When To Use Scorched Earth Against SJW’s

When to Employ scorched earth against SJWs/Social Justice Warrior
When to Employ scorched earth against SJWs/Social Justice Warrior
Scorched Earth

Vox Day via Milo Yiannapolous makes an important point in a recent post, “Embrace Your Extremists” regarding the current culture war and how we should deal with particularly active, aggressive, and rabid SJWs who are on the attack.

“If you want to stop people using bad tactics, the only way to do it is to make them prohibitively costly. And the only way to do that is to use the same tactics with such brutal efficiency that they cry “uncle” and agree to a ceasefire.”

I’ve come to realize that the moral high-ground isn’t just useless vs particularly active and vicious SJWs, but a dangerous handicap.  As Internet Aristocrat has said, “You can’t reason with these people. They don’t care. They are narcissists to the core.”

Now each situation is different, but when you deal with SJWs actively trying to go after you, fighting fire with fire is an absolute necessity – for instance when they try to change the Code of Conduct of a company/organization to begin their Stalinist purges and thought-police even the most meek of dissenters.  Note that these dissenters are often moderates, who at a certain point will get fed up.

If an SJW is going to attempt to get people fired from their jobs, dox people, and threaten them, then they should be subjected to the same treatment if not harsher to make them realize what terrible dicks they actually are – note legal restrictions.  This is exactly why Milo Yiannapolous wrote up his three part expose on Randi Harper to demonstrate how much of a vicious terrible hypocrite she actually is.

Now “scorched earth” tactic that Vox Day endorses in his primer “SJWs Always Lie” – which has been described as the digital Art Of War of are time for good reason – isn’t necessary all the time when dealing with SJWs. It’s the one’s that pick up the rifles that need to have salvos fired in return. If I learned anything from #GamerGate, its that the same boycott tactics, public shame, and pressuring tactics SJWs employ can be utilized against them with devastating effects.

Companies and corporations still have yet to realize that disgruntled people sending emails to them usually don’t represent even 5% of their customer base. Until they do, these tactics will continue to be effective and we should utilize them like our cultural enemies are.

If your enemy has a tank, you need one as well. If Julie Bindel wants to put all males in a camp for the proper re-education, we should advocate the same for her.

Consider the current raging tornado surrounding Sarah Butts who may have actually molested a child, not withstanding her views on the subject of pedophilia.

To be honest, Sarah was trying to engage in a philosophical conversation over the issues of age of consent, sexuality, ect on “her” forum posts and blogs.  However, when she started labeling opponents – namely #GamerGate and others with every “ist” and “ism” under the scalding sun – while trying to destroy any critics and GamerGate supporters, she began her own Pearl Harbor and the response she is receiving is her just due.   She refrained from actual honest intentions in her dialogue and began her campaign of extermination.

Now every SJW isn’t Sarah Butts.

I know some SJWs in real life. They aren’t active and they don’t participate in email and social media campaigns to destroy people.  They should be treated as POWs.   Never employ “scorched earth” against those who haven’t initiated it first. Guilt By Association SHOULD not be attached to what I would call the, “nominal SJWs.”

We don’t want to turn “thinkers” into flag-burning revolutionaries so to speak, which is why each SJW individual should be handled differently based on what they actually do and endorse.

The “Extremists”

Vox’s use of the word “extremist” is also telling and its an important indicator of how important the war over words actually is.  Consider what used to be considered an “extremist” 100 years ago or yet better a “fundamentalist”.

The connotation went from having fundamentals to being some sort of religious… extremist.  Brilliant when you think about it. “Extremist” is today’s current expansion on that concept and it’s unfortunate that the radical social justice left is winning when it comes to attaching a specific connotation when the word is used.

Labels are again the primary weapon.   SJWs will label anyone who dissents from their narrative as extremists.   Now any normal person who hears the word “extremist” attached to an individual or group will immediately assume a negative about them before hearing anything they have to say.

It’s important for us to use the word when referencing SJWs so that (1) their wordplay can’t be used to control the narrative, (2) they cant effectively utilize attacking the individual instead of the ideas by causing people to dismiss “extremists” without hearing what actually makes them extreme from a source that isnt an SJW.

