds, it becomes a reflection on the power dynamics and cultural shifts that challenge traditional narratives and complicate the pursuit of truth in a divided world. 
 
 
Chapter 9 
 
 
 
 

Chapter 9 of "The Present" dramatically unfolds with Rachel visiting her once formidable aunt, Crystal, who has notably diminished in health and spirit. As Rachel enters the opulent yet solemn building where Crystal resides, the stark contrast between the external grandeur and her aunt's frail condition sets a poignant tone for the chapter. 

  

The narrative reveals Crystal as a once-vibrant and globally recognized journalist, whose career has been tarnished not by a lack of talent, but by a confluence of ill health and the changing tides of media and public perception. Her ambitious and fearless nature, which had previously propelled her into dangerous and groundbreaking journalistic endeavors, now seems to be a shadow of its former self, leaving her isolated and struggling. 

  

As Rachel interacts with her aunt, the chapter delves into themes of legacy, the relentless passage of time, and the brutal realities of aging and illness. Crystal's living space, cluttered with remnants of her storied past, mirrors her current state of confusion and disarray. The dialogue between Rachel and Crystal is charged with desperation and nostalgia, highlighting a profound familial bond and the inherent tensions within. 

  

The crux of the chapter lies in Crystal's plea for help to complete her autobiography—a project that she views as her final chance to reclaim some control over her narrative and secure her legacy. This request places Rachel in a precarious position, caught between her professional challenges and personal loyalties. 

  

Overall, Chapter 9 is a reflection on the price of living a life tethered to the pursuit of truth and the inevitable decline that confronts even the most spirited individuals. It poses significant questions about the value of legacy, the fairness of societal judgment, and the complexities of family dynamics in the face of adversity. 
 
 
Chapter 10 
 
 
In Chapter 10 of "The Present," Rachel awakens from a troubling dream that prompts her to reflect on the complex moral landscape of the modern world. The chapter vividly captures the chaos unfolding in her urban neighborhood, serving as a metaphor for broader societal decay and the erosion of community standards. 

  

Rachel's day begins with observing a flash mob looting a local electronics store, an event that exacerbates her feelings of disconnection and safety from her high-rise apartment, juxtaposing her physical detachment from the street-level turmoil. This detachment is not only physical but also emotional, as she views the chaotic scenes below with a cinematic detachment, reflecting a broader societal disengagement from personal responsibility and civic duty. 

  

Her interaction with Arlo, her partner, underscores personal tensions and the everyday banalities of their relationship, contrasting sharply with the external social upheaval. The intrusion of the chaotic external world into their domestic life through the noise from the street emphasizes the inescapability of societal issues. 

  

The chapter also delves into Rachel's professional challenges. Her attempts to communicate with Oliver, an influential figure within the men's rights movement, illustrate her struggles against the barriers erected by mistrust and past betrayals within activist communities. Her frustration with not being able to secure a source for her article highlights the challenges journalists face in accessing closed or wary communities. 

  

As Rachel navigates her personal and professional dilemmas, she reflects on the nature of media and reporting, questioning the ethics and motivations behind journalistic pursuits in a world where sensationalism often trumps depth and factual reporting. The chapter closes with Rachel making a resolve to confront Oliver at a business conference, indicating her desperation to reclaim some control over her narrative and her career. 

  

Overall, Chapter 10 of "The Present" is a deep exploration of personal isolation amidst social chaos, the complexities of journalistic integrity, and the personal determination to overcome professional obstacles. It paints a picture of a protagonist at a crossroads, caught between personal ambition and the moral quandaries posed by her societal role. 

  

 
Chapter 11 
 
 
Chapter 11 of "The Present" vividly captures the complexities of personal integrity and societal expectations through the interactions between Rachel and Oliver at a business conference. Rachel, under the guise of 'Rochelle', is portrayed as someone who meticulously crafts her appearance and behavior to influence and engage with the high-profile attendees, despite an underlying conflict with her own values. Her initial approach, focused on external validation and superficial interactions, is contrasted starkly with Oliver's demeanor, which is calm, introspective, and seemingly indifferent to societal gamesmanship. 

  

Oliver's character serves as a philosophical foil to Rachel, emphasizing authenticity and critical thinking over social manipulation and surface-level engagements. As they converse, Oliver challenges the prevailing social norms and Rachel's adherence to them, suggesting that societal structures often incentivize superficiality and self-interest at the expense of genuine human connection and moral integrity. 

