Authorship

Saved In Childbearing

Standard

My own views have migrated from spiritual imagination to sustainable compared to the unsustainable.  Civilization was built by the participation of many who assumed roles that fit their qualifications and now is on the brink of collapse as we deny nature.  We’re on a path that is unsustainable because we deny nature.

What is nature?

Nature is that, as we mature beyond the age of childhood, inborn sexual desires lead us to seek a partner.  And, when successful, “A man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” (Gen 2:24 NIV) The purpose of this joining of man and woman? A multiplication from two to three, four, five, or more.  That is to say that in marriage we’re fruitful.

The point of this blog is not to be preachy or tell anyone what to do, rather it is to outline a problem and share a few Bible references for fun.  Scripture is part of the tradition and foundation of our civilization and could help us to diagnose where things are possibly going wrong as we stumble.  All across the developed world population collapse looms and it will be a disaster for little old you.

This is a topic even more important if you’re irreligious, think this is all there is, and aren’t aiming for “treasures in heaven,” because it could impact your retirement plans.  This is purely a numbers game how it plays out, if there aren’t enough people to make stuff or provide services, there is nothing for you to buy—your current lifestyle might be the high point of your life.

But even if you are ‘heavenly-minded’ there is still plenty of reason to reconsider some of the attitudes that I’ve witnessed within conservative groups.  Truly, fundamentalists need to fix their courtship gambit more than anyone else.  There are plenty of women in those circles who are ‘married to Jesus’ and are really only married to themselves, their idealistic visions—and in total denial of the real cause of their lack of success.

I call out women, in particular, because they are the true gatekeepers of romance.  If you are a half-ambitious guy you just know this, I’ve been turned down so many times that I have lost count.  There were some, basically average, girls who would sooner get cancer and die than go on a first date with me or a man who did not fit a long list of superficial or social status requirements.

Yeah, it worked out for some of them, but a great many wasted their fertile years trying for unattainable perfection.

What does the Bible say?

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (2 Timothy 3:1-7 KJV)

I don’t think this is the end of all, but it might be the end of us.  Typically verses like those above get applied to those who are outside the group.  It is “the world” that is full of narcissistic self-seeking types.  And indeed the secular-minded have led the way as far as being unbound to any natural responsibility.  But the church is often guilty of the same things albeit covertly and wearing a righteous disguise—in the manner of the Pharisees:

And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!  For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’  But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)—then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.” (Mark 7:9-13 NIV)

What Jesus is addressing is how the most pious of his day would use sanctimonious claims to override practical commands.  In the example he gives they were claiming to be saving their resources to give to God and thus not able to take care of their parents. It was an excuse.  They used the missional as a cover for their big neglects closer to home and, likewise, many today say that they are fully dedicated to God’s kingdom by doing fun projects in Uganda—but are they loving their brothers and sisters in Christ?

I suppose we could blame St Paul for being seemingly all over the map on marriage and if we should pursue it.  Then again, maybe the point of 1 Corinthians 7 where he makes singleness a higher calling is simply for the sake of encouraging those who did not find that special person and basically reminding them they have greater freedom to do God’s work while not married.  But it is abundantly clear that church growth comes through the production of children.  And women, those most likely to be led astray, play the most vital role in this: 

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1 Timothy 2:12-15 NIV)

Again, I don’t expect anyone to believe this, this could simply be the misogynistic blathering of an entitled Jewish guy who found Jesus as a means to advance his social agenda.  But, if you’re a Christian, then what exactly does “Women will be saved through childbearing” mean so far as the church today?

First, this is an allusion to Mary and her role in the salvation of the world.  According to the Gospel, God chose to come into the world through the natural means of pregnancy and birth.  Second, it tells us something about the vital role of women in the church and matches or supersedes any speaking role.  This absurdity that shaping the world comes only through opening our mouths is why many women sacrifice their potential as the literal creators of the future.

Motherhood Is Most Important 

Feminism measures value in only the most masculine terms.  It tells us that the natural and traditional role of women is worthless and that women need to compete with men for money and political power.  But the core of this ideology is an attack on motherhood and doing that one thing no man could ever do—only a woman can give birth.

But the degrading of motherhood is not only a matter of women being told that they need to be toxically independent of men economically, but also in turning children into a burden, a parasite and something to be exterminated before they have a chance to say, “Momma.”  Birth control and abortion send a message that the next generation is not important, that it is a liability rather than an asset, and there is nothing further from the truth.

During COVID the same people who told us to mask up or we’re killing Grandma or had made shrines to George Floyd continued to lead the assault on the youngest and most vulnerable population.  It makes no sense, old people will die no matter what we do to protect them.  Black women terminate their pregnancies five times the rate that other women do, but the topic of the day is black lives matter and protecting others through our own self-sacrifice?

The reality is that the war on motherhood is sacrificing our own future.  We really should be thinking of our Grandma and what the world will be like if we don’t follow in her footsteps by raising the next generation.  The reality is that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and can only be sustained through population growth.  Even if it were paid for, money has no value unless there is someone to offer their labor in exchange for it.  That savings of dollars is useless without any qualified people to fill positions.

Our narcissism will catch up to us one way or another.  The short-sighted pursuit of a career will have consequences.  Taking the pleasures while denying the responsibilities that nature has intended will inevitably lead to a snapback.  We can artificially cheat the system for only so long before nature starts to push back to eliminate a threat.  History is littered with those who thought themselves to be gods only to be humbled.

The Sustainable Church

Evangelicalism, in particular the focus on conversionism, the Bible out of context of the religious tradition that formed it, and a focus on activism, has eroded communities and put the primary conduit of the Gospel (children of Christians) in second place to information distribution efforts.  The true Church is about Communion, about bringing a little of the heavenly kingdom to Earth, it is about households being saved.  And that is where a woman’s role of bringing new life into the world—which is what sustains any ‘spiritual’ movement.

We need less talk.  Rather than push more speaking roles or more of those glamorous foreign adventures, as if this wasn’t only what St. Paul and a handful of others did in the early Church, there should be a move to what has been most effective for centuries and truly where grows a community of the faith.  We need to give the men who wish to be married and provide for their wives and families the opportunity to be fathers.  We do it by normalizing the natural good again.

There is an overabundance of glory-seeking men and women, desperate for higher social rank and more attention.  They love to have their name on a prayer card while living on the dime of others.  They’re too busy with information warfare to realize that the most powerful witness of Christ is love closer to home.  It was the ‘important’ people who Jesus had condemned for ignoring the bloodied man left for dead along their path or stepping over Lazarus as they went about their business—they thought themselves righteous and were on the road to hell.

There are many reasons why the Christian West is dying and declining birthrates are the biggest contributing factor.  This is partly due to the emphasis on missionary work rather than the ministry of motherhood.  We would save more people—save even our own future—if we shifted back to fruitfulness and being multiplied.  If you have a worldview to spread you don’t do it with tracts shoved in faces.  No, you do it by doing it or good old-fashioned procreation.  So get married young, have many babies, and you’ll be blessed in your old age.

The role of mothers is as important as any man in the church and most will find out too late why that is.  Don’t be one of those who has only regret to accompany them in their twilight years.  You’ll need to decide if holding out for Mr Right is truly worth postponing your greatest calling.  Many men, currently banished to singleness, would make good husbands and fathers if given a chance.

Sight, Sources, Statistics and Science

Standard

Social media provocateurs love to push popular controversies to generate clicks on their sites and get those heated comments sections.  The question about the gender of two boxers in the female category of the competition was that perfect story.  It was not straight up or settled, but generated a lot of strong opinions on both sides.

For myself, it is fairly evident that these two boxers do have a competitive advantage or they would not have won in their respective divisions.  I mean, that’s not even a matter of dispute.  An advantage is how anyone wins an athletic contest and it doesn’t mean they cheated.  However, when not only one but two people with the same extremely rare and potentially enhanced condition—both get the gold?  What are the odds?

Only one out of 500,000 people in the world go to the Olympics.  But, of course, nothing is ever that simple.  Those who live in small countries, like Algeria or Taiwan, have a far greater chance of representing their home countries simply because there are fewer people to fill the same spots.  And then not everyone in the world is competing to be in the Olympics.  Most of us don’t try out.  It is sort of like my being sixth while wrestling in the Eastern National AAUs—many superior to me simply didn’t make the trip.