Remember, when your opponents engage in demagoguery, label slander, and every other slight under the sun designed to destroy your character and reputation, it is absolutely necessary to not only fight back with their same tactics, but to do it with urgency.

Reputations of semi-private individuals can be destroyed online and the truth won’t matter, rather what the neutral public observes from the loudest mouths will shape their perception of who you and what you stand for.  It’s up to you to shape that.

Rejecting Guilt By Association

Regardless of what mortals you follow, adore, admire, and pay homage you will at some point disagree with them.  Whether it’s most of the time or almost never, no one will ever hold exactly all the viewpoints that you have come to cherish.

A tweet from Milo Yiannapolous prompted the above line of thought in which he voices disagreement with libertarians on the NSA spying incident – color my libertarian tendencies irked.

https://twitter.com/Nero/status/591284596190347264

Obviously, he is mistaken, as his his later tweet about Snowden being a traitor and not a hero.   I’m also above reproach in my conclusion. 

Today, the internet echo-chamber or “communities” as we call them is often bereft of any actual substance in discussion when it comes to disagreement over just about anything.  Dissenters are labeled “concern trolls” or just “trolls” in general.   In fact the word, “troll” has lost it’s meaning because of the abuse of the term.

Throw in “safe-spaces” and this takes on a whole new layer of people who immediately dismiss anything that comes from an opposing side.   If you make the mistake of identifying with a label that is considered “bad” or triggering, everything you say is immediately dismissed – regardless of the validity of what you say.

We need to start judging statements, comments, and opinions based on what they actually are –  the merit and validity of them – instead of who said them.    Whether they come from a radical liberal feminist or a neo-con warhawk, it shouldn’t matter; we need to reject guilt by association.

Encountering the “Other Side”

Take for example Cindy Brandt’s site/blog which I recently came across and her post, “You Don’t Need To Tell Me You Don’t Agree.”   She actually makes alot of good points, despite certain… social justice affiliations.

Well, I don’t agree.   Okay, I couldn’t resist.  Take a look at this specific observation:

“Which one of us agrees on everything with any other single person? No one! Certainly, many of us share similar passions and congregate according to common interests, it’s only human to interact with those who you resonate easily with. But if you dig deeper, or you spend enough time together, it isn’t long before one discovers there are indeed some, if not many points of disagreements with those we are in relationship with.”

As she points out, no one will  ever agree on everything, but with today’s identity politics and culture its often either all or nothing.  If someone doesn’t share enough “similar” passions, interests, and convictions,  chances are that most people won’t give anything they say the time of day.   This is more likely if they know about your “opinions” and affiliations before they evaluate what you’ve actually said.

“If we are honest with ourselves, adding the phrase is a form of social insurance. We want to protect ourselves from the risk of being associated with certain things this person represents. “

It certainly is a form of social insurance, but why?

People seem conditioned to pre-judge and make assumptions based on labels and what they “represent”, so what choice is there but to adjust? Unfortunately, this is the reality of where we are at.  It rather sucks that these qualifiers are needed, but can anyone point to topics of conversation where they aren’t?

The risk of being associated with someone who is deemed a racist, bigot, homophobe, ect or any other culturally deemed demagogues can be cause for your employment to be revoked. Consider Razib Khan who was initially hired by the New York Times, but then let go because of his “association” with right-wing publications who were deemed to be mired in racism.    So much for diversity of opinion right?

Whoever was working here must have spilled this paint...
Whoever was working here must have spilled this paint…

Shockingly, the fact that he isn’t even white was enough to save him from the wrath of social justice warriors who usually excuse certain people from terrible actions, deeds, and statements based purely on their genetics.  Another mighty journalism giant bows before Gawker and SJWs.    Apparently, all you need to do is label someone a racist enough to make them suffer the effects of today’s modern heresy.

For instance, Cindy describes herself as “social justice-y” on the side bar of her site.  GASP!

Someone, pull the alarm.   Danger is near.

  My spidey sense is tingling.