  

Their dialogue explores themes of survivalism, the perceived roles of men and women in society, and the consequences of societal expectations on personal behavior. Oliver's views on the redistribution of resources and societal appreciation—or lack thereof—of different genders’ contributions provoke a deep introspection in Rachel. He posits that the societal structures ostensibly designed to protect and empower often end up perpetuating cycles of dependency and ingratitude, which are detrimental to both individual fulfillment and societal progress. 

  

This chapter uses the setting of the business conference not just as a backdrop but as a microcosm of the larger world where power dynamics, gender roles, and economic interactions play out. Rachel’s journey through this chapter reflects a growing awareness and discomfort with her own complicity in these systems, prompted by Oliver's unorthodox perspectives that challenge her to reassess her values and the societal "truths" she has accepted. Oliver's parting advice to Rachel to seek deeper truths and spiritual grounding underscores a central theme of the narrative: the quest for authenticity and ethical grounding in a world that often values appearance over substance. 

  

Chapter 12 
 
 

In Chapter 12 of "The Present," the narrative unfolds in a tense, introspective setting that sharply reflects the brewing undercurrents of societal collapse as perceived by the protagonist, Oliver. The chapter begins with a seemingly mundane yet emotionally charged deer hunting expedition, revealing much about the characters' worldviews and personal concerns. 

  

Oliver, along with his brother David, brother-in-law William, and young Ian, are stationed in a deer blind. As the men wait and watch, their conversation veers into deep and dark territories, intertwining personal anxieties with broader societal issues. Oliver articulates a vivid, almost dystopian vision of global and domestic instability, drawing connections between personal hardship, economic disruptions, and a loss of social coherence. He speaks of the fragility of supply chains and the consequences of governmental overreach and inefficiency, highlighting his frustrations with the current state of affairs. 

  

The conversation also touches on more personal issues, such as family dynamics and the upcoming challenges of fatherhood under uncertain circumstances. Oliver's view of the world is stark and often bleak, focusing on the need for self-reliance and preparation for imminent societal breakdown. He criticizes the superficiality and dependency fostered by modern systems, urging a return to more foundational, survival-oriented skills and mindsets. 

  

The chapter culminates in an intense hunting scene where the reality of life and death, and the visceral nature of survival, are brought to the forefront. This experience serves as a metaphor for the larger themes Oliver discusses: the need to confront harsh realities, make difficult decisions, and perhaps most importantly, prepare for a future that promises to be radically different from the present. 

  

Overall, Chapter 12 serves as a poignant reflection on the anxieties of contemporary life, questioning the sustainability of current societal trajectories and highlighting the importance of resilience and foresight in the face of potential collapse. 

community logo
Join the Freedomain Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
1
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
SHARE PEACEFUL PARENTING!

All donors get the Peaceful Parenting book / audiobook / AI access to share with any and all parents you know who need help!

THANK YOU SO MUCH!

https://www.freedomain.com/donate

00:01:00
The Truth About AI Part 1

Stefan Molyneux looks at the philosophical and moral sides of artificial intelligence, particularly where it crosses with copyright laws and its effects on society. He points out how AI draws from copyrighted materials without getting permission, which brings up issues around intellectual property. Molyneux draws a comparison between standard ways of learning and what AI can do as a customized tutor, noting its ability to deliver information suited to individual needs. He cautions that AI could lower the worth of conventional media and put authors' incomes at risk by turning their creations into commodities. Molyneux calls for an approach where AI firms get approval from the original creators, stressing the importance of acknowledging authors' work as AI becomes more common.

0:00:00 Introduction to AI's Impact
0:00:15 The Ethics of Copyright
0:04:19 Transformative Uses of AI
0:07:55 The Role of AI in Learning
0:16:22 The Nature of AI's Existence
0:20:37 AI and Intellectual Property Issues
0:23:15...

00:24:49
Peaceful Parenting: Immunity to Politics

This clip comes from "Stefan Molyneux on the Scott Adams School!", get the full show at https://fdrpodcasts.com/6302

Raising kids with reason, negotiation, and evidence creates future adults immune to political force. It’s about shaping minds, not just moments. 🌱 Better late than never—plant that seed today!

Watch and share more shorts at https://fdrurl.com/tiktok

00:00:37
How does this X Spaces show sound?

How does this X Spaces show sound?

How does this X Spaces show sound?
A chapter from my new novel...

I'm trying a different style of writing, let me know what you think!

A chapter from my new novel...
Today's X Space...

I had to merge two files, can you tell me if there is any significant overlap?

