The greatest insult

Labelling someone as a 'racist' was once an effective way of discrediting their opinion by way of insult, assuming the 'racist' was also a coward. No longer. 'Racists' now know they could be attacked for their opinions, and voicing an opinion that could make one a martyr is called courage. (Or stupidity depending on threat level.) The more timelessly searing insult is coward, which cannot be reasonably applied to any so-called 'racists.' 

Unlike the political nature of the 'racist' insult,  the coward insult directly strikes at a person's pride, the source of all sin. Dimensions of cowardice go beyond superficial intersections of race and gender politics; it probes a person's being: their psychology, behavior, personal history, fears, desires, hopes, loves, dreams etc etc. 

Anyone embarrassed to do a good deed is a coward. Breaking up over the phone is cowardly. Lying is cowardly. Stealing is cowardly. Adultery is cowardly. Facebook opinions are cowardly. (Blogs too.) Apologizing for 'racism' is cowardly. Anti-racist protest groups Antifa and #BLM are cowards. (They are overwhelmingly supported by celebrities, corporations, contrarian politicians and the mainstream media. Low information public opinion is loudly on their side. It is therefore easier to protest violently when there is no opposition or risk of arrest/death. Then they self-congratulate themselves for "speaking truth to power" when true power would never give these protestors a platform to speak "truth," let alone a pat on the back. Just sayin') Selfishness is cowardly. An armed officer running away from an active shooter in a high school is a coward. Aborting the pregnancy is cowardly. Littering is cowardly, if fun. 

We all know the reason: cowardice is easy and ease does not earn respect. (Everyone wants to be respected.) On the other hand, heroism requires sacrifice while cowardice demands comfort; heroism is chosen by few and cowardice enslaves many. 

As long as we are human, the power of the 'coward' insult can never diminish, and when used tactfully, with love, it can peacefully--if slowly--soften hearts of stone. 

When I first started talking to people in front of Planned Parenthood, I found that the clients of the clinic willing to have frank conversations surprised me with their moral opposition to abortion. It was the rare circumstances of rape and incest that they reluctantly felt that the woman had 'the right to choose.' (Less than 2% of abortions by the way.) Because this is a politically neutral position, it is a cowardly position. Abortion is a moral question first, and a political question second. The line in the sand has been drawn. On one side of the line is life, and on the other side is death. There is no option for both; they logically cancel each other out. In the case of grave moral evil neutrality is always cowardice. 

Though rape is an act of evil, terminating a pregnancy i.e murdering an innocent fetus, is also evil. Evil ought never be done for the sake of good because it logically cancels out the good. People know this truth, even if, out of pride, they won't admit it. 

This truth is written on everyone's heart, but our culture of death is upheld by a population of cowards. Abortion always kills an innocent life, and that life never chose its method of conception. No 'buts' about it. If you do not like abortion but are still pro-choice, you are a coward. If you are content with being a coward, you are a coward with a heart of stone. Humility is the only antidote for cowardice. (I pray that no one has to meet their maker/commit a grave evil before they accept this.) 

To stem the risk of the greatest insult losing its full potential, I use it sparingly, sometimes with levity. Love sometimes takes time to work, and God knows that rarely is a heart changed instantly. But calling someone out on their cowardice can certainly hasten some on their journey!

Happy Respect Life Month! 

Irony!

In undergrad I learned about Marxism, Communism, Feminism, Islam. We read the SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men), the Cyborg Manifesto, and learned about the heroic intellectuals of the Frankfurt School. 

I regurgitated explanations of these Marxist theories to prove to my professors that I did the readings and understood the material because my grades depended on it. But I also accepted these ideologies as 'facts' because I was a naive kid. Years of public school and the desire to be 'cool' had punctured a hole in my self-esteem, allowing my faith to slowly leak out without my detection. These ideologies were like air, and I was like a balloon; eventually I popped from living them to their ultimate conclusion.

Flash forward ten years: Marxism is the common denominator for all social work theories too! (So they claim!) The only difference is that nowadays there is a mega emphasis on the racism of white people, mostly cis white conservative christian people. 

My professors are all well meaning people with good hearts and a misguided political/moral bent towards the losing Left. They've been brainwashed too....they are just as naive as I was (though they definitely did not make the life choices based on Marxist ideology like I did).

It is ironic. The reason I went back to grad school specifically for Social Work was to learn how to apply practical methods of repairing and reversing the destructive trends of so-called 'Progressivism.' I am not surprised (just disappointed) that I am (again) paying to learn all the glorious forms of Marxist inerrancy; the exact attitude that brought our society to this brink of the cliff in the first place! 

...I am here for the same good reasons as my peers. Except this time I have the chance to show my professors that I did the reading, understood the material and found it to be fake and gay. 

Eating My Words: "Psychology is Bullshit"

On June 14, 2019 I wrote a scathing entry on this blog regarding the uselessness of psychologists. Fourteen months later I am in school to become a Social Worker. (That post reminded me of listening over and over and over to a '30 Seconds to Mars' song that I claimed to "hate.") So, what happened?

Simply put, a lot. (Too personal to post bluntly and publicly.) But briefly (and obviously): there is a Culture War, and I have chosen a side. 

What follows are current responses to past excerpts:

"There are certain types of people who do not need medication and could benefit from psychology, like troubled high schoolers. Troubled youth fit two criteria for psychology to have a positive affect:

1. they have bad friends and don't know it 
2. they don't respect their parents enough to take their advice"

^^^Ok, ok, in retrospect I was describing myself back in high school, when I did not yet realize that I'd joined the wrong side in the lead up to War. SO MUCH SO did I want to go back in time to change my past, but Time doesn't work that way, and I couldn't admit an interest in pursuing the next best thing: stopping kids from making the same mistakes.

"A psychologist might be the role model they need only insofar that the troubled youth are trusting enough to be honest about their feelings. Then they can accept guidance while they talk themselves out of their own problem *if* they have a value system. (The psychologist cannot provide them with a value system if they lack one; another reason it is bullshit.)