Now a large amount of people will probably dismiss anything she has to say because of the affiliation with social justice.  Don’t make that mistake; don’t fall prey to guilt by association.  I  may fall to this ever constant trap subconsciously, but then force myself to read what is actually state.  Some exceptions are made for Tumblr…

I strongly disagree with almost everything  modern day social justice folks advocate – what normal sane person wouldn’t – but I won’t necessarily dismiss something because of who is advocating it.

“We can dialogue with people as people, other human beings with different personalities, life experiences, and ideas. We can celebrate common ground without erecting walls or drawing boundary lines. We can connect without disclaimers, embracing the whole of our conversation partner along with her ideas. Let’s base our conversations with one another from a place of shared humanity instead of basing it on fear by association. “

Is this really possible? Can we connect without disclaimers? I don’t think we can.

Tales From The Online Crypt

I recently encountered and “argued” with some conservatives on TheRightScoop about the subject of police abuse.   Obviously, they deny this is a real problem.  In order to even get them to look at anything I have to say, I had to utter the following disclaimer, “I’m not a democrat…”

This is of course true, but if I didn’t point this out, said conservatives would assume I’m some sort of liberal because I disagree with one of their viewpoints.

Behold, the current state of online discourse.

If you disagree with someone on an issue you are immediately considered to be a follower of the opposing “side”.   If you disagree with some of the trash on the Huffington Post, you are a right-wing bigot, ect, ect, ect.   If you take issue with something on Breitbart you are left-wing marxist, socialist, ect, ect, ect.    Qualifiers are absolutely necessary.

“The power of association, of tribes, of communities, is so strong that we take extra measures to ensure boundaries are clearly marked, compelling us to insert disclaimers even in casual conversation. We are so fearful of being grouped with the “wrong” crowd as perceived by the person we are speaking with.

I do not think this is a healthy way to dialogue. I think it is a sign of disrespect to curate someone’s ideas, extracting it from their whole selves with all of their complexities and personhood.”

She is right; it’s not a healthy way to dialogue.   Yes, we must consider the context of a person – if that makes sense –  which is necessary to fully understand their ideas and why they have them. However, in today’s charged, “guilt by association” culture, you absolutely have to introduce qualifiers into the conversation or anything you say will be dismissed based on you supposedly are.

The need for safe spaces...
The need for safe spaces…

One popular “Debate” tactic is Godwin’s law.   To sum that up, it means that you equate a certain argument, idea, or even person to Hitler.  This of course invalidates anything they have to say.  Or does it?

Just because Hitler said something, doesn’t qualify it as being incorrect – such as his radical environmentalism, state control of “healthcare”, ect.   In fact, I’m sure almost everyone today holds some positions that Hitler advocated on economics, state control and power, and the environment.

Color me shocked.

This time-held tactic is “guilt by association/wrong by association” and is employed by disingenuous teenagers, tumblrites, and many adults who want to shout down others based on who they are, rather then what they’ve said on extremely important blogs and websites where their comments clearly make a difference.

 

Don’t be one of “those” people.

People who engage in daily displays on their Facebook feeds in guilt by association tactics usually have something in common;  they are angry, upset, and jaded.

Their life is a never ending stream of  un-fulfilled selfies, self-loathing, and vicious attacks on anyone who looks like they wallowed in depression for weeks upon end.   All of these bitter people online have one goal in mind; if they can’t be happy – neither can you.

Go outside of your bubble and live.

It’s been said that you can’t argue with certain people, and that is true. Argument however shouldn’t be the goal of every interaction.  You don’t need to “win”.    All you need to do is engage, discuss, and see if any new seeds are planted in either your mind or your “opponent.”   In order to any of that, you must reject guilt by association.

Perhaps, you may just develop a relationship with someone where you don’t need qualifiers, but you must take the initiative to do just that.

I encourage all to go out and have face-to-face conversations with people you know you disagree with. You will be surprised at what happens when both of you or others involved have a conversation that isn’t based on “convincing” anyone of a particular point, but is focused on the exchange of ideas and worldviews.

This is how you grow and become a more rounded individual.

 It is one of the first steps in today’s vicious culture in becoming a renaissance man.

Reject guilt by association.