Thanks!

Today's X Space...
FRIDAY NIGHT LIVE X SPACE WITH STEFAN MOLYNEUX 7pm EST - ONE HOUR TO GO!

Let us talk philosophy, my friends! Bring your questions!

Set a reminder to join the space LIVE:

https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1DGLdvvqOwQGm

Record a question ahead of time at https://fdrurl.com/ama

You can also listen via our streaming platforms:

YouTube: https://fdrurl.com/youtube-live

Locals: https://fdrurl.com/locals-live

Rumble: https://fdrurl.com/rumble-live

Substack: https://fdrurl.com/substack-live

Odysee: https://fdrurl.com/odysee-live

DLive: https://fdrurl.com/dlive

Kick: https://fdrurl.com/kick

Unauthorized TV: https://fdrurl.com/uatv-live

post photo preview
GET MY FREE BOOK ‘PEACEFUL PARENTING’!!

Whether you have children, will have children, or know those who have children, you MUST get your hands on 'Peaceful Parenting'!

'Peaceful Parenting' is the culmination of my life's work in philosophy.

I've spoken with countless parents who have taken these principles and raised their children peacefully, joyously, and morally.

I go over the why, the how, and the evidence for the virtues and power of 'Peaceful Parenting'.

You can easily listen to the audiobook, or read in a variety of formats. If you are pressed for time, there is an abridged version so you can get the essentials. There are even translations of the book into Spanish and Russian, as well as a powerful multilingual AI to ask any questions you need!

Everything is available FOR FREE at https://peacefulparenting.com/

Do not delay! Change your parenting for the better, towards morality, and help build a better world!

'Peaceful Parenting' is how we will get to a truly virtuous and free society.

Go to ...

post photo preview

Heard Tania Khazaal on Ontario talk radio yesterday. Her message speaks in contrast to @freedomain in approach to family, so wanted to bring it to attention.

She writes about family estrangement, emotional resilience, and reconciliation. Drawing from her personal experience of estrangement and repair within her own family, she emphasizes the value of rebuilding trust through calm communication, accountability, and self-reflection. Her work centres on the idea that healing is possible when individuals approach conflict with emotional regulation and a willingness to engage in difficult but constructive conversations.

She also critiques aspects of contemporary “cut-off culture,” suggesting that long-term growth often requires resilience and responsibility rather than avoidance. Across her content, there is a consistent theme that family connection is worth preserving when possible, and that structured tools, inner work, and disciplined communication can help restore fractured ...

post photo preview
Freedomain Premium Content!
In the vast tapestry of human experience, this collection of premium content stands as a beacon of reflection and introspection! Each episode is a journey into the complexities of our shared existence. From the intricate dance of self-forgiveness to the harrowing tales of personal adversity, these moments of life challenge, provoke, and inspire.


If you are not already a supporter checkout everything you are missing out on in the Preview Article.

 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
THE GREATEST ESSAY IN THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY

Humanity evolves through accumulated wisdom from endless trial and error. This wisdom has been transmitted through fiction – stories, superstitions, commandments, and ancestor-worship – which has created the considerable problem that these fictions can be easily intercepted and replaced by other lies. 

Children absorb their moral and cultural wisdom from parents, priests and teachers. When governments take over education, foreign thoughts easily transmit themselves to the young, displacing parents and priests. In a fast-changing world, parents represent the past, and are easily displaced by propaganda. 

Government education thus facilitates cultural takeovers – a soft invasion that displaces existing thought-patterns and destroys all prior values. 

The strength of intergenerational cultural transmission of values only exists when authority is exercised by elders. When that authority transfers to the State, children adapt to the new leaders, scorning their parents in the process. 

This is an evolutionary adaptation that resulted from the constant brutal takeovers of human history and prehistory. If your tribe was conquered, you had to adapt to the values of your new masters or risk genetic death through murder or ostracism. 

When a new overlord – who represents the future – inflicts his values on the young, they scorn their parents and cleave to the new ruler in order to survive. 

Government instruction of the young is thus the portal through which alien ideas conquer the young as if a violent overthrow had occurred – which in fact it did, since government education is funded through force. 

This is the weakness of the cultural transmission of values – by using ‘authority’ instead of philosophy – reason and evidence – new authorities can easily displace the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years. 

It is a common observation that a culture’s success breeds its own destruction. Cultures that follow more objective reason tend to prosper – this prosperity breeds resentment and greed in the hearts of less-successful people and cultures, who then swarm into the wealthier lands and use the State to drain them dry of their resources. 