^^^This is the brief job description of a Social Worker working with at risk youth, not a psychologist. (I did not know that Social Work attainable profession because I had not reconciled myself to return to Graduate School when I wrote this.) Both professions have a Code of Ethics (value system).

"Talking through a problem is helpful. Talking to a good friend is more helpful. A good friend does not need an advanced degree to offer good advice because they have an understanding of the troubled person and equally importantly, context. They know the troubled person well enough to offer tailored advice, and might be respected enough to humble the troubled person enough for them to listen to unsolicited advice."

^^^Yeah, well, just because they are friends does not mean they can give good advice. A person with an advanced degree in human behavior and psychotherapy with a trauma specialization can give good advice however.

"No psychologist, no matter how advanced their degree, can will someone to listen. Only money can do that. Then again, anyone that offers advice in exchange for money and time cannot be trusted to care for you the same way that a good friend can, and does."

^^^Thus is the human condition. But you are still paying them to try, and with their expertise they will do their best, if their patient is willing to be serious. 

"Good advice shouldn't cost money. Confession, after all, is free."

^^^Confession is a sacrament. Not everyone is religious, let alone Catholic. For a conversion to take place, hearts need to change, which takes time. Broken people can be guided towards conversion when their hearts have softened enough to listen. Thus my role in the War ;)

Opinions change. I like having written mine down so I can publicly hold myself accountable. 

ideologies: religions of modernism

For a period of about 27 years, I did not think; I acted.

And at that, I acted only towards an assured self-destruction.

If there was a Truth, it did not dawn gloriously upon me like a 'Born Again' Christian will attest. It was more like a consistent and steady blow to the face, knocking me out every time I got back up to make another equally dumb mistake. What knocked me down was a mystery, but somehow I knew that I had to keep getting back up. Persistence might be a virtue, but I was persistently wrong.

(In a way, it followed masochism: exciting at first, then tiresome, and finally, humiliating. But unlike a true masochist, this humiliation was not pursued for its own sake, and I eventually rediscovered something called My Dignity.) 

This Truth, if that’s what it was, did not need be so painful. (That was my fault.) Apparently, it could even be freeing. (And it was--after the fullness of it’s realization quintupled my pain and suffering. (And that was just the beginning.))

But looooong before The Quintupling, in the early days of discovering that my brain could be used for more than finding the easy way out of work I disliked, I discovered fragments of the Truth in the form of ideas: the precursor to actions.

Ideas were these things that people said, that then caused them to act. Sometimes, if people said the right things over and over enough, they could actively turn abstract ideas into physical objects, like airplanes or swords or buildings or pizza. Sometimes abstract ideas 'became' non-physical, like laws, or elections, or governments or TV shows. Sometimes they didn't become anything. They remained equations on a chalkboard, or scribbles in a notebook. These ideas weren't bad, they just weren't complete yet. (However, some bad ideas were complete.)

For the first time in my life I became interested in the world outside of limited experiences with the people I knew personally. I listened to and read all different kinds of ideas without any concept of context or consistency. From these thought perusals I’d recalled some past topics I'd heard referenced in the college classes I'd attended with my eyes closed, and a light bulb went off in my head. 'Ohhhhhhh!! So that's what they meant by abortion/illegal immigration/global warming/atheism/feminism/the Iraq War/social justice/socialism/gay marriage!' (Yet somehow, I'd still earned a degree from a liberal arts college.) But making connections and forming opinions from this flurry of ideas was confusing and overwhelming. It became easier to simply repeat what I'd learned on Talk Radio (other people’s ideas), which was fine because I realized that I didn't know enough of anything to form opinions of my own. Yet.

After spending time among all these varying ideas with no guide I discovered the first truth: that all ideas were not created equal. Pizza was great, but socialism was not. Buildings sometimes collapsed when planes rammed into them, and some people thought that governments were responsible based on complicated—and conflicting---material evidence. Some people thought such attacks were deserved, and others thought no acts of violence were ever deserved by innocent people. 

With so many facts to sift through, I had to take an expert's word, as I was not an expert myself. But experts in all disciplines contradicted one another, and I wondered: how can truth be discerned through disagreement?

Ideologies were the easy way out of this conundrum. An ideology was a compilation of ideas that formed a framework for truth, but not the Truth itself. In other words, an ideology was an easily applicable label for any layman—myself included—that needed a cause to give their meandering life purpose. Laymen—myself included--were happy to be on ‘the right side of history’ by labeling themselves an ‘-ist.’ In those early days I very much enjoyed going to verbal war with opposing ideologues like my Dad, using the facts I was spoon-fed from other, more cleverly disguised ideologues from Talk Radio. A “conversation” between two ideologues was a back and forth of talking points, and I’d smirk, knowing how to verbally parry my opponent, charitably letting them finish what I already knew they were going to say. They would threaten to punch me in the face for being the type of ‘-ist’ they were trained to hate, and I'd smirk again, begging for it. 

Ideological adherents don’t recognize their own thoughts because they take facts at face value from entertainment professionals. They are trained with what to say when they hear a “fake fact' from the opposition, as well as how to determine if a fellow layperson is The Opposition, deserving of rebuke: they disagree. 

A talking point was not a thinking point. I was persuaded by a seductive speaker and conditioned with guileful phrases to trip up my ideological opponent when we inevitably crossed paths. (Mainstream media is an ideologue factory!) Packaged with some facts was the arrogance that my opponent was wrong, and I was right. By design this adrenaline fueled these heated “conversations.” Without any understanding of the Truth, I unknowingly became a repository and mouthpiece for someone else’s ideas, a means for someone else’s ends. Talk Radio was only slightly different than state school. And here I’d thought that I was thinking!

More time spent among the warring ideologies proved that each contained truth fragments, but fell short of reaching the Truth, usually because ideologies disproved one another, in an endless loop of disputation. The essence of every ideology takes a fragment of Truth--namely through the virtue of Justice--to build a framework. Many good people fall for ideologies, committing and believing evils in the name of Justice/their ideology of choice. Often this is because ideological factoids have replaced Truth. 