But to go to Paris and beat everyone?  There is a reason why we give precious medals to those who do.  It is one thing to be that PhD who identified as a breakdancer and ended up scoring zero, it is quite another to get on the podium.  There were 124 boxers in the female category, divided into six different weight classes, and went through three qualification tournaments.  This is certainly not an easy road.  The champion is one out of every woman in the world who can make that weight and is into boxing.

There is speculation that those two boxers who had been disqualified from IBA fights due to failed gender tests—and masculine appearance—is they may have a disorder called Swyer syndrome.  This isn’t a fact, but it would explain why they would have been declared women at birth and always identified as women.  Those with this very rare condition have a male Y chromosome despite their female sexual hardware and offer no male advantage.  

However, it is also possible that the two have Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, which impacts 2-5 out of 100,000 females, which means they would have characteristics of a female outwardly but also have male testes that are undescended.  Severe AIS wouldn’t confer an athletic advantage, according to the sources I’ve read, and yet that does not tell us anything about milder cases.  

Still, the conversation can’t end there, we have other possibilities:

Some press reports have mentioned 5alpha-reductase type 2 deficiency.  This rare syndrome is best reported in the Güevedoces in the Dominican Republic.  Affected XY individuals are apparently female at birth because they can’t activate sufficient testosterone to the much more potent dihydrotestosterone to masculine in utero and thus appear female (the default gender in the absence of masculinising hormones).  However, they have testes in what appear to be labia.  At puberty, the testes produce much more testosterone sufficient to activate receptors and masculinise the child.  Such subtleties are beyond the capacity of most regulatory bodies to accommodate.

The chances of two women with these rare chromosomal disorders somehow making it to the Olympics would be incredibly low.  For example, Swyer Syndrome is around 1 in 80,000 births.  So multiply those odds by the chances of getting to the Olympics and then take that times two.  The number is incredibly large.  There is a far greater chance of being struck by lightning.  If the XY chromosome is present in these two—along with higher testosterone levels—the fact they dominated the field, given what coaches have said, should be considered proof of a potential unfair advantage.

Sources Please Vs. What We See

Much of the smirking response of mid-wit “sources please” types—who simply went along with the ‘official’ International Olympic Committee (IOC) narrative—comes down to many of the slightly dimwitted “I see what I see” types misidentification of the issue as being about transgenderism.  When the real issue is whether or not these athletes have intersex characteristics and thus an unfair advantage in female competition.

Yes, the right is too reactionary.  However, not without cause, they know too well how the NCAA and corporate media denied that Lia Thomas had an unfair advantage as one born a man and still having a penis as well as the rest of a man’s hardware.  And they correctly see that these two Olympic boxing competitors have a masculine appearance.  They had incorrectly assumed that this was just another case of a man cheating his way to the top by pretending to be a woman.

However, that misunderstanding of some is being used as a strawman of the real issue, the real argument is source versus source.  Specifically, the fact that these two athletes were disqualified by the International Boxing Association (IBA) for having male XY chromosomes.  These laboratory tests took place in Turkey and India  So, despite the attempts, by bigots, to smear the IBA as being corrupt for ties to Russia.  But the reality is that no organization is totally without political ties and there’s a reason why the IOC has never banned the US for our military aggression around the world.

So it really comes down to who we want to believe.  The IOC rests its entire claim of gender, on legal documents, passports, and birth certificates, provided by the country of origin, and says this gender assignment makes the boxers women.  By contrast, the IBA cites biological science and test results and tells us these two ‘women’ have XY chromosomes.  Right off the bat, the criteria of the IBA are science and laboratories whereas the IOC is relying on political entities.  Should we follow the science or believe those appealing to non-scientific evidence?

At this point, the mid-wits completely lose the plot and rely on their confirmation bias rather than logical deduction.  They’ll simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious, that the official IOC criteria to determine eligibility is entirely inadequate for solving this riddle; that the IBA at least has what appears to be scientific evidence, and thus this is a question to be answered in the lab rather than the court of public opinion—so they double down on their insults trying to deflect from the real issue.

But, in the end, this isn’t about science, what we see, statistics, or sources.  No, it is about partisan politics that blind many somewhat intelligent adults to what even a child could see.  It exposes those “sources please” mid-wits as just another level of ignorance.  And social conservatives could help themselves a whole lot by not jumping the gun and not oversimplifying complex issues.  Both sides are guilty of false dichotomies and believing misinformation.  Lastly, those who are suggesting that I-man Khelif is representative of Algerian femininity are guilty of the bigotry of low expectations.

The Displaced Aggression Of Ruby Hamad  

Standard

As someone who prefers getting news from non-Western sources, I occasionally read Al Jazeera for some perspective, and that is how I came across an article, “Imane Khelif and Western delusions of white innocence” and had to hit back.  For the remainder of this blog, I will identify as a minority woman to obtain maximum victim points, and so I don’t need to pull my punches.

Editorials are often wild swings, some are so off-balance and contrived that they invite a counterpunch.  I had no idea who Ruby Hamad was.  But her profile reveals a Syrian-Lebanese woman obsessed with ‘white’ European women and how they are loved more than her.  She has made her name through her racist and misogynistic attacks on ‘white’ feminists.  It’s a little bit weird given how white she is.  But hatred is not always rational—she only has a platform because she helps ‘woke’ white leftists with their self-loathing.

In response to the recent outcry, about the two Olympic boxers who had previously failed their gender eligibility test, Hamad politicizes.  She rides on her favorite hobby horse—that being ‘white’ women—and she tries to reframe the discussion as being about the protection of ‘white’ women rather than a matter of maintaining integrity and fairness in the competition.

Now typically I’m sympathetic to those trying to break free of US hegemony and who are tired of their national stability and desire to self-govern being constantly undermined by US-led Western powers.  European colonizers are responsible for the current disorder in many parts of the world.  And, I also believe the Palestinian voice should be heard and that their innocent population should be protected by international law like any other occupied nation, and the killing of children and non-combatants in Gaza is horrendous.

Victims aren’t just Israeli — nor are ‘people of color’ the only ones who suffer injustice.

However, Hamad does exactly what those on the Zionist side do to Palestinians—with a broad swipe she tries to make all people in a place share guilt for what governments have done.  In essence, she has exactly the same attitude as Israeli spokespeople who claim that all in Gaza share in the blame for the Hamas incursion and—outraged that we care that Palestinian babies die—then turn the attention back to the suffering of their own people on October 7th. 

It is a whataboutism.  A deflection.  And doesn’t deal with the actual issue.

This does highlight one aspect of the controversy, that being the solidarity with the two athletes centers on racial or religious identity rather than their gender.  Those who most vehemently deny the complexity of the gender question are Arabs (or Taiwanese, in the case of Lin Yu-ting), which suggests their political partisanship and that the racial motivation is a projection that is entirely their own  Hamad believes that it must be about white women because this is how she thinks.  But it is really about how gender is defined to keep competition fair.

I guess Istanbul is now white?

Hamad flails in her attack.  She makes the row about the Italian boxer crying—which totally reinvents the chronology and ignores the reality of where it all started.  People had already been talking about the disqualifications of Khelif and Yu-ting, by the International Boxing Association because of failed gender tests.  It had nothing to do with how they looked, where they came from, or the race of the women pounded by them.  It is, rather, everything to do with alleged XY chromosomes and higher testosterone levels, and fairness to female athletes.

Guess which one is a woman of color?

But the truth does not need to line up with her narrative.  An Italian woman, who has a darker complexion than Haman, is now made into the token example of “white woman tears” for being upset after a disappointing loss to a physically superior opponent.  Imagine that, someone who put an enormous amount of time into their sport, then forced to quit the fight after 46 seconds due to the strength of the blows that were landing, having very strong emotions…

Scandalous whiteness! 

Had silly Hamad spent 46 seconds thinking instead of trying to force the evidence to fit her own toxic ideology, you would have missed this rhetorical beat-down.

The biggest irony of this all is that Hamad is in complete alignment with the old imperial left—who, by far, are the most meddlesome of the political elements of the West both in the world and domestically with a constant barrage of moralizing emotive nonsense.  Like concern over ‘misgendering’ a trans ‘man’ who is competing as a woman and is born a woman at the same time they tell us we can’t question the gender on birth certificates or passports. 