#RaceTogether And Have Your Reputation Destroyed

Prepare Your Smartphones For War

#RaceTogether is a minefield filled with short-tempered caffeine deprived customers who consider the concept of patience to be hate-speech rather then a virtue.   Then throw in some barbed wired and machine gun nests known as the smart-phone.

Every one has a smart phone these days that can record any conversation – a blessing and a curse.   It’s a foregone conclusion that any actual honest dialogue can take place between groups of extremely racially sensitive people.   Your words are a tweet away from being broadcast to the dark corners of tumblr dwelling other-kins and SJWs who haven’t forget that people with dissenting opinions are actual humans.   Davis Aurini makes a good point about this:

That is just the obvious hindrance.  The actual primary problem is that people view this entire idea as less of a conversation and more of a, “I’m mad at your kind of people for these reasons,” lecture.   Actual dialogue on a subject so controversial can’t take place in any public setting as you could lose your job.

In fact, it doesn’t actually matter if you are what society considers to be a “racist” or any one of the “ists” these days.   Once accused in the public eye – or rather the social media feed – you are guilty until proven innocent which means you are forever guilty on a basic Google search.

Caffeine Deprived Intruders Are On Their Way.
Caffeine Deprived Intruders Are On Their Way.

The Poor Baristas…

Let’s think about the Baristas for just a second.  Not only does #RaceTogether fulfill that old joke about SJWs at liberal arts colleges becoming Baristas, it adds a particular new explosive compound for angry uptight customers to get free beverages and add further misery to the idea of “customer service.”

Perhaps Schultz has been preparing his guinea pigs for these kinds of experiments all along and actually intends to scare off some of his already well-off liberal white types who spend 3k+ on Starbucks a year.  After all, how many flak barrages intended to induce white self-loathing can these types endure?

Schultz’s idea will create friendly fire situations and the casualties will be his own fellow ideologues.   Think about it, how many of the intended targets – backwater redneck conservative stereotypes – actually frequent Starbucks who aren’t actively boycotting it?  That was a rhetorical question.

Despite the backlash and drubbing coming from various sides of the spectrum , some of the mainstream media consider this a great idea. Time Magazine actually proclaimed #RaceTogether as a “brilliant” and “bold move” rather then a kamikaze mission in which allies will have their eco friendly cars sunk.   No, this doesn’t make me happy, it makes me sad.

What about the dialogue?

An honest conversation about race will only occur (1) between friends & family with liquor involved and the smartphones put away and (2) when people stop seeing every last damn thing through a racial lens – namely SJWs and many on the left who base their entire identity off race rather then the actual person.

Remember, vast generalizations and labels of people based on their race, ethnicity, and gender are perfectly acceptable as long as it’s the right people.    Being judged based on who you are is just too tiresome and isn’t convenient for being a part of the continual victim club.

Is it Cultural Appropriation? Or Perpetual Fake Outrage?

Wait, You Still Are Racist!

Nothing can destroy your career, cost you Facebook friends, and present many other life-enduring difficulties such as people believing that you are racist or have done something racist.  Being declared as a racist is almost like being labeled a heretic in the 14th century, except you might not be burned at the stake… yet.

“Cultural appropriation” is just the newest frontier in the fight against racism – a struggle that looks like it will never be overcome, not even in the most luscious of utopias.  It is also a cleverly designed tactic by certain folks to not only stop “racism”, but to make sure that it continues to endure and spread.    You can shout cultural appropriation when a member of a different race, culture, ethnicity, ect does something similar to your own.   Once they stop, you can then shout, “Non-inclusive environments and ingrained structural racism is preventing them from appreciating the unique aspects of our culture in society!”   It’s a brilliant Catch-22 and a way to always have something “ethno-centric and racial-centric” to criticize.   Page views over controversial headlines anyone?

Now,  I’m half-white and I can play the “genocide” card, so luckily when I enter into specific left-wing conversations and “internet spaces”, nothing I do can be racist because there is no such thing as reverse racism, members of the oppressing class can’t be oppressed ect.    Sweeping labels and generalizations really are a wondrous thing.

I came across this article on XoJane by Dianca London,  “UNPOPULAR OPINION: I Can’t Love Taylor Swift Anymore Because Yes, “Shake It Off” Is Still Racist”.    Quite a claim.   So how was it and Taylor Swift being racist?