Facts were not the Truth. I could learn facts and the Truth would still knock me down. Facts merely reached for the Truth--some having more truth in them than others--but they were too often conflicting and confusing (and politicized) to be anything more than fodder for ideological fodder. The Truth humbles all who approach it. The Truth sets us free from a dead guy's ideologies from the 19th century because the Truth never changes. The Truth isn’t on any quest to be right, as the Truth just is right. The Truth doesn’t need to humiliate opponents with some cherry-picked facts. The Truth Is.

Ideas alone couldn't guide me towards Truth. Gatekeepers—for mysterious, but predictable reasons--built an ideological wall that kept those searching for meaning from reaching the Truth. 

So how do we free ourselves from this ideological narrative? How do we escape ideology? How can we have our own ideas, rooted in Truth, Beauty and Goodness?

Pray

Trashy Realness

While quarantined I didn't see many "Real" people. 

I'd walk around my hometown--a quaint, quiet suburb--and see people with nice smiles and nice haircuts, dressed to impress as they were out-and-about (or as out-and-about as possible, given the circumstances), walking their dogs and watering their lawns. I'd see contestants on reruns of Jeopardy, some YouTubers with "jobs" unaffected by the P A N D E M I C, multi-millionaire celebrities on TV pretending that "we are all in this together."

All of these people were "real" insofar as they existed in space and time, but there was something fraudulent lurking beneath this alleged calm and content perfection. P A N D E M I C aside, there was a hidden brokenness that the simulation of their appearance always concealed. 

Always and everywhere people are broken despite their immaculate looks, lawns or fortunes. And as natural as nature itself, so is an individual's tendency to conceal their inherent brokenness. That being said, the falsity of stereotypical suburban appearances was generally not my type to befriend, even if to discover the truth of someone's brokenness for curiosity sake.  

My true remaining friends were indeed broken, and as I knew the intimate secrets of their lives I knew what caused their brokenness, which in turn made them relatable. Like my suburban neighbors, they also did their best to cover up their brokenness. Their 'best' was of a makeshift preference, and I found myself leaning more towards the personality that their appearance belied. My friends were Real. 

But a person's true "Realness" is dependent upon their willingness to admit to God the ways in which they are broken and the methods they are employing--through Him--to reach completion. In the way that everyone is striving for completion, everyone--regardless of their appearance--is broken.

Possibly it was this superficial suburban mask that lead me towards the "Real" environment of the gritty inner city all those years ago. A place I once deemed to contain the "Realness" that I thought would teach me the lessons of life that were not teachable in a suburbia full of simulacra. For me, realness was defined by strife and poverty and only attainable by living among those afflicted. To become real, I needed to suffer--but ultimately overcome by birthright--self inflicted strife and poverty. I resented my good fortune and needed to humble myself of it. 

This resulted in my downward spiral into Trashiness that lasted for several years.

After just having spent time among people that did their best to look decent, I remembered what it was like to be decent, and I returned to the inner city following suburban P A N D E M I C living bestowed with a hyper awareness for the various types of Trashiness that exists in space and time. Without friends or a job there was nothing to do in the city but be a flaneur while binging on snacks, and I could not help but use my eyes to observe the Trashy trends of modern humanity. 

"Trashiness" is as old as love and war, but the term--coined within my lifetime--has also gone from scorn to vogue within my lifetime, partially thanks to the liberalizing fashion trends of millennial hipsterdom. In the recent past Trashiness may have been an economic and sometimes psychological question, but now it is an anthropological question. There are two observable types of Trash: "Real" Trash and Vogue Trash.

Some of those born into poverty wear their poverty on their sleeves, or lack thereof. Because I do not befriend a majority of those that I stare at, I can only observe and judge (never condemn) based on their appearance. A person's appearance is the first thing--and often the last thing--that people notice about one another while passing them by. As a wanderer, this lead me to the revelation of what makes a person look Trashy despite economic status: tattoos, obesity, excessive piercings, excessive jewelry, loose clothing, untrimmed facial hair, open wounds, energy drinks, flip slops with socks, exposed midriffs, 'wife beaters,' corn rows, dreadlocks etc. How Trashy a person lives is a speculation based upon their appearance. That is not to say that appearances without the above characteristics do not live Trashy; the stereotypical 'frat bro' might dress like a golfer but live like as an alcoholic in his own filth.

You may read my incomplete list and think that I am an impeccable and insufferable snob. Possibly. (Hopefully.) But I have credentials that add weight to my opinion, having once been Trashy myself. 

Back when I was a hipster, I dressed Fashionably Trashy: I wore tight jeans with stains on them, big black boots, colorful children's jackets and bright pink girl's sweaters that I found in my hipster neighbor's garbage. I had horn rimmed glasses to role-play as a sloppy scholar. I dreamed of getting a tattoo on my chest and considered buying a grill, like various rappers I respected. 

I also lived like Trash: I drank frequently and heavily. I retarded myself from finding upwardly mobile employment, preferring to work dead-end, minimum wage jobs. I was lazy. I was promiscuous. I was not contributing to society in a meaningful way but instead chose to live life at the bare minimum, actively trying to destroy the good fortune I had been blessed with in a naive effort to become "Real."

Therefore, with perfect clarity I can now observe that standards of beauty have only fashionably fallen to below the poverty line; both elegance and beauty are not in the eye of the beholder. For instance, stains can never be elegant. Stains and tears reflect sloppiness and poverty, the historical opposite of elegance. I don't have to know anything about fashion trends to understand true beauty. Beauty is more than skin deep, and elegance is how a person conducts themselves. Beauty does not change with time and true elegance barely changes with time. 

Therefore, tattoos are the antithesis of elegance and will always be Trashy. Hipsters are temporarily capable of making them fashionable, but fashion is flaky. Hipsters are incapable of living forever and redefining the timelessness of elegance.

But, in our age of abundance, we have, for irony's sake, entered into an abyss of elegance. 

For example, trendsetters like Cardi B and Post Malone are rich and trashy. Each came from impoverishment and rose to fame and fortune with their musical talent. However, neither aspired to elegance or class, but instead stayed "true to their roots" aka "Real" and kept the irony bar high and the fashion bar low; Post-Malone with his face tattoos and corn rows, and Cardi B with her massive, disgusting peacock tattoo and fake boobs. They use their appearance as shock value to sell their music. When the money runs out, they will still be trashy. When time runs out, they will still be trashy.