Everything that has been painfully learned and transmitted over a thousand generations can be scattered to the winds in a mere generation or two. 

This happens less in the realms of reason and mathematics, for obvious reasons. Two and two make four throughout all time, in all places, regardless of propaganda. The Pythagorean theorem is as true now as it was thousands of years ago – Aristotle’s three laws of logic remain absolute and incontrovertible to all but the most deranged. 

Science – absent the corrupting influence of government funding – remains true and absolute across time and space. Biological absolutes can only be opposed by those about to commit suicide. 

Authority based on lies hates the clarity and objectivity – and curiosity – of rational philosophy. Bowing to the authority of reason means abandoning the lies that prop up the powerful – but refusing to bow to reason means you end up bowing to foreigners who take over your society via the centralized indoctrination of the young. 

Why is this inevitable? 

Because it is an addiction. 

Political power is the most powerful – and dangerous – addiction. The drug addict only destroys his own life, and harms those close to him. The addiction to political power harms hundreds of millions of people – but the political junkies don’t care, they have dehumanized their fellow citizens – in order to rule over others, you must first view them as mere useful livestock instead of sovereign minds like your own. 

Just as drug addicts would rather destroy lives than stop using – political addicts would rather be slaves in their own sick system than free in a rational, moral world. 

If we cannot find a way to transmit morals without lies or assumptions, we will never break the self-destructive cycle of civilization – success breeds unequal wealth, which breeds resentment and greed, which breeds stealing from the successful through political power, which collapses the society. 

If we cannot anchor morals in reason and evidence, we can never build a successful civilization that does not engineer its own demise. Everything good that mankind builds will forever be dismantled using the same tools that were used to build it. 

Since the fall of religion in the West – inevitable given the wild successes of the free market and modern science and medicinewhich came out of skepticism, reason and the Enlightenment – we have applied critical reasoning to every sphere except morality. We have spun spaceships out of the solar system, plumbed the depths of the atom and cast our minds back to the very nanoseconds after our universe came into being – but we cannot yet clearly state why murder, rape, theft and assault are wrong. 

We can say that they are “wrong” because they feel bad, or are harmful to social cohesion, or because God commands it, or because they are against the law – but that does not help us understand what morality is, or how it is proven. 

Saying that rape is wrong because it feels bad to the victim does not answer why rape is wrong. Clearly it feels ‘good’ to the rapist – otherwise rape would not exist. 

Saying it harms social happiness or cohesion is a category error, since ‘society’ does not exist empirically. Individuals act in their own perceived self-interest. From an evolutionary perspective, ‘rape’ is common. The amoral genes of an ugly man that no woman wants are rewarded for rape, since it gives them at least some chance to survive. 

Saying that rape is wrong because God commands it does not answer the question – it is an appeal to an unreasoning authority that cannot be directly questioned. 

Saying that rape is wrong because it is illegal is begging the question. Many evil things throughout history have been legal, and many good things – such as free speech and absolute private property – are currently criminalized. 

Saying that rape is wrong because it makes the victim unhappy is not a moral argument – it is a strange argument from hedonism, in that the ‘morality’ of an action is measured only by pleasure and painWe often inflict significant misery on people in order to heal or educate them. We punish children – often harshly. The ‘hedonism’ argument is also used to justify sacrificing free speech on the altar of self-proclaimed ‘offense’ and ‘upset.’ 

So… 

Why is rape wrong? 

Why are murder, theft and assault immoral? 

A central tenet of modernity has been the confirmation of personal experience through universal laws that end up utterly blowing our minds. 

The theory of gravity affirms our immediate experience of weight and balance and throwing and catching – and also that we are standing on giant spinning ball rocketing around a star that is itself rocketing around a galaxy. We feel still; we are in fact in blinding motion. The sun and the moon appear to be the same size – they are in fact vastly different. It looks like the stars go round the Earth, but they don’t 

Science confirms our most immediate experiences, while blowing our minds about the universe as a whole. 

If you expand your local observations – “everything I drop falls” – to the universal – “everything in the universe falls” – you radically rewrite your entire world-view. 

If you take the speed of light as constant, your perception of time and space change forever – and you also unlock the power of the atom, for better and for worse. 

If you take the principles of selective breeding and animal husbandry and apply them to life for the last four billion years, you get the theory of evolution, and your world-view is forever changed – for the better, but the transition is dizzying. 