“I felt nothing but frustration and anger watching Swift’s quirky twerk and even more anger as I watched her crawl on her knees beneath a line of twerking bodies. The coy look on her face as she stared at the bodies above her made me sick. It wasn’t just problematic. It was racist.”

She ends this article with a stern warning about the effects of  cultural appropriation.

“Cultural appropriation might be a current hot topic for bloggers and those who consider themselves to be allies of women of color, but for women of color like me, it’s another reminder of all the ways in which my identity is constantly being devalued, mocked, and trivialized by the media and its stars. “

So how does one go about determining what exactly is culture appropriation?

Well damn.

Remember the white girl who donned some lengthy braids a few weeks back? She was eviscerated on social media, because apparently people of African descent own braids.   Apparently, there are many styles, foods, ideas, ect owned by certain cultures and those of us not in those particular cultures are left in stark and utter confusion as to whether we can make their food, listen to their music, or become Hindus.   At this point, we might as well throw Eminem to the dogs because “rap” is clearly owned by black folks.

I sense a disturbance in the Force.

But Multiculturalism?!?!

There seems to be this fine line between “appropriating minority culture” and embracing someone’s cultural ideas, styles, ect.  Can it happen in the reverse? Is all of history simply “cultural appropriation”?   Tumblr of course tells us that cultural appropriation can only happen one way, specifically when concerned with “White supremacy, white privilege, entitlement, colonialism, ect.”   There is a GIGANTIC elephant in the “cultural appropriation” room. It’s called multiculturalism – a deeply held value by many of those who also hold onto the idea of “cultural appropriation

It is very disturbing that in one breath people can rage about about society not being “inclusive” and then in the next use phrases like cultural appropriation?   The entire idea of cultural appropriation seems to be a direct contradiction in the embracing of the values of multiculturalism.   Or we can embrace the segregation of cultures with concepts like, “cultural appropriation” and then rage as to why racism and cultural conflict is “still” on the never-ending rise.

Wherever this “line” is, I’m still not sure.

A sneaking suspicion arises in my mind.  Those who claim “cultural appropriation” and offense from are desperate to find something to label, “racist”, so that people will pay attention to them.  Rising to the number one slot in the “Oppression Olympics” is far more important than real racism, because in order for the country to supposedly conquer racism, there must always be perpetual outrage concerning the subject, even if no racism is witnessed in one’s daily life.

Simply put, if you can’t find racism in someone’s actions or words, find something new to insinuate as “racist”.  I am however starting to not care about claims of cultural appropriation, whether someone else commits them or I do.

If you do want to call out and maintain a consistent platform that prohibits “Cultural Appropriation”, here are some great places to think about and start!

“1. Eating at Chinese restaurants by white Americans and other majority non-Chinese should be looked down upon, as it entails the physical ingestion of Chinese culture.

2. Anyone who suffers a serious but non-permanent physically debilitating injury shouldn’t be allowed the use of a wheelchair, as this is an ableist appropriation of differently abled culture.

3. Members of the privileged and oppressive white majority should never, under any circumstances, expose themselves to black entertainment or express an appreciation for it. Jay Z is for black men and women only and the producers of 12 Years a Slave should give back the film’s Best Picture Oscar in the name of making a direct statement against appropriation. The same goes for Latino entertainment. Production on Machete Kills in Space by Open Road Films should be halted immediately.

4. Under no circumstances should members of the privileged class give their children ethnic names without the express written consent of a majority of that culture or a dual ruling from the staff of Salon.com and that woman who runs Shakesville. Anglo Americans specifically should be required to research proposed names for their children to ensure that the meaning of each name has no ethnic connotation going back at least four generations. Also, no Biblical names unless one is Jewish or otherwise related by blood to the cultures of the Middle East and holy land.

5. Heterosexuals or members of the heteronormative patriarchy may not, during karaoke, perform the version of Willkommen made famous by Alan Cumming in the 1998 Broadway revival of Cabaret, as that would be an immeasurable appropriation of gay and bisexual culture. Likewise, no one outside of the LGBT, specifically the trans, community should be allowed to watch and enjoy RuPaul’s Drag Race.”