(I miss the old days, when Jenny from the Block forgot where she came from because she went somewhere better. Nowadays, rappers with trashy taste drape themselves in jewelry and shower themselves in tattoos. All types of Trash are banging on the walls of J.Lo's fortress, forcing her to remember.)

Likewise, trendy hipsters with ugly tattoos that come from suburbia only dress the part of Trashy Outsider to attain "Realness." (In actuality they are a Hip Insider that is more "Fake" than their suburban simulacra alter ego.) They roleplayed as impoverished, while ironically improving the neighborhood and pricing out their working class fashion muses. In the end, when they are all done living in the city, they will choose to return to the suburbs from whence they came to live in elegant comfort, away from the crime and the poverty. 

Even in summer humidity, covering up your body for decency sake is instinctual. Not so if one is either category of modern Trash; they are somehow inclined to reveal puffy parts of their bodies, smeared tattoos and infected piercings. The class excuse is that the Classically Trashy don't know how to attempt elegance. Trashy Hipsters know, but choose not to. 

So long as Classically Trashy people are still the majority of inner city occupants, there will be little detectable elegance. In the way distant past, before J Lo, the working poor aspired to--and achieved elegance--every Sunday in Church. Trash Chic is a modern phenomenon that has equally impacted both groups.

Publicly revealing your brokenness in the form of Trashy attire, whether it be ironic or legitimate, does not make a person Real. Being "real" can never be expressed with fashion, whether based on trends or impoverishment, because truly being Real is something that only God can judge. And to be truly real is to be humble and contrite. To be genuine about your shortcomings is not something that can be worn. 

One lesson that I learned from my suburban upbringing, and the reality that I was reacquainted with during the quarantine, was that people in the suburbs proudly wear their virtue on their sleeve, even if they cannot measure up. 

Transphobic now {NSFW}

Getting the job interview was difficult enough. 

To ensure that I earned myself a follow up interview I scrubbed the internet of my social media presence. When combined with my professional (and likable) demeanor, that precaution worked, and I made it to the second round: the awkward group interview....

Of the five worthy candidates, one was a trans female. Naturally I googled the names of my competition at the interview's conclusion, and as the trans person had a unique name I was able to find their photography portfolio quickly. 

The subject of the portfolio was her nude body; only a black censorship bar hovered over her genitals. She was otherwise posed in explicit and compromising positions, bending herself over and stretching herself out to maximize sex appeal by accentuating her curves to make herself look as female as possible. Messages from users of an online dating site captioned each image, to demonstrate the difficulties a trans person faces when dating. Discrimination is expected when anyone dates, and transsexuals experience it one billion fold. 

From an employer's perspective the entire portfolio was inappropriate. My first thought was, "How did this person make it to the group interview with this gallery so easily located?" My next thought was, "The standards for this job must be very low." Then, my brain began to judge this person's nude body. (Don't want people to judge you? Don't put nude photos of yourself online.) Her breasts were small, estrogen enhanced bubbles that did not look believably female, and her nipples were puffed unnaturally. Her body was doughy, like mine was as a pubescent middle school boy. (Clearly this person did not believe in exercise or nutrition.)

What was the purpose of this photo shoot? To convince a straight male such as myself that I could find a trans female attractive? That, behavior and personality aside, I could date a trans female on looks alone? I was morbidly curious for what lurked beneath the black censorship bar (probably not its intended purpose). From an "art" perspective the entire project was a cringey and confusing failure, lacking thoughtfulness in exchange for superficial provocation. Finding a similar portfolio from a male or female applicant would be equally unprofessional and equally inappropriate, but I would not find it viscerally disturbing. 

After I closed the gallery I understood "transphobia." Then promptly and unapologetically, labeled myself a "transphobe." I did not feel ashamed by this label, nor did I feel pressed to undo this newfound "bigotry." It was a natural response to the lie I had been told: that trans-women were women. 

This trans-woman was not a woman, and no photographic technology could ever be deceptive enough to make me believe that this male was doing anything more than role playing as a female by showing off her body. (A woman would only pose in a lascivious position as directed by a male photographer anyway, because only a man knows which angles a fellow man can completely lust after the female form...exactly the way this "trans woman" was self posed!) I did not feel any animosity towards this person, or any desire to physically hurt them like the transphobe label suggests. (I have no desire to physically hurt anyone.) Instead, I felt a deep sadness for them. They want to be something that is not in their nature and will never be in there nature, in much the same way I once wanted to be a big shot film director. 

My self labelled transphobia is neither a real phobia, nor a reasonable fear. (A reasonable fear of transsexuals would be disagreeing with them en masse at a protest.) "Transphobic" is the silly term I will gladly own to describe the visceral disturbance when my soul, in anguish, cries out that something is deeply wrong with this person. Something is deeply wrong with our culture when this type of behavior is not seen as the mental disorder that it is. 

Whether a person wants to believe it or not, everyone has a soul...and those that are made numb to visceral disturbances--to the point where they celebrate one's ability to choose their own disturbance--may be politically correct, but they are morally incorrect.

Admitting I am wrong politically doesn't somehow make my opinion permissible by transsexuals, whose philosophical relativism is a one way street. No, to be correct politically I must celebrate a person's chosen disturbance. But my soul will not let me, as this nightmare demonstrates:

I was having anal sex with my black boyfriend. I couldn't see his face, only the beads of sweat on the back of his bald head.

He was moaning with pleasure, but something was very wrong. 'I'm not gay,' I thought. 'Why am I having sex with this man?'

"You can fuck my pussy," my boyfriend said. Something was very wrong indeed. "Yeah, fuck my pussy," he said again. It was now an order. I obeyed. I didn't want to be a bigot. I took my dick out of his ass, but before inserting it into his pussy I stared into it.

The pussy was a gaping wound where his penis used to be. Ragged, bloody edges looked sawed off with a serrated knife, and dilapidated chunks of red and white flesh hung from the sides of the cavern. His pussy was deep in darkness...strands of mucus hung from the pussy walls, connecting the two sides. I could see a small pile of entrails way in the back of the cave of his pussy.

'I don't think I'm gay,' I told him.

What is one to do when their instincts are so warped that they choose to mutilate themselves to superficially become the opposite gender? When everyone they talk to celebrates and enjoins them to follow their instincts, regardless of how unnatural and dangerous they are?

Pray

The Bandwagon

(Today I had to browse Facebook's housing group to find a new roommate at the same time that #BlackLivesMatter is trending. As expected, everyone in my feed reveled in their politically correct opinion, which gave me ample fodder for rebuttal.)

The culture war is scroll-able on Facebook, the nerve center of cringe. As expected, it is a gallery of virtue signalers posing in front of rallies with their new puppies, and white kids talking about how much they love and adore Malcolm X. It's repulsion is overwhelming. (And the reason why I stay far, far away.)

One particular dialogue struck me not for words exchanged, but for the difference in profile pictures. Both men were the same age, and knew each other from "back in the day," but one of them was posing with his wife and two young children, while the other was posing on the Williamsburg Bridge, alone.

I "know" the latter through the film and tv production scene in New York, where he had a reputation for being a flirtatious philanderer and dating a young, attractive actress in the ballpark of 12 years his junior.

Their exchange included the same tepid talking points that are less common now that everyone, due to the boredom of quarantine, has jumped on the #BLM bandwagon. That's not the point. The point is the opposites of their viewpoints are representative by their profile picture: tradition vs progress.

The traditional man has a family, and his traditions will live through them, even after his death. The progressive does not have a family, and has instead replaced it with hedonism and a career. (Clearly the trad man also has a career.) If the prog does not have a family, his values will die with him. If he does have a family, they will inherit his traditions, which sooner or later all lead to self annihilation. Leftism's ultimate purpose is to end the family.

It may sound far fetched. After all, #BLM is about freeing black people from the evils of white racism so they can prosper on their own, right? The Black Lives Matter website aggressively advocates for human rights until the bottom of their 'about' page:

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).

Whoever is really in charge of the 'leaderless' Black Lives Matter movement has a sick sense of humor. Children need love that the family unit naturally provides, not some idealistic hippy commune, or some ghetto project. (Extended families are good, but for that to succeed it needs to come from a cohesive family unit: a mother and a father.) 70% of black children--if they are born--are born to unmarried couples. These last two paragraphs of BLM, if followed, would further decimate the already fractured black family tradition that undoubtedly produces more George Floyds than David Dorns.

'Queers' (whatever that means, I don't know--its definition keeps changing) don't procreate. The 'tight grip' of 'heteronormative thinking' is the sole reason that every society exists today! Families beget families! Queers are a champion of leftism because they end families!

According to BLM, traditional families are antiquated and unnecessary. The human race is progressing beyond them, into communes, or tribes. (Without white people.) Is that progress, or regress?

The only way that leftism can continue is if leftists borrow time tested family values from their traditional rivals to produce families to pass their values onto. That, or media and education persuasively brainwashes adherents to "live your own truth." Families are destroyed further down the generations.

Anything that subverts tradition creates dysfunction, and whoever is really in charge of BLM knows that destruction of the family makes people weak and compliant.

Take Minneapolis, ground zero. It is a liberal city, in a liberal state, and the police act accordingly. While protests would be justified if the officers were not charged, the overreaction of the protests and the council is unprecedented. The city council's next step is to foolishly disband the police. The leftist council believes that this is in the city's best interest, but the chaos that will inevitably ensue is of a grander design. People cheer for success, but success, in the case of leftism, is slow, generational rot ....it is not your freedom, and never was. It is about their power. The real 'tight grip' of life is leftism.

I can't be mad at people for jumping on the justice bandwagon. I once did too.

But tradition will win out in the end, because tradition is wired into our biology. The progress of leftism is not. Unfortunately, many innocent people will die for the cause of good intentions, like they did in China, Russia, Cuba....Leftism is comprised of slow motion suicide cults. Only tradition will survive.

Unpopular Opinion Within

I'll say it because no one else will: Fuck "Essential Workers"

Now that I have your attention, I'm not saying it to be a contrarian, or an anti-natalist, a misanthrope, or a goth. Worse. I am saying it as an (armchair) activist with an agenda, a conspiracy theorist that doesn't read MSM and on every level, a free thinker using the internet for its intended purpose.

So grab your popcorn because someone on the internet is about to explain his big idea...

First of all, I am proud to have medical doctors in my family. By sharing a last name, their achievement is my achievement. They send weekly emails about their work during the historic P A N D E M I C, and explain their day-to-day experience.

I abhor this analogy, but my doctor relatives are like medics. Or grunts. They show up, heal the sick, write down objective facts, go home, repeat. Their superiors take their reported data and give it to The State, and The State crunches the numbers and makes a daily report that the media publicizes. The media then ask them questions at a press conference and all us 'Non-Essential Workers' quake in fear about getting sick and *gulp* dying so we sit around eating snacks all day.

My problem with the title "Essential Workers" is the same problem I have with titles like "White Privilege" and "Social Distancing." It is a catchy label of perfect hashtag length that describes a thing of questionable veracity not previously labelled, and yet somehow completely sums it up with a very digestible and understandable soundbite. It is of such marketable length that it is easily shared across the internet without hesitation or critique. Overnight it is everywhere. Not being on Twitter is no longer acceptable for ignorance of these things; they have been entered into the lexicon and therefore, you should know what we mean when we say these phrases

Except there is plenty of room for questions and disagreement. Are Persians white? Are Greeks? Italians? How far is distant? What is social? Why can liquor stores and golf courses be open but not churches? People can spread out in pews, no? How can the economy be crashing if only 'Essential Workers' are employed? How many people are actually still sick? How essential are these workers if the vast majority of people are healthy, immune, compliant, quarantined?

Wandering around my (now) ghost of a town, I see signs plastered on closed businesses saying "We Thank Our Essential Workers!"

Why? Doctors and nurses don't own mom and pop stores on Main Street. They do not make up the majority of customers. They alone are not essential to the life of the town. (Even if 250 people are sick.) They are essential in the teeny, tiny context of sick, hospital bound people, of which my doctor relatives admit there is a dwindling number.

The term "Essential Worker" is a useful shield for dissent. Question them and your opinion is null. 'What, you hate doctors? We can't trust your opinion, heretic!' As stated, I don't "hate doctors." They have their place, as do we all. 

We can absolutely thank doctors for doing their difficult job, but that is like thanking firemen for making guacamole--they are just doing their job. They didn't 'sign up for danger' like a soldier who willingly chooses to be put on the front line, in harm's way. Essential Workers did not expect a P A N D E M I C when they signed up. Essential Workers are not typically in harm's way. They work in a safe, controlled environment. Is that why we thank them? Because they are working in a dangerous zone? It is still a much safer environment than construction workers, who risk their lives to build extremely necessary shelter. As someone thanked unnecessarily for doing his mere job, I find these signs condescending in the very least. A doctor doesn't need thanks, they are not an intern, a volunteer, or a child. They receive compensation.

If Essential Workers left their job because of the P A N D E M I C, then they would be cowards. So, Essential Workers are heroes by default. Because they are not cowards. Seems stupid.

(For the record, I was never essential and never fooled myself into thinking I was. But I also wasn't a coward--they fired me for my own good! Would I be a hero if I chose to work instead of hang around all day, eating snacks? Nope. Society would deem me an asshole and send me to jail as warning to other dissidents: behave.)

"Essential Workers" is too vague to be taken as anything more than suspicious. There are too many kinds of essential workers. Does our economy grow and prosper because it is inessential? Is that why there are so many Instagram Tastemakers, Yoga Teachers, and obese streamers? Seems like this is an existential problem bigger than Covid-19...

As an activist I want to open the state. As an conspiracy theorist I think this was not as bad as "they" claim, and as a conspiracy I think that there is no single scapegoat. There are many pieces to the puzzle. As an opinionated person on the internet, thanks for reading!

Please: Stop calling them "Essential Workers!" Be specific! Moreover, they are only essential because people are essential! If people were not essential then "Essential Workers" wouldn't be essential....Context is everything!

But let's set hypocrisy aside for good old fashioned appeals to emotion by some objectively unessential celebrities ensuring us--with faux wisdom--something that we can discern from observing reality: 'we are all in this together.'

We have no choice.

Understanding the Faithless

...so I am beginning to understand the point of view of the faithless again, the "nones" precisely, through the permissive perspective of the P A N D E M I C

(All analogies have limits, so bear with me.)

Here is the narrative: A contagious disease found its way to New York City (and everywhere in between) from China. Most people don't have it. Some people have it and recover, some people don't know they have it, and some people that get it die. (But they were elderly/had preexisting conditions like obesity, lung issues, diabetes.) The government says stop the spread, stay indoors: people in old homes are dying! Essential workers are heroes! We must wear masks in public places #socialdistancing, etc, etc

Ok, I can begin believing that Covid-19 is a health threat because I was furloughed by my employer in March, which would not have happened unless it was highly recommended by a higher authority, in this case the city and state. Money is the lifeblood of our standard of living, and nobody would willingly decrease their standard of living if they weren't at risk of losing their life. (This is why people robbed at gunpoint willingly give up their phones and wallets; these materials are replaceable, whereas one's life is not.)

If I wasn't taking the pandemic seriously, rich people making very good money from the fruits of my labor were. These rich investors had more to lose financially, and were only willing to lose it (temporarily) if it meant that lives would be saved in the process (and they were compelled by the government to do so).

But that was only proof of hysteria, not of Covid-19's dangerous and contagious existence, and was my reason for ignoring the story for as long as I did: not enough people were sick or dying. The government *might* be hysterical too, issuing a quarantine-lockdown to cover their own ass with all of our well beings in mind. Even as Americans we trust the government for our protection. And when they tell us to stay home and #flattenthecurve, we oblige.

So: does the slowing of national economies prove the outbreak? China wouldn't shut down their economy as a mere bluff in the hopes that the US would follow suit and cripple their own economy. The US is smarter than that. China is smarter than that. There has to be some underlying evidence of a P A N D E M I C, ie hard data of rising cases, for nations to save their people in the long run by hurting their economies in the short run. This must make Covid-19 true.

Would the news media lie about the cases to increase their own usefulness (power) during these trying times when people need "real news they can trust?" Absolutely. The mainstream news media (with exception of Tucker Carlson) is never completely trustworthy.

Can I have faith that news hungry plebs, the people willingly socially distancing and spreading fear by mass buying water and toilet paper are not just brainwashed tools? They were brainwashed tools before, so it reasons that they are brainwashed hypochondriacs now. That is a less good reason to believe than the news media.

Therefore, I can only trust that the facts I am reading about the outbreak are true, and that leaders are leading not to enrich themselves but to protect the country's economy and people by making tough decisions given the facts from equally trustworthy doctors.

I have faith because I cannot have immediate and personal physical proof. In this case, I do not want physical proof as it could mean becoming sick myself, or having a sick loved one. Therefore, I am forced to take these authoritative superstitious precautions, albeit halfheartedly. By this I mean "washing my hands," "covering my face when I cough" and "wearing a mask in public."

Before the outbreak I was somewhat hygienic; sometimes washing my hands and always covering my mouth when I sneezed. Like most, I never wore a mask. Since the outbreak the government has forced people to wear masks in public places indoors, and some people have extended that to outdoors as well. The line between superstition and science is a fine one when filtered through government regulation/propaganda. I had faith in germs because I have been ill in the past, but taking unnecessary precautions was unnecessary, even for my faith.

Now, unnecessary is necessary, and I follow the law because I am compelled--not because I believe that this is anything more than a superstitious precaution. (People don't tend to casually spray blood and spit from their facial orifices strolling around.) The government doctor on TV says that wearing a mask gives one a sense of ease more than it actually prevents spread of the virus. Therefore most paranoid people do it for both peace of mind and to shame and condemn others that do not abide by the New World Order, while most sane people do it to be polite--and out of a little bit of fear. Propagandists keep telling us that "we are all in this together," like misanthropic loners are suddenly going to want to like people because wearing a mask is currently culturally acceptable.

(Quick anecdotal aside: My local grocery store has taped directional arrows on the floor for a recommended traveling route. For my own selfish reasons I do not abide. A fellow shopper with their face and eyes covered up to their ears gave me an attitude about not reading the arrows. I ignored him because I don't think that one way shopping aisles does anything to prevent the spread, but instead gives paranoid people the unearned authority to enforce the unAmerican New World Order.)

Does one only believe in Covid-19 out of fear? Do I need to get sick to believe? And even then, will I willfully comply with wearing a face mask in public?

Yes, no, never.

Disbelief in God is *similar* because God is immaterial, like Covid. Also like Covid, God's existence can be deduced by the material evidence for God's existence: the Church, the clergy, the sacraments. Where did all of these material things come from, if not faith in God through evidence of His existence?

So 'nones' might not have faith in the Christian God for personal reasons similar to my personal reasons for not caring about Covid: youth and health.

The Nones that see the material evidence for God in the Church etc is "proof" that God exists, though they may disagree in the way that He is worshiped for personal reasons. Just like when I see people wearing masks outside...because we don't spray blood and mucus from our faces at all times, it is unnecessary to wear a mask if we cover our mouths when we sneeze and wash out hands frequently.

Therefore:

Personal reason:

I am healthy, and Covid only truly affects people that have underlying diseases.

(I am a good person. I get along with everyone and treat them with respect. God shouldn't have a problem with me not worshiping him if I treat others with respect.)

Global reason:

The government shut the economy down, which they wouldn't do if everything were fine.

(The Church exists, which wouldn't be the case if God didn't also exist and they had proof that they wanted to share.)

Faith:

Until I get Covid-19, I don't think its as easily transmissible as they are saying.

(Unless I see God and experience God materially, I don't believe that the way the Church worships God applies to me.)

The difference between God and government is that, contrary to popular belief, God doesn't compel us to belief the same way the government compels us to obey the law. The media makes some facts known to us, but also doesn't force us to believe them. (They compel by persuasion.) Humans can never be truly forced, only persuaded, sometimes successfully, and usually with fear of pain.

Therefore: humans without faith rely on material experience to have faith. But Faith is more nuanced. God doesn't provide outright material proof to non-prophets, and gifted us an intellect to reason his existence. Faith in Covid is less nuanced: Believe! Everyone else is doing it!

Being compelled by the government into cooperating has made me more resistant. That is my natture. The same is probably true for many stubborn "nones," who think the Church is compelling them to live a certain way. There is a very good reason why the Church strongly suggests people obey natural law, but I digress...

What reason do I have to believe in God/Covid if I am healthy/respectful? Don't force your way of life upon me! 

Really they are saying, I don't want to think about this stuff. It's confusing and scary and doesn't apply to my immediate (material) life.

Until it does.

Faith cannot be taught, and for some people, they only have faith when their back is against the wall ...when their lives fail the provide materially, the nones will have faith again. I still believe in Covid, but don't believe in the precautions. That could change when I am dying of Covid, but now I think the analogy has run its course...

National vs Ethnic Identity in post-Covid World

The modern liberal arts college campus is a thought plantation, and "The Left" is its ideological default. When I was an impressionable college moron I didn't have any interest in politics, and when it was time for me to care (and vote) in the presidential election, I bought the simple campus lie that the 'Republicans were evil'. With politics--and history--settled, I could focus on my moronic college age dreams.

After I was red pilled I began to mine through the lies that I lived as a result of the lies that I was told. Only when I began this investigation did I understand the contextual dichotomy of the party ideologies. Now, the Left was evil, and not just because their economic ideology resulted in the deaths of millions in places like China, but because they had lied to me about it. It was personal.

"The Right" was a monolith, standing firmly and virtuously against the widespread cultural acceptance of the Left, and now I was voting across party lines in the other direction. The Left showed no signs of slightly decreasing its insatiable evil to accommodate potential swing voters, instead doubling down and moving "further left." The battle lines were drawn. Either you were with the left, or against the left.

Then, overnight, I noticed that my dear, sweet right began replacing its values by appealing to left leaning ideologues. ('How' and 'why' are another topic.) It was only a matter of time for the right to become as reprehensible as the left.

"The Far Right" entered the journalist's lexicon to describe "violent extremists." From experience I knew this to be a lie, but wondered what actually made "the far right" different from "the right?" Answer: Both "the left" and "the right" both move further in the opposite direction; the "far right" stays put.

What follows are two differing opinions from two respectable sources on the far right, and a bleak personal conclusion that only history itself can ascertain.

To paraphrase Steve Bannon:

"The Chinese people are not at fault [for the Covid-19 outbreak.] It is the evil Chinese Communist Party for lying. They act like a criminal organization and crush the spirit of the hardworking, good people of China. They don't just have blood on their hands, they have blood up to their necks."

To paraphrase Nick Fuentes:

"Yes, the Chinese government is evil. But they are a symptom of the culture of China. China has existed for 6,000 years. It is not just in the past 75 years that Communist China has been a brutal suppressor of freedom. The Chinese people want global hegemony. They are colonizers. They colonize Africa, they colonize US real estate, and we let them. The Chinese people may not control the government in China, but Chinese people still have the best interests of China in mind, to the detriment of other nations and peoples."

Can both Steve Bannon and Nick Fuentes be right? Can we blame the Chinese Government as well as the Chinese culture of the Chinese people for the global pandemic?

In short, yes.

Modern nations, and their governments, are made up of people with common ancestry, language and culture. (There is typically violence between populations within borders where this isn't the case.) Governments run downstream from culture, and the government of the United States is different than the government of China because our ancestry, language, and values are very different from China's. America believes in natural rights and freedom, while China believes in power and control at the cost of its people if necessary.

The American government became complacent after the collapse of the Soviet Union ended the Cold War, and for illogical reasons gave Communist China opportunities for a synthetic economic rise. China was eventually admitted to the World Trade Organization in 2001.

This trend continued, and a report by the Cato Institute from 2016 about China's Trade Practices at the WTO stated:

"China’s mercantilist state systematically discriminates against foreign products and foreign producers in China while forcing foreign companies to hand over their intellectual property (IP) as the price of access to China’s large and growing market."

This is just one example of China's "unfair" trade (mafia) tactics, but the "mercantilist state'' description stands out, indicating that China is playing by different rules. Isn't mercantilism the system that once nationalist Europe left behind in favor of 'capitalism/socialism?'

("Capitalism/Socialism" lol Another topic: the politicized meaninglessness of these labels.)

The American left and the American right might think they differ economically, but they are still reliant on American corporatism for their respective ideologies, both as a savior and a scapegoat.

For instance, the left generally doesn't want to empower corporate control over human labor and lives, but the right doesn't want the taxpayer to suffer by paying for "universal healthcare." The left wants to empower government control of healthcare through a socialist lens, and the right could meet them halfway through a fascist lens.

Both sides talk past one another, like these antithetical ideologies of fascism and socialism are options at all! American cogs don't realize that these are generalized, politicized talking points. The American founders designed a government for the states to decide such issues to explicitly avoid any unnecessary increase in government power. Unless we want to become more like Communist China by inching towards a fascist compromise this healthcare debate is not a national issue!

Unfortunately, corporate hegemony within America is existential. The left is wrong about using it to defeat it, and the right is wrong about colluding with it. (In reality both sides do both when convenient.)

America is doomed because of the confusion that results from the excessive freedoms from a democratic culture: freedom of thought, press, speech, religion begets oxymoronic 'freedom of rights': the right to healthcare, the right to abortion, the right of marriage. Freedom requires responsibility, and excessive freedom begets cultural leftism.

China has genetic knowledge that 'freedom is troublesome' for order. Fact. But China is morally wrong about her methods. Throughout her 6,000 year history, every Chinese government has known to keep their populations orderly. The population knows this too, and traditionally do what they are told. (At least on the mainland.) The USA could not be more different. In the past ten years, each president has seen a new rebel group: From the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street to BLM to Proud Boys and Antifa.

The USA is a young country rebelling against itself in its inconsistent teenage years, and yet we are the dominant economic, political and military power in the world today. It is foolish to believe that 6,000 year old China and her vast experience is not envious, does not want that power, is not willing to take that power, and that the Chinese people are not complicit. After all, China is comprised of common Chinese people whose ancestors have always been under the yoke of some regime. Nothing in their DNA desires the freedoms that so confuses modern Americans. The Chinese government will use this confusion to seize control on behalf of the glory of China.

Modern America is needlessly confusing. Its politicians are untrustworthy ideologues/gainfully connected, its people a mixture of races and cultures and languages, its border porous, its criminal laws unenforced. We are a corporatist-individualist empire with a democratic veneer with a genetic rebellion for government and a brainwashed rebellion of culture. 'Resistance as a cultural right' is thanks to cultural leftism, which has infiltrated and influenced the youth for two generations, the mainstream media its influential mouthpiece.

Modern China is corporatist-nationalist with a communist veneer, a culture of traditional obedience and aspirations for empire. China purges the Uyghurs, an ethnic and religious minority. They purge the Catholic Church, Falun Gong, political enemies and enforce abortion. They do not tolerate homosexual behavior or any other modern Western cultural leftism. They therefore don't fall for European style colonial guilt or environmentalism. There is no way for a commoner Chinese to engage in politics, and both the government and the people aren't complaining.

Destruction follows in the wake of the left, and China was no different from Europe in this regard as millions died in China under Mao, for the "greater good" of China's future generations. As evil as this was, Mao was thinking waaaay ahead. Before Covid-19 annihilated their credibility, China was enjoying ripping off the world and holding a historic record for the time in which the living conditions of her people improved. But China knows what to keep (economically) and what to discard (culturally) for her nationalistic goals, and isn't going to dominate for 6,000 more years with bullshit leftist cultural ideology.

In this post-Covid world, open borders and immigration will doom nations to sickness in addition to dilution, followed by invasion. Nations will need to be as nationalistic as China--but not as authoritarian--to protect themselves from China.

My thumbnail prediction:

When states reopen for business and the economy slowly recovers, mouthpieces of the opposition party will blame Trump for not "acting fast enough." They will side with "our friends" in China that "gave us two months to prepare" for the outbreak....Bird Flu, SARS, Covid-19...these are not American viruses. The mainstream media needs to be bitch slapped.

It would come as no surprise if China used our freedoms against us by paying these mouthpieces to brainwash our people that already hate America's current leaders. Do the Chinese people think this is wrong? No. They don't think, or care, not just because they have different values or don't know anything their government does, but because what hurts America benefits Chinese dominance. It is natural. Meanwhile, Americans are ready to criticize their government for protecting her borders (and her people), march in parades for abortion "rights" and protest any pipeline that would make the lives of fellow citizens in remote areas better.

Want abortion rights asshole? Move to China.

China's state run media will blame others and lie to its people by omission. Morally wrong by objective standards, but correct to maintain order and build a strong and obedient nation. Machiavelli and Lao Tzu would be proud.

No matter my age or maturity, I will always be a cog in the American political machine even if I exercise my right to participate in government. I do not have money, connections, or political ambitions. That's ok. The purpose of America's founding wasn't for any schmuck to become Senator. That's missing the point.

The purpose of America's founding was to divide government into branches and municipalities to hinder it from controlling and defining human freedoms. Ironically due to this freedom our government--and now our culture--is slowly dissolving into corporate kingdoms. At least China's corporations work for China.

In a post-Covid world, as long as American battle lines are left vs right we will lose to China because China is ethnically coherent and nationalistic. America self divides politically, has a brainwashed populace and no common national ethnicity anymore.

tl;dr

Democracy eventually kills itself and leftism speeds up the process.

The Chinese will outlast Western Civilization. So will the Jews.