The self-loathing face of white privilege.

It is truly only the privileged people who have the time to virtue signal and stir up division between people, the rest of us need to work and provide for our families—hoping these lunatics don’t start another war.

What makes this personal is I have a good friend who is Algerian and is one of the most beautifully feminine women I’ve ever met.  Had she not been a devout Muslim (who, unlike Khelif, wore the traditional dress which always included a Hajab) there may have been been good chance of a romantic relationship between us.  So this notion that European femininity is somehow different or more vulnerable is plain ridiculous.  Khelif is no more representative of Algerian or Arab femininity than I am Britney Spears.

Stunning and brave!

Ultimately this is all political.  Hamad does not care about boxing, certainly not things like safety or fairness.  She is just another myopic and mean-spirited partisan who only cares about injustice when it comes to her people.  She’ll never write an article about the Arab abuse of their foreign help (many of them vulnerable women of color) nor is she intellectually curious enough to know about the slave trade of Europeans (yes, many women) by Muslim Arabs who raided shipping and became enshrined in the anthem of the US Marine Corps: “To the shores of Tripoli.” 

Incidentally, the ‘Barbary’ pirates capturing US sailors for ransom led to the re-establishment of the Marines.  At the time, the US was not oriented towards global dominance and only started along that path of being a sea power because of this provocation.

Muslim Arabs, before they were conquered themselves, pillaged the Christian Middle East and subjugated all in their path.  No, this is to villainize them or say that ‘white’ is better.  What it is to say is that conquest is human and we’re all guilty of the best and the worst parts.  The only real difference between myself and the Hamad types is that I want to escape the tribalism of the past while she thrives on it.  I envision a world where everyone wins whereas she can only be happy when those who she declares “not white” rule.  She’s not truly anti-colonial, she is simply enraged that her own tribe lost the civilizational struggle to those she believes are inferiors.

In addition to this, she is like the angry PhD candidate, also from a Syrian background as I recall, and as vile as Hamad, who—despite a progressive feminist lean—was very racially prejudiced and to the point that she scorned me for my once having a black fiance—told me she would never go with a man who had been with a black woman.  This is what makes me amused when Hamad gestures towards the African American grievance.  Blacks may have been second class in the US, but they would be far worse off in the Arab world she represents.

The truth is that men beating women is as acceptable in Algeria as it is across Arab and Muslim regions.  I believe this is why intelligent women from these places have such cognitive dissonance.  They believe, on the one hand, this religious cultural identity makes them better.  But then, on the other hand, they’re also battered and afraid of the men in their own places.  They’re resentful.  They would love to be treated as a Western woman and protected.  This is why they want to see the women they envy to be hurt.  It is displaced aggression:

Displaced aggression is a statistically robust psychological phenomenon. It involves a specific form of attack prompted by rumination on anger-inducing experiences and/or revenge-related thoughts, which might lead to the expression of anger on innocent people. Often, victims of aggression will not seek to confront the actual source of aggression (the original provocateur), and instead bully subordinates in an effort to relieve themselves of the stress that they carry.

Incidentally, in a conversation with a black female neighbor, she described the toxic reality of the community she left and how much she loves to live amongst us ‘white’ rural people who encouraged her rather than trying to tear her down and ruthlessly compete.  Her mother, an alcoholic, used to deride her with the slur that she was ‘white’ for showing a little bit of ambition and self-respect.  This black woman wisely chose to bring her children to the safety of a community still governed by a culture of self-restraint and looking out for the vulnerable.

White women are targets of jealous rage.  Hamad would be better to acknowledge the true origin of her self-loathing and challenge the framing that makes her only care about the tears of those who look like her.

Hamad’s book “White Tears Brown Scars” is an attack on feminism and the West’s culture of protecting women.  She popularized the phrase “white women’s tears” as a way to downplay and dismiss the suffering and display of emotions by white women.  It is dehumanization.  Making her sexual rivals into manipulative animals that do not deserve our empathy or concern.  A license for calloused and cruel disregard in response to actual injustice.  What it really amounts to is an attempt to normalize the abuse of women who step out of line—which is allowed in the Islamic culture that produced Hamad. 

Ruby Hamad should clean up her own side of the street first before commenting on ours.

But I reject her, with her displaced aggression, because it is not okay for men to beat women—despite what her Syrian–Lebanese culture or the Quran says:

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

This is key to understanding the big difference in attitudes between Christian and Islamic traditions, I know the Old Testament treats women more as property of men—like the Quran—but the Gospel radically changed the conversation.  St Paul tells husbands to sacrifice themselves for their wives like Christ died for the Church. 

My wife tells me you couldn’t walk around in her home country like American women do, go out in revealing clothes, alone.  She claims men where she lives would take it as being an invitation for assault and they would likely find your body in the ditch.  If it is ‘white privilege’ or some form of imperialism for women to be able to stroll safely through their own community, then so be it.  I’m not going to apologize for valuing the tears of my wife, the woman I love, over Hamad’s bitterness about not being able to find a man like me.  I’m quite alright with a daughter who cries.

The Unfairness Of Competition

Standard

The other day I looked across the gym and saw a familiar grin. 

Oh, Ydran decided to pump iron! 

My son, still twelve years old, isn’t the most committed to strength training or conditioning and prefers to spend his time lounging at the pool.  But with Junior High football being right around the corner he (completely of his own volition) was putting some work in.  I gave a salute and then we both continued with our respective workouts.  

However, what really impressed me was the weight he had on the bar.  His bench is right around 100 lbs, for reps.  And this brought me back to when I started lifting weights.  I can recall doing the same weight, except in my Junior year of high school!  And also how some of the football players would curl my bench weight, as in literally take what I had on the rack and use it to curl.  But it was not totally embarrassing for me  I only weighed 112 lbs as a Senior.  It shows what a difference his genetics make.  With a bit of work ethic, he’ll be an athletic freak—while I never was going to be great.

As for myself since school? 

I’ve put on enough mass to make up for the sunken chest (which was a consequence of my traumatic birth) and am above average in terms of bench strength—even after being effectively reduced to zero twice due to my neck injury and having to rebuild.  With my current body weight around 180 lbs, I have recently broken a personal record with six solid reps of 225 lbs.  Which is more than most men will ever do and a result of discipline.  I was determined to overcome my limitations.

Still, given where he is now, with a little bit of effort and a few more years, he will do more than what I’ve ever done.  He’s just athletically gifted, has very good hand-eye coordination, and is already big and strong enough to give some serious competition.  It is only a matter of time until I won’t have any advantage.  Fair or not he will be better than me at everything he wants to do and probably with less overall struggle.  So long as he will remain healthy he is destined to crush me in any competition. 

There is no such thing as an even playing field in sports and competition.  If we were all built the same, with the same opportunities or abilities, every contest would end in a tie—there couldn’t be winners or losers.  But we do have differences in size, speed, endurance, and even in motivation and desire.  Some had parents who pushed them, gave them more opportunities, and made sure they had the best nutrition and coaching, and that’s what gave them their edge.

So what is fair or not fair?

PIAA vs Aliquippa vs Southern Columbia

Pennsylvania has some hard-nosed smash-mouth high school football.  In particular, the towns of the coal region have produced dominant players and programs.  The Red Tornados, of Mount Carmel, is the storied winningest team in the state (6th in the nation) with a total of 899 wins.  But, have taken a step back, it is their neighbors to the North that are setting records today, and that being the Tigers of Southern Columbia with six consecutive State Championships.

However, on the complete opposite side of the state, in a Pittsburgh suburb, they have another team with an incredible tradition of winning, the Aliquippa Quips.  

Southern and Aliquippa started in the class A, small school category, they’ve battled in the State Championship game and online it is clear there is some bad blood on the side of the Quips, being humiliated 49-14 in the final back in 2015.  But what has really been grinding their gears is that—as the result of new PIAA rules intended to help maintain a competitive balance—they’ve been bumped up multiple classifications (the Tigers only going up one) due to transfers and success in the post-season.

The same exact rules apply to both teams and yet have impacted the Quips more dramatically and this has led to cries of foul—and a big whataboutism.

Their player safety is the first reason they’ve argued.  Despite Aliquippa having walloped an undefeated Selinsgrove Seals team, in the AAAA championship, earning them their latest bump in classification, and despite their having a roster with quite a bit of D1-destined talent for a typical small school—the Quips’ loyal fan base has been viciously accusing the PIAA organization of favoritism and their cross-state rivals of being a cheater for avoiding reclassification.  But there is zero evidence for either charge.  It seems that the reality, under all this bluster about player safety or fairness, is that they want to keep beating on a weaker field year after year.

They’ve taken it to court and have won their first appeal.  But the PIAA is fighting against this decision with their own appeal and who knows where it will go.  What I do know is it will likely be a matter of prejudice, not merit or metric, that decides the case.  

Racial overtones hang over this, as well as the fact that this is East versus West, the Tigers with their rural population while the Quips come from an urban community.  Southern Columbia sits in a cornfield, near the beautiful Knoebels amusement park and resort, representing a vibrant community of Elysburg and on the edge of the economically depressed coal region.  While jobs and a better place to live is a big enough draw—there is very little doubt that a few parents do move into the school district only for the sake of their child’s athletic future.  However, being on the edge of a big city like Pittsburgh is a massive advantage for Aliquippa.

There is talk now of a new “Southern Columbia rule” which effectively will target the Tigers specifically for their unprecedented success within the current regime.  Is it sour grapes or retaliatory rules?  Who knows.  But both of these powerhouses insist that the work they put in is what makes the difference. It is true to an extent.  The Tigers, under the tutelage of Jim Roth, went from basement dwelling to the point of nearly eliminating the football team to totally mauling their local schedule and stacking up trophies for decades—coaching with discipline got the ball rolling before it became a dynasty that creates its own weather.

But the sore losers do have a point, talent does gravitate towards Southern like bees to honey.  One example is that outstanding quarterback prospect from my hometown who ended up there, with rumors swirling that his dad rented an apartment in Elysburg so he could play and that this kid (who ended up going to Alabama) was still spending most of his time away from Tiger territory.  And yet, with the very high level of scrutiny the program has faced I am fairly certain all is done within the rules.

The point is that there is no perfect formula and thus never a fair competition.  Yes, they all need to suit the same amount of players to play, scoring rules should apply equally to all teams, and officials should have no bias, but there are a myriad of factors that can’t be controlled or properly accounted for.  No two communities in the state of Pennsylvania are exactly the same, some schools are advantaged in ways that others are not, so there will never be a perfect competitive balance.

Olympic Women vs Algerian Boxer

The trans controversy has taken yet another turn as a female Italian boxer, after only 46 seconds, collapsed in tears and she quit the bout.  The reason for this is that blows from her opponent, an Algerian, Imane Khelif—a “biological male” according to the blazing headlines—were too much to take.  And true enough, Khelif looks like a dude and had also previously been disqualified from international competitions due to having an XY chromosome.

An Italian woman takes a beating from Algerian.

My initial knee-jerk reaction was outrage.  It was wrong that this woman would have to face this obviously masculine figure.  And yet, when I started to dig, it turns out the “That’s a man!” reaction is a little bit of an oversimplification.  Khelif has always identified as a woman.  And that is because ‘she’ was assigned to the female category at birth.  Why?  Well, it’s because, no fault of anyone, they were born without the male organ.  They are one of those very rare cases of being intersex.  In other words, the ‘down there’ expression doesn’t match the chromosomal gender rule.

So the “Well Ackshully” mid-wits, armed with this little knowledge, proudly noting that Algeria (Muslim) is a conservative country, dunked on their dimwitted counterparts who saw what they saw.  They’re right in that Khelif is officially female because of ‘her’ female genitals.  But the weird part is how these same people who believe stuff like “misgendered” despite male anatomy suddenly can’t see the controversy when this competitor is also chromosomally a male and they’ve visibly benefitted from male hormones.  The real question is whether or not it is fair they’re allowed to be in the female category so far as boxing is concerned, not if they had been described as female on a birth certificate.

A controversial Taiwanese ‘female’ competitor.

The reason that there are two categories—one for men and another for women—it is a clear advantage to being a male when it comes to high-level competition.  Caitlin Clark, as phenomenal as she is against other women, wouldn’t make an NBA roster.  That’s not at all sexist, it is just reality in the same way I won’t post up with LeBron James.  And to deny this is on par with Flat-Earthism, they can say gender is a social construct (some of the expression is cultural), and yet there’s also overwhelming hard evidence that men have a distinct physical advantage, according to The Trans Athlete Debate “Dilemma”:

Even before puberty, when the differences effectuated by the influence of sex hormones sets in, from a purely genetic perspective, biological males are significantly advantaged.

Case in point, one study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine extensively researched peer-reviewed studies on the health-related fitness data of 85,000 Australian children aged 9-17.  It found that when “compared with 9-year-old females, 9-year-old males were faster over short sprints (9.8%) and 1 mile (16.6%), could jump 9.5% further from a standing start (a test of explosive power), could complete 33% more push-ups in 30 seconds and had 13.8% stronger grip.”

Another study of Greek children, published in the European Journal of Sports Science compared 6-year-old females and 6-year-old.  Researchers found that the “boys completed 16.6% more shuttle runs in a given time and could jump 9.7% further from a standing position. In terms of aerobic capacity, 6- to 7-year-old boys showed a higher absolute and relative (to body mass) VO2max than 6- to 7-year-old females”

If this weren’t the case, if women were equal to men, why not eliminate classification based on gender and let the best athletes of every country—male or female—compete for one gold medal in each event?

No, the reality is, if women had to compete with men, no woman would ever get to the Olympics—let alone stand on the podium. 

It has little to do with work ethic or desire.

There is no point even having a separate female category if some with an XY chromosome and higher levels of testosterone are allowed in the competition.   While athletic competition has roots in male versus male combat—I am not right-wing and want my daughter to have the opportunity to participate in sports.  I believe there needs to be a return to rationality, fairness, and safe competition. 

Khelif doesn’t belong in a ring against a normal woman any more than I do.  Get real.

High-level Competition Is Not a Right 

The progressive left has got all tied up in a knot over the idea that the difference between genders is a myth—merely a social construct. 

It is a feminist fantasy that a woman is capable of everything a man can do and that the only reason women are not equally represented is because of injustice. 

We hear complaints all of the time from female athletes who believe they deserve equal pay to men who a) produce far more revenue given they are the very best competitors and b) would no doubt humiliate any female challenger.

Note, for the purpose of this discussion, I’m talking only about athletic events, not about intellectual or other capabilities.  The other differences in ability based on gender can be a topic for another day, women have distinct advantages and superior abilities in other areas.  But my commentary here is strictly about physical strength, speed, and size—where men are gifted. 

Also, my wife and I are equally valuable to each other and the family, she works as hard as I do (or harder) and both of us play important roles in our home and the local community, and yet this doesn’t change the fact I could physically dominate her—or that even her own twelve-year-old son is taller and heavier than she is.

Truly, if I completed in the female category of power-lifting I would have elite strength and a chance for gold—as a slightly above-average male weight-lifter.

If it is a right to be an elite athlete, and if all women deserve a special category so they can have a chance to be recognized, is it fair that short and unathletic men are not represented?  Should we keep expanding professional leagues so that all can be champions?  Or is the point of these kinds of events to have only the best reach the top for the entertainment of those of us who know that we don’t belong there?

Female athletes, instead of griping about unequal pay, should be grateful that they are privileged with a second-tier category that has given women an opportunity to compete. 

No two people are equal.  There is no such thing as a fair competition.  But if there is a category for females, to accommodate their biological differences from men, then those with a clear competitive advantage because of male hormones or chromosomes should be excluded and how they identify or what is down there doesn’t matter.  Sure, the right gets things wrong for not understanding that exceptions do exist, but the left does worse and fails to comprehend that women need protection from those who are physically bigger and stronger.  The entire reason for separate categories for men and women is to protect women.

This is why we need to have criteria that go beyond the “identifies as a woman” leftist minimum. We need a standard that also considers the level of testosterone or chromosomal pairs.  If those who have very rare intersex characteristics don’t have a huge advantage, then how did two of them beat the odds to end up in the Olympics? Why even have a women’s division at all?  This is about fairness for all competitors, not about one individual.  Our participation in a competition is a privilege, not a right, and can’t be granted to all or it becomes worthless.  In the end, it is always a little arbitrary who is allowed or disallowed.

The Art of Denial

Standard

Back in my school days, I got caught trying to make a weapon in shop class.  Being a boy, I was fascinated by those Nightsticks used by police and thought I could get away with this flagrant violation of rules.  But very early into this project the teacher, who had been around the block, confronted me and gave the cease and desist order.  However, rather than owning up to it, I went the route of plausible deniability and claimed that I was actually building a stool.

Club…stool…all semantics!

Likewise, some people when seeing many not happy with sacred Christian tradition being mocked tried to play off the display as a depiction of a Greek Bacchal Banquet. Whether you believe that explanation or not is up to you.  However, in either case, this was an obscene celebration of debauchery that had absolutely nothing to do with the Olympics.  And, no, that’s not coming from a prudish angle, rather Bacchus (not on Mt Olympus) was never a part of the Ancient Olympics.  So this clever response by apologists, like “Rev Cassie Rapko” (dutifully quoted in the Daily Mail), falls flat.

Her pronouns are…

This new official explanation repeated over and over again in headlines, that “nothing to see here” denial of the Christian imagery in this depiction, also contradicts what these performers themselves had said before the damage control effort, as reported in their own words, “took inspiration from Leonardo da Vinci’s famous painting to create the setting.”  One of them even doubled down on the insult in a post that was later deleted after the narrative shifted.  The back peddling and gaslighting is incredible and it just goes to how unreliable our sources of information really have become.  This is an example of revisionist history in real-time:

But you’re crazy to think this has anything to do with Christianity!

The irony of the bizarre “It’s not the Last Supper, but The Feast of the Gods,” cover story is first that the explanation before the fury (above) is still online, and second that this painting by Dutch artist Jan van Bijlert was itself inspired by da Vinci’s The Last Supper:

And it is not so much about this one act as it is the meanspirited pattern of ridicule (and very deliberate misrepresentation) of Christianity by the left in part of a campaign of debasement and demoralization.  It is cultural vandalism, not art, and should be identified as such.  The left regularly betrays the love and tolerance it claims to stand for—only to greet with a Judas kiss acting as if they’ve done nothing wrong to deserve rebuke.  

“It’s just art!”

Try that excuse for spinning out on one of those rainbow flags painted on a roadway, see how it turns out.

Relax, don’t get so butthurt!  This is just art!

At the end of it all, the hypocrisy on the part of the fake tolerant “kindness is everything” left is expected. They are the civilizational equivalent of a plague of locusts, destroying all in their path and lacking any actual moral direction.  Sure, they’ll appropriate Christian morality, most especially when it is useful for bludgeoning others, but principles are for those trying to build.  The left lacks any creative power, which is why they parody and mock what is beautiful, what is meaningful, and truly life-giving in the world.  This isn’t even speaking from a Christian perspective, what truly awe-inspiring comes from these clowns other than their stupidity?

Until it comes to respecting your sacred traditions and symbols.

The need to recognize a bunch of talentless slobs, in the name of their false diversity, equity, and inclusion, only shows a lack of culture on the part of the French organizers.  This isn’t edgy or original, and it certainly isn’t going to help those who claim to be marginalized gain acceptance, it is simply sacrilege and a lame attempt to denigrate the faith of those who make up a 1/3 of the world population in an event that is supposed to welcome all people.  The only art on display was that of deception when they got called out.

Derision isn’t love. 

Ridicule isn’t tolerance. 

Remarkable how wrong all of our eyes are about what they see.
Remarkable how wrong all of our eyes are about what they see.

They lie to our faces and expect us to deny reality like they do, but you’re certainly not crazy for believing your own eyes.  I guess I should have told my shop teacher to squint harder and see the stool rather than the weapon.  But I was not that practiced in the art of deception.

I Feel Bad For The Shooter On The Roof

Standard

It was inevitable.

Trump, who packs rallies despite somehow losing the last election, took the stage again in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Nearby another man crawls on a roof top, a rifle in his hands, takes aim and he pulls the trigger.  He missed his mark, but continues to fire, one bullet fired striking a person in the crowd, killing them instantly, another hit the former President who drops.

Thomas Matthew Crook was only 20-years-old.  His entire life he has been propagandized by a partisan media blinded by rage.  After the dismal debate performance of Joe Biden, a heroic old man fighting till his last breath for the good of the country he loved, great fear gripped this young man.  The evil Drumfler would ascend to power again!

And this time, as the headlines screamed in warning and even Biden himself claimed in the debate, Trump would be out for revenge—which would lead to a literal bloodbath.

Worse yet, the justice system that a month back would never make an error in regards to charges against Trump, suddenly gave way to a Supreme Court that wants Trump to be a dictator!  This gullible young mind absorbed the hysteria.

Voting would not be enough!

No, Crook wasn’t going to leave the future of the nation in the hands of fate.  Women depended on him.  Black people too.  Gays and lesbians as well.  The time for talk was over, Trump and his MAGAt minions needed to be stopped and he was prepared to lay down his life for the good of his country to put an end to this threat.  If the courts could not stop Trump, if Biden couldn’t, then the only option left was a rifle.

If only someone could have talked some sense into him.  If only he had gone outside the ‘mainstream’ corporate news bubble or considered other possibilities.  

Had he done this he would’ve have learned Trump is liberal, a New York businessman with an immigrant mother and married to a foreign born wife, who (despite gesturing to Evangelicals) has the morals of Bill Clinton and is therefore not remotely interested in implementing the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 25” conservative fever dream.

Trump is actually a disappointment to the right-wing, he banned bump stops and has a centrist platform when you stop taking the Democrat claims as fact or the full truth.  It isn’t like he’s going to bring back slavery or force women to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.  He’s a fiscal conservative who supports bringing manufacturing jobs back and likes trolling on social media.  That’s it.  He’s not a fascist.  He won’t ban abortion (which he says should be up to states) nor is he any more evil than those who falsely accuse him for their own gain.

Crook came within millimeters of his target, which is quite impressive for 150 meters, but will be remembered as a brainwashed fool who mistook rhetoric for reality. 

He may have actually secured a second term for Trump when most people take a step back and realize that the extremists might be on the side of the leftist media—that initially had responded to the assassination attempt by playing it off as popping noises and Trump falling down. 

Reprehensible misreporting!

It is time to start seeing through this nonsense.

If Trump were literally Hitler, the President Biden would not have come out against the shooter.  No, he would’ve lamented the bad aim and reiterated the bullseye statement he made just days ago.  Instead he is now pulling ads and admitting that the show has gone too far after his opponent was nearly killed.  Ironically, for a brief moment, Biden has looked very presidential.

Too bad Crook didn’t realize that he was a pawn in a manipulation game before he executed on the plan.

Responsible people failed him.

He died for nothing. 

Watching Gran Torino With My Asian Son

Standard

After reading a review of Gran Torino, a Clint Eastwood movie from 2008, that dismissed it as shallow in its exploration of racism, I’ve decided to explore some of the depth of the movie that was missed.  It was a great story about finding common ground, that takes a bit of twist at the end from the typical Clint Eastwood film.  My family (mixed race and culture) could appreciate the themes more than the average viewer—yet is a beautiful redemption story that all people can enjoy as well.

“Get off my lawn!'”

The story is about an angry old man who is not dealing well with change.  Walter ‘Walt’ Kowalski, a Polish-American retired auto worker, Korean War veteran, and recent widower—his beloved wife passing right before the start of the narrative.

In the opening frame, he fits a stereotype of an elderly homeowner defending their patch of turf from an encroaching world.  It seems every small town has one.  That guy who trims his front lawn with scissors and does not deal well with the trespasses of the younger generation, the snarling “get off my lawn” line from the movie became an instant meme.  

Why?  

It is just too familiar. 

The expression captures the essence of a fading dream.  The American middle class values property ownership.  A lawn, once a complete luxury and exclusively for wealthy estates, had become the mark of post-WW2 affluence.  Walt was the beneficiary of this period of economic growth.  He had lived a quintessential suburban life.  

But now it had become a nightmare.  It is not the same neighborhood anymore. The once tidy little homes, owned by people like him, had fallen into disrepair as a new group of immigrants took over.  The woman who he built a home with was gone.  His sons bought foreign brand vehicles and betrayed the legacy their father had built working at Ford.  The world Walt had known was falling apart and he was bitter.