If we take our most common moral instincts – that rape, theft, assault and murder are wrong – and truly universalize them, our world-view also changes forever – better, more accuratemore moral – but also deeply disturbing, disorienting and dizzying. 

But we cannot universalize what we cannot prove – this would just be the attempt to turn personal preferences into universal rules: “I like blue, therefore blue is universally preferable.” 

No, we must first prove morality – only then can we universalize it. 

To prove morality, we must first accept that anything that is impossible cannot also be true. 

It cannot be true that a man can walk north and south at the same time. 

It cannot be true that a ball can fall up and down at the same time. 

It cannot be true that gases both expand and contract when heated. 

It cannot be true that water both boils and freezes at the same temperature. 

It cannot be true that 2 plus 2 equals both 4 and 5. 

If all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, then it cannot be true that Socrates is immortal. 

If you say that impossible things can be true, then you are saying that you have a standard of truth that includes both truth and the opposite of truth, which is itself impossible. 

The impossible is the opposite of the possible – if you say that both the possible and the impossible can be true, then you are saying that your standard for truth has two opposite standards, which cannot be valid. This would be like saying that the proof of a scientific theory is conformity with reason and evidence, and also the opposite of conformity with reason and evidence, or that profit in a company equals both making money, and losing money. 

All morality is universally preferable behaviourin that it categorizes behaviour that should ideally be chosen or avoided by all people, at all timesWe do not say that rape is evil only on Wednesdays, or 1° north of the equator, or only by tall people. Rape is always and forever wrong – we understand this instinctively, though it is a challenge to prove it rationally. 

Remember, that which is impossible can never be true. 

If we put forward the proposition that “rape is universally preferable behaviour,” can that ever be true? 

If it is impossible, it can never be true. 

If we logically analyse the proposition that “rape is universally preferable behaviour,” we quickly find that it is impossible. 

The statement demands that everyone prefers rape – to rape and be raped at all times, and under all circumstances. 

Aside from the logistical challenges of both raping and being raped at the same time, the entire proposition immediately contradicts itself. Since it is self-contradictory, it is impossible, and if it is impossible, it can neither be true nor valid. 

If “rape is universally preferable behaviour,” then everyone must want to rape and be raped at all times. 

However, rape is by definition violently unwanted sexual behaviour. 

In other words, it is only “rape” because it is decidedly not preferred. 

Since the category “rape” only exists because one person wants it, while the other person – his or her victim – desperately does not want itrape cannot be universally preferable. 

No behaviour that only exists because one person wants it, and the other person does not, can ever be in the category of “universally preferable.” 

Therefore, it is impossible that rape is universally preferable behaviour. 

What about the opposite? Not raping? 

Can “not raping” logically ever be “universally preferable behaviour”? 

In other words, are there innate self-contradictions in the statement “not raping is universally preferable behaviour”? 

No. 

Everyone on the planet can simultaneously “not rape” without logical self-contradiction. Two neighbours can both be gardening at the same time – which is “not raping” – without self-contradiction. All of humanity can operate under the “don’t rape” rule without any logical contradictions whatsoever. 

Therefore, when we say that “rape is wrong,” we mean this in a dual sense – rape is morally wrong, and it is morally wrong because any attempt to make rape “moral” – i.e. universally preferable behaviour – creates immediate self-contradictions, and therefore is impossible, and therefore cannot be correct or valid. 

It is both morally and logically wrong. 

What about assault? 

Well, assault occurs when one person violently attacks another person who does not want the attack to occur. (This does not apply to sports such as boxing or wrestling where aggressive attacks are agreed to beforehand.) 

This follows the same asymmetry as rape. 

Assault can never be universally preferable behaviour, because if it were, everyone must want to assault and be assaulted at all times and under all circumstances. 

However, if you want to be assaulted, then it is not assault. 

Boom. 

What about theft? 

Well, theft is the unwanted transfer of property. 

To say that theft is universally preferable behaviour is to argue that everyone must want to steal and be stolen from at all times, and under all circumstances. 

However, if you want to be stolen from, it is not theft – the category completely disappears when it is universalized. 

If I want you to take my property, you are not stealing from me. 

If I put a couch by the side of the road with a sign saying “TAKE ME,” I cannot call you a thief for taking the couch. 

Theft cannot be universally preferable behaviour because again, it is asymmetrical, in that it is wanted by one party – the thief – but desperately not wanted by the other party – the person stolen from. 

If a category only exists because one person wants it, but the other person doesn’t, it cannot fall under the category of “universally preferable behaviour.” 