Doubting The Faith, But Demanding A Purpose

For those of you who don’t know, I was raised as a Christian.  In fact, I still retain many elements of a Christian worldview.  However, it would be disingenuous to call myself one considering I am not practicing nor embracing key parts of the faith.  I am still highly sympathetic to the overall Christian community

To be honest, I’m not completely sure what I believe.   Most of those who leave the faith usually do for reasons of outright rebellion. It is fair to say that I am in a rebellion of sorts, but I still don’t see it as a enough of a reason to completely throw out my worldview.

My “deviation” from the faith has taken place within the last year or so and has been for mostly carnal reasons – engaging in pre-marital sex and a kind of enjoyable narcissism – yet I remain very conflicted.    I enjoy my current life of sinful pleasure, to the point of willful rebellion, but I am fully aware of it.

My father raised me with a Christian worldview, specifically one that deals.  heavily with presuppositional thinking – something that I filter every idea through.   It has caused me to become somewhat of a philosopher at heart.   I’ve looked for alternatives to the faith, but I have not found any viable ones.  I know I am not alone in this predicament.

Most of my friends who became Atheists, Agnostics, or whatever else did so for the reason as to be absolved of responsibility to a specific moral authority.   They are essentially advocates of a moral relativism that allows them to do whatever they wish at this particular time.   I see why they do this and it is an easy route.  I however feel that is shallow.

At my core, I am desperate for a worldview that isn’t dependent on human reason for it’s moral standards, its tenants, and its suggested purpose of life.  Because of this, I find the concept of appealing to human reason through human reason to be circular logic and foolish.

The problem for me is that if I ditch religion, science can’t actually provide me with answers to the major questions of reality, not to mention that science is totally useless on moral questions.  One person pointed this idea out on a comment thread:

“Science, properly defined and understood, explicitly refuses to even get involved in the most important questions. Life, the Universe, Everything. Science stops with a firm thud at the Big Bang, saying nothing at all about what came before or even if that question is even a meaningful one. Science can’t come to grips with Why.

Currently I am at this odd crossroads of depressing philosophical thought:  If there is no absolute truth of any kind – might makes right.  Influence, power, and money make right.  The implication is too scary for me to accept.   Instead I suggest like the X-Files says, “The Truth Is Out There.”  I really hope it is.

I have come to ponder upon the idea that life is short.  I could die tomorrow.  Any of us could.

I am not daft however.


What To Do?

I don’t want to live as a hedonistic narcissist because of this acknowledgment, but I also want to enjoy every last second I have – while still planning and anticipating the future.  Yes, I feel as if I am consumed by cognitive dissonance.

In the Bible, the first chapter of Ecclesiastes covers the concept of vanity, something that has created in me a philosophical mood and outlook that is seriously and worryingly quite pessimistic.

16 I said in my heart, “I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.” 17 And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind.

18 For in much wisdom is much vexation,
    and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.

Hate the Bible or not, this is a valid and important point.  The more “knowledge” we acquire, the more despondent and pessimistic we become.    Getting that college degree, large house with a white picket fence, a family and children, ect seems almost useless and vain.  What’s the point? Shouldn’t I just become a complete hedonist and live every moment like it’s my last?

We all die at some point. Nothing can go with us, and we have no idea if there is any kind of afterlife or not.

This disturbs me because the idea of an afterlife is often the only thing that inspires people to be “good” – and I shudder at how relative the idea of what is “good” has become in modern society.   In the modern world, “good” is simply determined by who has the biggest megaphone on social media and who is driving the current accepted cultural narrative of “good.”   That is comforting, and yes, anyone with a brain can see that the assertion I just made is correct.

People mention we are progressing in concern to humanity and what is “good”, but no one seems to have a destination in mind as to exactly where we are progressing.   I.E. -” Like in art when a work is described as ‘significant’ – Significant of what?”  

If good is as relative as everyone these days insist it is – because absolute truth is such a dangerous concept – then what is there to stop us from evil besides the threat of punishment from a government for whatever is accepted as “evil” in our current time?

Quintus Curtius from the manosphere brings up an important point about this:

Man cannot be exhorted to do good by words alone; he must be held in the grip of terror by a religion that promises damnation if he misbehaves. Religion provides the backing to a moral code that rises above man; the myths, fables , and stories of religion are there for a purpose, and that purpose is to impart a moral code that can keep man’s baser instincts in check.

Curtius, Quintus (2014-09-05). Thirty Seven: Essays On Life, Wisdom, And Masculinity (p. 27).

“He also needs myths to sustain him, to console him in his bereavements, to provide a code to anchor his life, and to impart a sense of meaning to this mortal existence. Snatch away his mythos, rob him of his ideal, and you banish his spirit to a rudderless drifting in life’s drama. It is a cruel fate, and one that is far too common. But for some men, the myth is strong. And it is the last thing to die.”

– Curtius, Quintus (2014-09-05). Thirty Seven: Essays On Life, Wisdom, And Masculinity (p. 25).

As the great Christian thinker and philosopher Francis Schaeffer would say, “How then should we live?” Like Shaeffer, I desire an absolute of some kind – in his case the Bible – as to which I can conduct my life and evaluate society.    There is an interesting point about Schaeffer’s interpretation of the moral quandary impacting modern society in his, “How Then Should We Live” series:

“When we base society on humanism, which he defines as “a value system rooted in the belief that man is his own measure, that man is autonomous, totally independent”,[6] all values are relative and we have no way to distinguish right from wrong except for utilitarianism.[7] Because we disagree on what is best for which group, this leads to fragmentation of thought,[8] which has led us to the despair and alienation so prevalent in society today.

I am feeling this despair.  I don’t know honestly know how to solve it, but I fear that the longer I go without an answer, the more worried I become about my future.   I want to retain the Christian faith that I had, but the “faith” part is lacking.

I am eagerly exploring “alternatives”, but there seems to be no worldview out there which doesn’t require a fundamental leap of faith at its core to begin it’s particular journey.   Yes, science can give us facts, but it can’t answer metaphysical issues nor these two questions which pop into my head every day:

What is my purpose in this life? How should I live my life knowing that tomorrow isn’t guaranteed?

In fact, where do I go from here? What do I do?  How should I live?   Is there any conclusion whatsoever that isn’t fallible and based on the assumption of humanity? I have become stuck in a circular spacial vacuum of uncertainty and I don’t like it.

Why is Catcalling Bad?

We are often told in life that many things are “bad”.     Some are obvious – theft, rape, murder, ect.  Others such as “cat-calling” are not.   I ran into this article on XoJane in which this smoking hot babe was catcalled. Determined to do something about it, she confronted every last one of them.  Either there were only 3 encounters worth mentioning, or she was only catcalled three times – group encounter for one of those – in a week.

Something that kept popping up in my mind: Why actually is catcalling bad? Most men – and I use that concept sparingly – know that it often doesn’t work, hence it usually is employed as more of a “I’m messing with you” kind of interaction.   Well these days, almost any kind of interaction can become undesirable, offensive, and even become capable of being defined as harassment.

Catcalling has been a bullet point for most of today’s modern first-world feminists. We know they don’t like it, but they never have really set up a “doctrinal statement” with all the trimmings as to why catcalling is offensive.   (1) “I’m offended”, is not an actual valid argument.  Why should we care? Just to get the cycle rolling, perhaps we are offended that they are offended.   (2) Just because certain women are offended by it does not actually make it offensive.  (3) Interactions that make you uncomfortable aren’t inherently wrong.

Her main “argument” against catcalling seemed to be that it makes women feel afraid:

How can you explain to a stranger that a compliment makes us feel afraid? That words like gorgeous and beautiful sound like threats when we hear them whispered to us on an empty street late at night? That we feel uneasy, objectified, and uncomfortable when you say this to us while we’re going about our normal routine, not asking to be judged on our appearance out loud? That this thing they do for fun is at the expense of our peace of mind?

So if something makes someone afraid, we shouldn’t say it? Where exactly is the line drawn? So what if it causes fear? What if this women actually causes fear just by the sound of her voice?

That’s not a quick chat you can have with a stranger on a street corner. It needs to be part of a bigger conversation, earlier on, by the people who are in charge of shaping you into a respectable human. When we’re being taught as young women not to respond to this kind of attention, we need to also be teaching our young men not to engage in this behavior in the first place.

Until she and the rest of these radical 3rd wave feminists provide a thorough methodology as well as a strong philosophical foundation for why young men shouldn’t cat call,   we should ignore and dismiss her demands as illogical and irrational.  In fact, I’ve talked to girls who claim they like and enjoy cat-calling.  While it is a somewhat mundane form of validation, why should I encourage others to acquiesce to the demands of this writer vs these other girls I’ve talked to? It’s also not just the ladies I’ve talked to but ladies online, including self-identifying feminists.   Decisions, decisions.

I very much dislike in today’s polarized and vitriolic climate.  I also take issue with the constant refusal and automatic dismissal of people based on what they identify with as well as the labels others give them – yes that includes radical feminists and all other “labels” I disprove of.   We should never become these irate walking narcissists who will only associate with others who think as we do.   However, we must be careful as well.

In the end, if a woman confronts you about “catcalling” its an immediate, glaring, and vibrant red flag that you should ignore her and refuse to converse with her any further. Walk away, and if she refuses to stop following you, threaten to call the police.  The chances are high she could be a radical feminists who has a score to settle with the male half of our species and defining your words as “harassment” is her logical next step.   When you run into the Jezebels of the world, it’s best to avoid them, or face their wrath in which the ends always justify the means.

Happy Conversing.

Is Money In Politics Bad?

This always depends on whose money the “political party” and advocates are receiving. Ultimately, it is it’s own time held tradition of American hypocrisy that can be summed up as, “It’s wrong when you do it, but okay when I do.”

I came across this article in The Washington Post detailing a list for 2014 revealing the donors for the Center for American Progress.  CAP finally decided to do this after taking some criticism for a lack of transparency from fellow progressives as well as conservatives only too eager to point out flaws in their opponents.

Notable top donors include Walmart, financial giant Citigroup, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and some large biotech and pharma firms.  Walmart is actually particular shocking, considering unions’s attitude toward them and their top-dog status as a progressive punching bag.  This however, is not what what we should apparently be paying attention to.

“We’re proud of our donors,” CAP president Neera Tanden said in an interview. “We’re very diversified. We have a very low percentage of corporate donors. We have a wide panoply of individual and foundation supporters.

In political campaign financing and lobbying, there seems to be this odd disconnect between who you should take money from and why.  Most progressives will insist that money in politics is bad, but won’t hesitate to ask and accept plenty of it in order to win political races and advance certain agenda’s.  It was not too long ago when Michelle Obama decried the influence of money in politics, only to request campaign donations in the same speech only minutes before.

The irony of this hasn’t been lost on those on the left. This was brought up by The Atlantic in an article a few months back, “Is Philanthropy Bad for Democracy?”  in which Gara Lamarche made this point about his fellow progressives:

Why are they are not more concerned about the undemocratic and largely unaccountable nature of philanthropy? Why are we—since I too have failed, for years, to ask these big questions—hypersensitive to the dangers of big money in politics, and the way it perpetuates advantage and inequality, but blind, it seems, to the dangers of big philanthropy in the public sphere?

A prevailing question that continues to remain is as to why money from “corporations” is dangerous, but money from huge political PACs, non-profit organizations, ect are not.   The CAP president emphasized the variety of donors and foundations contributing money as somehow not as “bad” as receiving money from more “acceptable” sources. Why?

The fundamental question we must ask is rather simple: Do the end’s justify the means in regards to where the cash comes from?  There is no gray area.  Either money in politics is bad or it is not.  People with strong political involvements are willing to make all sorts of exceptions about where they get their money from while condemning others for doing the exact same thing.

At some point, there must be some consistency or the whole argument breaks down into what it has become now; decrying others for doing the exact same thing that you are doing.  While you may be right about the destructive influence of “their” money in politics, it doesn’t make your identical actions any less destructive.

Either we get rid of money from politics all-together, or we quit pointing fingers at people getting funding from places, people, and worldviews we don’t like.   This of course brings up another issue: Is money free speech?   That is another debacle with it’s own mess.