That patch of land, other than the ghosts of his past, was all Walt really had left.  To set foot on it was to violate his sacred space.  It was a shrine.  And his 1972 Gran Torino in the garage likely represented the pinnacle of his productive career.  Since the Korean War ended in 1953, this would put this car purchase around two decades into civilian life with a young family and point when the future looked bright.  So he was clinging to what was left of his identity and willing to defend it with deadly force.

Demons of the Past

Early on we see Walt, the tough guy, who is playing a part.  His racist language is a part of the facade—a barrier he puts up—because the alternative is to be vulnerable—or a victim.  He is still haunted by his war experience, in the beginning using it as a threat, saying he could kill without remorse:

“Yeah? I blow a hole in your face and then I go in the house… and I sleep like a baby. You can count on that. We used to stack fucks like you five feet high in Korea… use ya for sandbags.”

However, later, when it comes to stopping the neighbor boy from taking revenge, we see the reality under the surface:

“You wanna know what it’s like to kill a man? Well, it’s goddamn awful, that’s what it is. The only thing worse is getting a medal… for killing some poor kid that wanted to just give up, that’s all. Yeah, some scared little gook just like you. I shot him in the face with that rifle you were holding in there a while ago. Not a day goes by that I don’t think about it, and you don’t want that on your soul.“

Just like today, where Russians are called “Orcs” and portrayed as subhuman by propagandists, racial and ethnic slurs were used against various Asian enemies of US policy in the region.  But for Walt, he knew better, he knew that it was not a demon at the receiving end of his rifle.  He had murdered a human child and he felt immense regret.  Note how he says “poor kid” rather than all of the racist terms he used freely throughout his conversations.  It is almost as if, up to this point, he had to reinforce the dehumanizing descriptions to keep ahead of his shame. The truth is Walt didn’t sleep like a baby. No, he was running his sins his entire life and exhausted.

War propaganda then and now.  Enemies are always portrayed as evil and subhuman.

Walt’s racism was part of his pretty much equal-opportunity disdain for other people, including the young parish priest, and his own family.  He was a broken and hurting man, who had driven away his children and was hiding his own terminal illness.  What he needed was some compassion, a safe place where he could finally let his guard down, and it was the persistent effort of a young Hmong neighbor that finally broke through his wall of insults.

Finding Common Ground

The review, that sparked my response, tried to overlay a “white savior” trope on the story and completely missed that it was Walt who was being saved!

*spoiler alert*

Yes, ultimately, Walt sacrificed himself for the sake of the Asian family next door.  But this only after Sue, played by an actual Hmong actress (some critics panned the amateurism, others praised), went above and beyond to disrupt his dismal world.  

She was his savior.

It was by her effort that he would face the demons of his past and could be at peace with his Creator.  It was a redemption story, a story of an old man who had lost his wife, lost his children, lost his religion and even lost his neighborhood, but finds life again by learning to love his enemies.

I can feel this character.  My own life didn’t go as planned.  I had to leave the religious culture where my hopes had been built.  I had a beautiful Asian woman who was patient with me while I was still lost in delusion and did not give up when times were difficult.  Now we have a blended-culture home.  Yes, my Filipino wife and son are different from me in many regards.  However, after seven years of knowing each other and now over a year of being married, our love has only continued to grow.  Some of my happiest moments were with her family in the Philippines and recently while visiting her relatives in Canada.

I am Walt.

My ‘Sue’ did save me.

The real story of Gran Torino is an old man who finds more common ground with those he had thought were strange than he does with his own children.  Once Walt had got past the superficial differences he realized he had more connection to these Hmong people than many who looked like him.  Unlike the war, he was now defending real people and not political ideologies.  He was fighting for the local community, against those within who are destroying it, and not gunning down random boys thrown into a conflict not truly their own.  The storyline is a comparison between perspectives and shows us what really matters in the end.

It is about relationships, not race.

It is about building bridges.

The ongoing dialogue between Walt and his priest demonstrates this.  The priest, who is of European descent based on appearance, is at first scoffed at by the grizzled military veteran for his youthfulness.  The baby-faced “Padre” is bluntly rejected by him: 

“I think you’re an overeducated 27-year-old virgin who likes to hold the hands of superstitious old ladies and promise them everlasting life.“

But, despite this insult, Father Janovich will not go away.  And eventually, with his persistence, he does earn the respect of Walt.  The bond, built over a few beers, culminates with Confession and Walt is finally able to have the guilt that had plagued him since Korea absolved.  Now he is free and at peace, ready for a last act that goes contrary to expectations and confirms the redemptive arc.  

It was faith that saved Walt, both that of the young woman who withheld judgment and didn’t allow his wall of nastiness to stop her and finally of the persistent outreach of the Church.  And it is only because of this concerted effort that we get to see the protagonist do what is right. By the end of the film, Walt has overcome those demons driving his anti-social behavior and also has gained a son worthy of his prized Gran Torino.

Now To Review the Reviewer…

Why did the critic miss the obvious?

The reviewer who inspired me to write my own was projecting their own worldview onto the script. Eastwood is a rare conservative Hollywood producer.  In fact, so conservative he spoke at a Republican National Convention and gave a mock interview with an empty chair, used to represent Obama, and he calls Biden “a grin with a body behind it.”  Perhaps it is this that the review is responding to?  But I think it goes a bit deeper than that.

The Marxist left sees the world as being a zero-sum game, or that for some people to gain others must lose, and thus everything is a competition for power.  But, not only this, but everything is divided up into strictly bounded categories based on their skin color, financial status, or sexual classification.  If someone cooperates across these lines then they are an “Uncle Tom” or traitor.  So the themes of Gran Torino just do not compute.  Asians are collaborators. Walt is an irredeemable privileged white man, he needs to be canceled—not humanized.

So, since we can’t have everyone come out as a winner, the only thing the woke reviewer has left is to hallucinate something color-coded and negative.  Thus they see a movie that tells us to reach across lines of age, culture, and race as just another “white savior” trope.  It is bizarre, such a narrow and distorted perspective, to entirely miss everything and then to insert what is not actually there.  Yes, Walt saves, but in the context of others saving him, and that’s not even the point.  The point of is that color (or age) doesn’t matter, finding our common ground and community does.

Gran Torino isn’t a perfect movie.  It may go a bit overboard with ethnic slurs at times.  But, then again, the comedic relief of the barber and Walt exchanging these insults as terms of endearment is also great commentary.  Why do we let words be “violence” when the same utterances can be laughed at in another context? It is because these words have the power we give them.  What this is suggesting is that we can go further when we reframe the conversation. 

The left wants to believe that our behavior is determined by what others have done to us—Eastwood says we can be free to live above their rules.

Politics may be all about power, in-group and out-group, but love overcomes all. 

Love Is Transactional

Standard

A frequent complaint of Western men (who were burned) in a relationship with a Filipino woman is that she was only ever interested in his money and not truly in love.  I mean, it couldn’t possibly be that he was an entitled and whiny beach who expected her undying adoration while producing minimal returns, right?  She was supposed to love them like their dear mother who had let them live in the basement rent free for thirty years!

And you think I’m exaggerating.

Part of the problem (which is not a problem for those who understand the arrangement) is age-gap.  My wife and I have a difference in age that is normal or within several years of each other.  But frequently there is a gap of decades in these pairings and these men marrying women that are young enough to be their daughter (or granddaughter) don’t seem to get that she didn’t marry him for his charm or charisma.  She is hoping for a bit of financial security and her happiness will depend on his ability to deliver.

Many are aghast that Bill Belichick, 73 years old, would dare to enter into a romantic relationship with a 23 year old Jordan Hudson.  They say what business does a man his age have to date this young woman?  Isn’t it exploitative, an illegitimate relationship?  But they hate it because it exposes the reality of love.  Sure, the young cheerleader and old coach is extreme on the age scale.  And yet how is it any different from a 5′ tall 100lb female who picks a 220lb 6′ male rather than a guy that is her own size?

Is this gross?

Women Instinctively Marry Up

We all love those “living on a prayer” stories about two people surviving together against the odds.  And certainly there is an element of this type of spirit that we will needed to sustain love through thick and thin.   But, as my wife put plainly in our discussion of this, “You can’t live on just love.”  The practical is not as glamorous, we prefer not to see the crude mechanics that are always working beneath the surface.  And yet a man must deliver if he wants to have her adoration for more than the first year of marriage.

We don’t hear anything about Joseph when Jesus was an adult.  He’s already out of the picture.  And it is probably because he was older (maybe a widower) when he married Mary, a teenager, and died.  Traditionally an older and thus more established man was considered to be safer.  He already had his land and house.  He could provide support for her children and had a reputation going before him that younger men did not.  Why take a chance on an unknown commodity when there’s man who can afford to care for his new bride?

And despite the egalitarian push in the West women still want to marry up. High earning educated women do not lose this tendency towards hypergamy.  Sure, maybe they will settle for less, but prefer the man who can provide more.  This, incidentally, is why my pursuit of the impossibly failed, as she put, “You’re thirty years old living in Milton.”  Or, in other words, I lacked the size of ambition and type of social status she was into.  And, shallow as it sounds, this is just the honest truth.  Men marry youth and beauty, women marry size, strength and status.  

Potential Drives Attraction

Young women marry the poor young man’s potential, but all want financial security and physical protection.  While men, no matter how old or pious, appreciate women who of fertile age.  Men marry her potential to bear children.  This is reproductive instinct.  Even if both parties in a sexual relationship are not consciously interested in offspring—this is what drives their behavior.

He provides, she nurtures.

While the Belichick and Hudson pairing did raise my eyebrows and likely would not be possible if he wasn’t worth 70 million.  I’m also guessing they do have a few points of compatibility.  It is possible, you perverts, that they really do enjoy logic that much and have stimulating intellectual intercourse.  In the end, it doesn’t matter if your ideal says otherwise, you’ll always need to give something in order to get—nobody is going to fall in love with you for simply existing.  

Whether it is paid in cash up front or in IOUs of our future potential, we all must pay the bride’s dowry or move on.  If you’re old or ugly it is going to take a lot of money for her (and her family) to make her interested.  Only the young men can win by promising her the moon.  Of a certain age and you will need to deliver those goods up front.  

Hide this reality under layers of your storybook romantic fantasies and feelings of meant to be—love is transactional.

Two Kinds Of Black

Standard

Identity is fluid, a physical characteristic is not.  I had identified as being “Mennonite” for many years of my life.  It was not much of a choice for me.  Raised in a Mennonite home, participated in a Mennonite church, and had internalized the values, the belief system, etc.  Mennonite was simply what I was and it still remains by ethnic/cultural background.  Leaving the community does not mean I’ll escape the genetic realities of my birth tribe.  

Is an identity surface level or deeper?

There was many of these labels that have to do with our social status, some we pick and others are picked for us.  In school if you’re into sports, hang out with other athletes, it is going to get you a “jock” designation and likely also stereotype applied with that.  Likewise, if were to wear a particular wardrobe to conform with a group of self-described non-conformists then you’re Goth or Emo.  People tend to coagulate into identity group—they find others who are like them and also become more like those whom they identify with.

But there’s a huge difference between these identities built around how we dress or who we associate with and those like eye color, bone structure or genitalia.  Sure, someone can dye their hair purple and claim that they are an astronaut, but that does not change what they were born with nor does it make them qualified to fly a space shuttle.  There are those ‘assigned’ categories that need to be objective facts rather than some kind of self-identity or cosplay act.  Science needs to have clear definitions or the endeavor is impossible.  And society simply can’t let you be a medical doctor because you feel like you should be a Porsche owner while you’re stuck driving a Kia.

Anyhow, getting to the point, a big problem with these conversations is that people are using the same words to mean something different.  For example, Rachel Dolezal, the woman who identified as ‘black’ despite her being born a daughter of European parents and having their biological characteristics, yet she could be ‘black’ for many years.  In my mind she can be both black or not black depending on what the term is describing—is it the genetic inheritance or the adopted culture?

I mean, think of Eminem’s lyrics: “I am the worst thing since Elvis Presley, to do Black music so selfishly and use it to get myself wealthy.”

Technically, if it is a ‘white’ artist doing the writing and performing, what is so ‘black’ about it?  He’s performing in English.  He’s doing naval gazing more common with the self-loathing European culture and his lyrics were about being some weird trailer trash hybrid rather than the themes common with the gangsta rap I knew growing up where it was at least presented as being something to take seriously.  How is a genre of music a skin color?  Asians are quite good at playing instruments and music first developed by the West—is that appropriation?

In many cases ‘black’ is not referring to something truly immutable.  No, rather it is about a lifestyle, a set of values, a certain way of behaving and, by this definition, it is perfectly legitimate for someone to identify as black without African genetics.  In other words, it is more like belonging to political party or religion than something someone is born.  And this is how suddenly the far left can claim work ethic or nuclear families are ‘white’ despite the Africans I know being as hard working and loyal to their spouses as any other person.

It is grotesque, horrendously racist, when a political candidate tells a whole segment of the population that if they don’t vote for him then, “You ain’t black.“

Of course that was to intentionally confuse actual skin color and everything associated with it, with a ideology and perspective.  It is to rob the targets (black people who think differently than him) of their identity and is a form of gaslighting.  An outsider doesn’t get to decide what people should or should not belong.  It is inappropriate and bullying behavior, this truly is the worst kind of manipulation, it reinforces stereotypes and denies the true diversity within a category of color.

So identity is fluid.  We can change our own idea of what we are.  Still, there are also the fixed points determined by birth, a physical characteristic, that even if the surface level manifestations are surgically changed and hormones artificially employed, cannot be chosen or changed.  A man can behave in a feminine way, a woman in a masculine way, yet he doesn’t lose a Y chromosome simply for declaring himself a woman.  Sure, he can have his male anatomy reconstructed to resemble the female sex.  But there is more to being a woman.

Due to chromosomal abnormalities, there may not be a binary of male and female, but there most certainly is between female and not female.  It is one thing for the man once known as Bruce Jenner to reject the typical male role and change his name.  But that does not change the fact that he fathered his children and lacks the real hardware to be a woman.  Again, Rachel Dolezal can act in a manner that is associated with those of African origins, even fool the NAACP with her outward appearance, but she is not truly African American.

We do not need to recognize every claim as being valid.  I can’t just thrash around in the pool, march up to the podium and demand to be recognized as the winner of a swim meet without the necessary qualifications or actual achievement.  Why then is it ever okay for someone with male genitals and body to dominate in a female category for simply changing his name and having the powers that be join him in his psychosis?  

Changing your name and official category doesn’t change the physical reality.

It is a serious threat to civilization to attack the common language in this manner and it cannot be taken lightly.  One person with a delusion is not a problem.  However, when it is a significant portion of society going off the rails together then very quickly becomes dangerous.  Matters of our preference and culture are subjective, what is feminine or masculine is not set in stone, but science and reason must be built on something that is objective.  There must be a wall between identity that is merely social construct and that which is grounded in substance.

Coddled to Death—How the West Made Weakness a Virtue

Standard

My son complains that he doesn’t get paid enough for household chores.  He feels he is somehow entitled to everything that we’re giving him and more.  It is a struggle trying to explain why we won’t simply hand him all that he wants.  We have plenty, in his eyes, and can just share our wealth with him.  But the reason we hold back isn’t our greed or that we don’t want him to have the best life has to offer.  No, quite the contrary, in fact, it is because we want him to do well life that we resist the urge to coddle him.

What is coddling?

On the surface it is being overprotective and indulgent.  It stems from distrust of another other person’s ability to deal with normal life situations and emotions on their own.  And, while it may appear to be motivated by love or compassion, it only ever empowers those who keep the other confined to the bubble wrapped world.  It is the devouring mother, the one who uses their nurture as a tool of control.  They only care about the target of their efforts so far as it feeds their ego or feelings of self-importance.  It is a virtue signal and degrades those coddled.

Bigotry of Low-expectations

Along with thoughts about parenting and the goal, some of the inspiration for writing this came from the governor of the state of New York, Kathleen Hochul, who declared:

Young black kids growing up in the Bronx, who don’t even know what the word a computer is, they don’t know. They don’t know these things. And I want the world open up to all of them, because when you have their diverse voices, innovating solutions through technology, then you’re really addressing societies broader challenges.

Other than to call this statement what it is: Bigotry (or racism) of low expectations and patronization.  I’ll not pile on.

Many, like Hochul, are isolated.  They have not spent much time in urban communities nor met the people who live there.  From my own first hand experience her claim (which she now claims was misspoken) is absurd, none of the black I met were unfamiliar with or incapable of using computers.  Many of my acquaintances there could afford to go to college and more credentialed than I am, so where does this notion come from that they’re hapless ignorant people in desperate need of government assistance?

The answer, in this case at least, is that it is hard to maintain a bloated state budget (let alone greedily expand it) without somehow justifying it and what better way to do that convince people that they need you to get somewhere in life?

Condescending political elites are not moral paradigms and minority voters are not stupid.  I believe those pandered to know it is insincere and coming from someone who sees them as dumb.  But they also understand it works to their advantage and don’t say no to it.  We naturally take the path of least resistance and rationalize why we are deserving of the help.  By playing up the consequences of slavery and impacts of racial prejudice, a little wealth redistribution (looting or theft) can be redeemed as social justice.

Unfortunately, low expectations produces what it is supposed to remedy, it gives an excuse to wait around for a handout and kills initiative.  This contributes to racism in that it creates the impression that the only way some can compete is by lowering the bar or a double standard.  It diminishes the accomplishments of those who knew what a computer is without the help of those in the the benevolent class.  Now, because of politicians meddling, there is the question, did they earn it by being the best candidate or are they a diversity hire?

Woke is Weak

My conservative friends wouldn’t likely see the link between Christianity and wokism, but it is definitely there.  The woke glorify the victim and reframe accomplishment as unearned privilege.  For those who started a business, “You didn’t build that” they reason, and nullify the hard work and the sacrifice of those who followed the entrepreneurial spirit to success.  Likewise, in church we’re encouraged to tithe generously and be charitable since it is giving back a portion of all that is given to us by God.  The difference being that the woke want us to give to the government, the religious their own organizations.

And there’s nothing wrong with our helping those in need.  I provide for my son and my wife as well.  However, when I give I give to empower rather make them dependent and weaker.  My hope is for my son to grow his strength and ability so that in time he does not need me to survive.  And the same thing is true of my wife, she is my partner not my patron, we both contribute different things to the whole and neither of us is entitled to what the other gives to the relationship.  It is how a real community works, we give and take as necessary, and we do it for the good of the common project.

Wokism, by contrast, is motivated by envy and pity, it encourages fragility by marking off space spaces and enforcement of strict language codes.  Again, this strict regulation has a parallel in religious fundamentalism.  Home schooling parents are terrified of the influence of the ‘world’ on their children.  They, like the woke, overemphasize the role of the environment in the formation of the individual.  The one exempts swaths of the population from the normal civil expectation (while increasing the burden on others) and the other thinks salvation of poor little Johnny depends on them.  Bad behavior always blamed on an external influence rather than a lack of will to do better on the part of their designated eternal victims.

This is what Friedrich Nietzsche critiqued as being a hatred for life.  When we remove temptation rather than ever teach children to resist it—when we are constantly vilifying strength rather than encourage it—when we follow after reasoning or rationality instead of developing our instincts, we are promoting the weakness of our society and degeneration. 

Woke is weak.  It attempts to foster spirits of ressentiment and forms an identity around a person’s fear of being disenfranchised for things completely out of their control.  And in the end it destroys the incentive to find a way to overcome by our own means.

The Meek Shall Inherit 

Neitzsche could be accused of painting with too broad a brush for the dismissal of the Christian ethic as slave morality and an opposition to the powerful.

The message of Jesus and his Apostles was, in part, freedom from those human laws of “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” (Colossians 2:21) and very nearly could be the “will to power” that the German philosopher championed once unpacked.  Hedonism wasn’t the goal of the departure from “slave-morality,” the aim was instead for people to exercise will-power and resolve.  In the same manner Jesus and St Paul preached freedom from the law that brought only bondage and death:

But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

(Romans 7:6 NIV)

This is not to suggest that there is any kind of compatibility between the Spirit-led and the Übermensch.  Nevertheless, both would have us abandon a lower morality based on restrictions for a pursuit of our own ultimate form.  To St. Paul the Gospel means we are free from “the flesh” or the unbridled urges, while Nietzsche thinks we’re instinctively at our best, and both men are not opposed to impulse control.  The big difference is that the Apostle’s answer is spiritual whereas the philosopher says that additional layer is not needed and morality a hindrance.  Both would disagree devaluing the attitudes and culture that lead to success.  Being master of ourselves requires strength and never allows for excuses.  

Furthermore, the Jesus of the Bible wasn’t weak, he spoke with authority and we are told that he had power over all things, but he chose a meek posture rather than wield this power destructively.  Now it is a matter of faith if you accept this or not.  I could say that I could strangle Mike Tyson yet choose not to.  Talk is cheap.  But meekness is the ability to restrain ourselves.  Having the power to impose our will is always desirable, nobody wants to be at the mercy of the elements or other people.  However, sacrifice for sake of the next generation is better, to parent is to live beyond ourselves, that is why this is an instinct for those who have children, and it is the role of the Father.

When I wrestle with my son I don’t use all of my strength.  I would hurt him if I employed full power.  My goal is not to destroy him, he is not my enemy or threat to obliterate, but it is to train and strengthen him.  I restrain to protect him currently and also challenge to protect him in the future.  That is the real Biblical kind of meekness, it submission to the greater role we can serve as protectors and builders of civilization.  It is the having all things in balance, which Nietzsche might agree, and using our strength to take on the burden of creating the future.  We do not retreat from life.  Faith requires the we go headlong into the fight rather than hide or be ruled by resentment.

Late-stage Protestantism

I can understand the campaign Nietzsche waged against morality in light of wokeism and virtue signaling nonsense.  Apparently he was very well-versed in theology and did not find answers there.  Which is correct, it is not intellect that brings us life, study for sake of study is vanity, and truth is more in the practical telos than in some theoretical construct.  Nietzsche attacks rationality and reason as an end and those things do implode upon themselves when no longer grounded in a higher life-serving purpose.

The current ideological push for wokeism, and the mindless promotion of diversity, equity and inclusion at the expense of standards, merit or competency, is simply another step down the path of trying to eliminate all suffering and in the process destroying excellence.  I want my son to face some hardship, even if it is only artificial, because his striving will build strength.  It is the thought behind Proverbs 13:24: 

Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.

Or, as Nietzsche postulates in Beyond Good and Evil:

The discipline of suffering, of great suffering – do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far? 

In the same vein, in The Will to Power, he wrote:

To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities – I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not – that one endures.

No, I don’t want my son to be last picked for his dark skin.  And yet I also don’t want him to live in a world so sanitized that he’ll need to invent offenses (in the same way that an autoimmune disorder is the body attacking itself) then expects me to always step in on his behalf rather than face it.  Success in life requires some voluntary submission or suffering for sake of our goals.  Coddling and bigotry of low expectations does not serve the long-term benefit of children or civilization.

We need to discard this ugly paradigm of late-stage Protestantism.  There are great men, powerful and worthy of our respect, then there are those in desperate need of improvement.  We don’t help the latter by going soft and changing the requirements to make everything easier.  There is nothing radical or reforming about the direction the church in the West has gone.  This “have it our way” drive has led to a fracturing of the church, a consumerist mentality in worship and a new religion without obligation to the fathers or their commands.

Woke is simply the latest development in the direction.  It is the child with imperfect parents now thinking they know better and don’t need the silly disciplines of their parents to thrive.  Whether Anglican or Anabaptist, it is always about rejection of authority and the hierarchies established by the early church and originating with Christ.  We think we can do better, that the home is better if there is equal with no patenting or need for development of conscience.  In the end we get the complete agnosticism which goes further and to destroy everything the generations of faithful built for our good. 

Attainment and success doesn’t need to be made more accessible.  My son may think he deserves everything without effort, that we’re hoarding a kind of wealth just given to us and undeserved.  But that’s his ignorance.  There are no shortcuts to heaven and you can only keep the benefits of civilization if you continue to maintain the very foundation it is built upon.  We think that we will be saved by technology and the vague notions of progress of those who think power comes from the stroke of a pen—but that’s not how we got here nor is it a path to a better future.