The same goes for murder. 

Murder is the unwanted killing of another. 

If someone wants to be killed, this would fall under the category of euthanasia, which is different from murder, which is decidedly unwanted. 

In this way, rape, theft, assault and murder can never be universally preferable behaviours. 

The nonaggression principle and a respect for property rights fully conform to rational morality, in that they can be universalized with perfect consistency. 

There is no contradiction in the proposal that everyone should respect persons and property at all times. To not initiate the use of force, and to not steal, are both perfectly logically consistent. 

Of course, morality exists because people want to do evil – we do not live in heaven, at least not yet. 

Universally preferable behaviour is a method of evaluating moral propositions which entirely accepts that some people want to do evil. 

The reason why it is so essential is because the greatest evils in the world are done not by violent or greedy individuals, but rather by false moral systems such as fascism, communism, socialism and so on. 

In the 20th century alone, governments murdered 250 million of their own citizens – outside of war, just slaughtering them in the streets, in gulags and concentration camps. 

Individual murderers can at worst kill only a few dozen people in their lifetime, and such serial killers are extraordinarily rare. 

Compare this to the toll of war. 

A thief may steal your car, but it takes a government to have you born into millions of dollars of intergenerational debt and unfunded liabilities. 

Now, remember when I told you that when we universalize your individual experience, we end up with great and dizzying truths? 

Get ready. 

What is theft? 

The unwanted transfer of property, usually through the threat of force. 

What is the national debt? 

The unwanted transfer of property, through the threat of force. 

Individuals in governments have run up incomprehensible debts to be paid by the next generations – the ultimate example of “taxation without representation.” 

The concept of “government” is a moral theory, just like “slavery” and “theocracy” and “honour killings.” 

The theory is that some individuals must initiate the use of force, while other individuals are banned from initiating the use of force. 

Those within the “government” are defined by their moral and legal rights to initiate the use of force, while those outside the “government” are defined by moral and legal bans on initiating the use of force. 

This is an entirely contradictory moral theory. 

If initiating the use of force is wrong, then it is wrong for everyone, since morality is universally preferable behaviour. 

If all men are mortal, we cannot say that Socrates is both a man and immortal. 

If initiating force is universally wrong, we cannot say that it is wrong for some people, but right for others. 

“Government” is a moral theory that is entirely self-contradictory – and that which is self-contradictory is impossible – as we accepted earlier – and thus cannot be valid. 

If a biologist creates a category called “mammal” which is defined by being warm-blooded,” is it valid to include cold-blooded creatures in that category? 

Of course not. 

If a physicist proposes a rule that all matter has the property of gravity, can he also say that obsidian has the property of antigravity? 

Of course not. 

If all matter has gravity, and obsidian is composed of matter, then obsidian must have gravity. 

If we say that morality applies to all humanscan we create a separate category of humans for which the opposite of morality applies? 

Of course not. 

I mean, we can do whatever we want, but it’s neither true nor moral. 

If we look at something like counterfeiting, we understand that counterfeiting is the creation of pretend currency based on no underlying value or limitation. 

Counterfeiting is illegal for private citizens, but legal – and indeed encouraged – for those protected by the government. 

Thus, by the moral theory of “government,” that which is evil for one person, is virtuous for another. 

No. 

False. 

That which is self-contradictory cannot stand. 

People who live by ignoring obvious self-contradictions are generally called insane. 

They cannot succeed for long in this life. 

Societies that live by ignoring obvious self-contradictions are also insane, although we generally call them degenerate, decadent, declining and corrupt. 

Such societies cannot succeed for long in this world. 

The only real power – the essence of political power – is to create opposite moral categories for power-mongers. 

What is evil for you is good for them. 

It is disorienting to take our personal morals and truly universalize them. 

So what? 

Do you think we have reached the perfect end of our moral journey as a species? 

Is there nothing left to improve upon when it comes to virtue? 

Every evil person creates opposite standards for themselves – the thief says that he can steal, but others should not, because he doesn’t like to be stolen from! 

Politicians say that they must use violence, but citizens must not. 

Nothing that is self-contradictory can last for long. 

You think we have finished our moral journey? 

Of course not. 

Shake off your stupor, wake up to the corruption all around and within you. 

Like “government,” slavery was a universal morally-justified ethic for almost all of human history. 

Until it wasn’t. 

Read full Article
Essay Feedback Requested!

Good evening, my wonderful donors! I'd appreciate if you could take the time to read this essay and give me your feedback!

Thanks so much!!

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals