grievance culture

One Standard for All: Consent, Risk, and the Cornell Fraternity Case

Standard

They love to claim the mantle of common sense, decency and American values, they accuse the ‘other side’ of being corrupting, full of a spirit of bitterness and destructive of civilization. But the reality is they’re just partisans with a lens, who judge everything by the assumed identity of those involved, and this recent Cornell sexual assault case no exception.

First of all, the incident at Chi Phi fraternity house, on October 19–20, 2024, is murkier than a rape case where an totally unwilling person is preyed upon in the street. There were drugs and alcohol involved—and maybe some consent as well. (Update: Details remain disputed) Initially the young woman seemed in denial, after one participant had sent a text apologizing, admitting she was “super clouded” and distinguishing “I really liked being with you and Matt” while saying they should have left out the other men. So, under the New York law (which is very likely to soon change) voluntary intoxication has meant a higher burden of proof—and is why local prosecutors decided (correctly) not to press charges. Something can be immoral, evil even, but not illegal.

Second, it is clear she didn’t consent to all that happened and what happened beyond what she consented to was an assault. Her initial comments suggested it and the later confirm it: “My reputation is destroyed and I’m utterly ashamed. All I do is sleep and cry all day.” That is her distress and realization, once out of the stupor of the day after, and a result of something less than consensual—where she was incapacitated.

Risky Behavior and Impulse Control

Living in a college town it is not unusual for the music to thump at the fraternities and off campus party houses. Getting wasted on the weekends is tradition—as bad as it may be—and I am certain these events are full of regrettable choices. When I see how these young women dress, putting feminine sexuality on full display, clearly intoxicated, and then surrounded by young men full of hormones and desire? This is a match on tinder type of situation. As much as it has been preached in the orientation process, that expressed consent is non-negotiable, the lack of impulse control of youth with a boatload of alcohol on top of that—means bad choices will be made.

What’s funny, however, is when the cultural conservatives, who see deterrence as a way to stop everything from terrorism to theft—do not want to discourage this kind of rape the same as we DUI. They try to argue her responsibility and yet deny that young men have any responsibility whatsoever. This is not the perspective of those seeking justice for all people. This is a reaction of ugly and entitled people who believe ‘liberal’ women deserve to be raped—for rejecting them (in the case of incel men) or for their being free in ways these prudes disapprove.

It’s the same spirit of those in the ‘woke’ left claiming Charlie Kirk being shot was karma because of his pro-2nd Amendment stance: “Oh, he got what was coming to him for his promotion of hate!”

Civilization was not built by those who will decide who is or is not the victim based on tribal alignments. Both right and left, at the extreme, only ever see the criminal justice system as being another means to punish ideological enemies. Equal treatment and protection of all vulnerable gives way to a scorekeeping based on gender, religion and race. We don’t need to deter the young men from ‘gang banging’ a young woman unable to consent because she probably votes for Kamala Harris. The same right that which tells us about racial minorities who lack the impulse control will say “boys will be boys” if they believe it’s one of their own.

Justice is about having one standard for all people. It does not excuse behavior based on circumstances. Are we going to say that shoplifting isn’t a crime because merchants who do not keep their items for sale behind a locked case are asking for it? If a display is an invitation, considered implied consent, then maybe we should decriminalize theft in cases where items weren’t properly secured—requiring proof of the cut chain before we consider a bike to be stolen? Or we could simply be consistent and say that violators (all, not some) should have controlled their urges and prosecute according to the law rather than our biased feelings.

Pornification of Sex

What’s more disturbing is the hidden sexual culture undercurrents of this Cornell case—the obvious of two men with one woman is bad enough. But this idea that she wanted the large group of random men to take their turn on her? This is an attitude that is built on the pornography consumption rather the accurate understanding of average female desires or physiology. I’m sorry—while this is a trope of adult content—normal women don’t consent to seven hours of sex. Paid sex workers do this sort of thing because it is a job. However, this seems to have built an expectation with the consumers.

Pornification of sex is widespread. No pun intended. Where we see everything through the lens of our own pleasure rather than in a context of procreation. She’s a commodity, a consumable, rather than a commitment to love or cherish for life. We have normalized deviance, acts degrading of women, and it’s why we’re now indifferent to sexual assault—we have been desensitized by an industry which exploits our vulnerability and fosters carnal appetites. Women are objectified in this media and young men programmed to only think of themselves. And it is why we want to treat a group of intelligent college age males as being incapable—because we have debased ourselves in private.

One way to remove their shame is to blame-shift. Even (or especially) conservative men refuse to take personal responsibility. They believe they would be completely pure if not for exposure to this constant temptation or if the women of their fantasies simply made themselves available—they feel entitled and angry towards women. This is, incidentally, why they see pink haired feminists as being full of contempt for attractive women. That is projection. It is them mere externalizing their own inner condition and thinking this ability to see the sins of others means they are superior when it’s just a distraction or a lack of self-awareness.

Rebuilding a Culture of Respect

As the father of a 14-year-old boy I’ve now realized that respect for others, women in particular, is something that must be taught—taught by parents. Yes, some might be a bit more empathetic and able to put on the shoes of someone else. Male aggression is something that must be tempered, passion channeled in positive directions, or else you have idle hands doing that Devil’s work.

As the father of a toddler daughter, knowing her teenage years and young adulthood will be here faster than I’m ready for, I want her to be her own first layer of protection. She needs to understand that many men are not well-trained or good. Modesty is a form of self-respect. Keeping ourselves out of risky circumstances can spare us a world of pain and shame. She needs to understand that not all men are gentlemen who will protect her—many men are have an entitled attitude and seething, deeply resentful of women for their standards that excluded them, and will use intoxication to excuse evil.

Truly conservative men, in the West, should follow the self-sacrificial example of Christ who showed compassion for the weak and not judgment. If a man wants respect, as a deserving person, then he doesn’t make any excuses. He asks for her permission rather than just take what he wants. He protects himself from risk by not putting temptation in front of himself and avoids the potential rape allegation. He protects all women simply as a manifestation of his good character without expecting anything in return.

Nice-guy syndrome, or those who will bend over backwards to please a women hoping for sexual favors in return, is a lacking self-respect. The manosphere is just the male version of grievance culture, men who lack impulse control and want to live as animals doing whatever their hormones tell them to do, while then also lamenting the collapse of civilization because women don’t simply respect them for their merely existing. They do not believe they need consent because in their twisted mind every woman is just a whore. It’s male vice dressed as a strength—men who do not value themselves or can’t fill a protective role of a truly good man and, therefore, they’re resentful.

A gentleman does not decide who deserves respect or not based on appearance. They are the self-controlled agents of civilization in all circumstances. He’s self-governed, he is concerned about morality and ethics, not just the legal limits or what he can possibly get away with. He’s not entitled. Not petty or lacking compassion. He will not touch a woman without a marriage license. It does not matter to him what the ‘other side’ has done, he is consistently what he is without making any excuses. If there was one man like this who existed in that Cornell frat he would have protected the young woman.

Ignorance is Not an Excuse

If a group of brown skinned men assaulted a young woman for wearing a short skirt we would make the correct moral judgement. A woman who is basically unconscious is not able to give consent. It doesn’t matter what you think about her style of dress nor if she voluntarily consumed intoxicants or not. If consent laws don’t currently cover this then they most certainly should be updated. My own daughter won’t be ignorant of risks and yet my son will likewise understand that he is responsible, being a civilized man, for his own actions.

If it’s wrong to take a bike because it’s out unchained then it’s wrong to see her spread legs as permission. That said, there should be a different statute applied to such cases of two intoxicated parties. Yes, it is rape, it is rape and requires punishment so a young man thinks about this as the consequences if he takes substance that supercharges his already lacking impulse control. However I don’t think we should say it is the same as a case where everyone is sober. But the true conservative doesn’t exploit the vulnerable in any circumstance. Barbarians don’t need to have consent. Good men do not let their circumstances dictate their response.

The Truth That Gets You Fired

Standard

Have you noticed those holding a moderate view are often attacked more viciously than those actually pushing a cruel extreme? If you fight back against those who are trying to manufacture consent for their abuse you will be accused of hate.

Transferring Blame

Sophie Cunningham, a WNBA player, is now being harassed by the national sports media for her ‘controversial’ opinion that men don’t belong in women’s sports.

Of course it wasn’t just any man that she is talking about, it’s those crossed-dressing men, who appropriate the feminine traits (albeit very imperfectly) and think “identifies as a woman” is to be taken as a license to invade female spaces. This is obviously in defiance of the established social order that grants females exclusive space as protection from male attention—we also have created special categories of sports given the distinct advantage males have physically over women.

This is what Cunningham said after being asked her of transgender participation in female sports:

I got a lot of negative feedback about me hating trans. And I’m like, ‘I never once said that.’ I think that I am here to extend love. But I also think with that love is truth, being honest. And I want to protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sport who shouldn’t have to go against biological men.

That is a measured reasonable response—correcting a malicious mischaracterization of her opposition to biological men taking a place reserved for women. Since the girl’s locker room was invented perverted young men have been looking for an opportunity to invade it. There’s a reason why we have a term “peeping Tom” in the first place. But autogynephilia takes this a step further, this is a male becomes sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself being a female, and was diagnosed as transvestic disorder until the powers that be decided we should normalize this behavior.

The truly odd part, however, has been how the corporate media and a ton of bot farm social media content is blame-shifting their obsession with this story onto Cunningham as a sort of accusation. They act as if she is trying to stir the pot for giving an honest answer to a question ESPN asked her. This is a propaganda technique: Make the victim responsible for the negative attention rather than the aggressor. Typically we would see one person against a corporate machine as being weaker. But the people holding the megaphone flipped the script and act as if Cunningham is truly dictating the terms of the conversation.

Burger King Ambush

On August 5, 2026, a young woman named Arianna Hamilton was working her shift at a Burger King in Breinigsville, Pennsylvania. A known Zionist activist, a middle-aged Israeli dual citizen, somehow (details disputed) ended up in a verbal confrontation with Hamilton. How it all started is a he said, she said. She says Feinstein was aggressive. While he claims that she had made him feel unsafe. But we only have what he recorded, where he goads her to repeat phrase said during the course of an unrecorded conversation with disputed details.

Here is the viral exchange:

Rami Feinstein: “I’m here at Burger King and an employee in Burger King just said ‘Free Palestine’ to me.”

Rami Feinstein: (Turning the camera toward her) “Ariana, what did you say to me? What did you say to me, Arianna?”

Arianna Hamilton: “Sorry, I said ‘Free Palestine’.”

Rami Feinstein: “Okay. Okay, say it again.”

Arianna Hamilton: “Free Palestine!”

Rami Feinstein: “I got you, Ariana.”

Clearly Feinstein is looking to push the issue. If he really felt unsafe he would leave. Instead he is harassing a fast food employee, likely a teenager, and demanded a refund. And all because she had dared to respond to his own announcement of his Israeli citizenship with the phrase, “Free Palestine.”

She was fired from her job.

Not paid enough to compromise her integrity, rewarded for her stand.

To understand encounter a little better let’s consider an exchange with another political symbol. Say a white man walks into Burger King wearing a Confederate flag T-shirt and seeing it a young African-American woman says, “Black Lives Matter.” Then, in his grating and irritating voice the white supremacist ‘rebel’ demands the employee repeats this phrase for his camera and then goes on to claim he is a victim. Wouldn’t that be absurd?

This is what ‘unsafe’ looks like.

It is even more absurd for an Israeli to ever play the victim card with a black teenager, clearly at a disadvantage to him, for saying “free Palestine” in response to the symbol of a country that is commiting an act of genocide as we speak. He, as a white man, can very easily blend in to general American society by not wearing a symbol of a foreign government associated with oppression and hate. But instead he displays it proudly while claiming that he feels unsafe.

The ‘Hate’ Hypocrisy…

Burger King, bowing to pressure, terminated the young woman exercising her freedom of speech. They claim that it is “incitement to hatred” and say it violated a zero-tolerance policy towards discrimination and antisemitism—I see a lawsuit against a corporation. In what sane world is “free [anything]” hateful? It is not and will never be. Yet those currently in control of the narrative need you to believe “freedom is slavery” and standing for those truly being oppressed is hatred.

If Burger King corporation is so concerned with a young employee speaking her mind—why are they okay when their franchises in Israel offer aid and comfort to the IDF as this army commits war crimes?

If you see a man in this picture, you’re hateful!

Zionism is the very same moral inversion of those saying Julie (Julien “Jimmy”) Tétart, an amateur French male basketball player for the ESC Tergnier and other clubs before undergoing his “transition,” is now somehow a victim of hate because of their clear physical advantage in a woman’s league. Hormones and surgery do not change Julie’s 6′-3″ frame from what it was as Jimmy and it’s shameful that the Monaco Basket Association would even put them on their roster. That’s controversial—not Cunningham politely defending her own opinion most people agree with:

I said what I said. I think it’s kind of common sense, and I think I’ll always believe in that.

The controversy with Burger King and free speech is a little different. Employees for a fast food restaurant are generally expected to not engage in political conversations and yet it’s still insane to frame it as threatening of a grown man. Feinstein was never in real danger. Children in Gaza, Lebanon or West Bank are in real danger. But the corporation is okay with their franchises in Israel giving free food directly to the IDF as this military is terrorizing the region. We cannot get any more ridiculous this. I mean, what’s next, is it going to be considered hate and a fireable offense to wear a Christian cross?

The love of money…

Meanwhile, people can wrap themselves in a banner, wear a symbol of an ongoing genocide then play victim when called out. We’re told it is controversial and asking for trouble when a WNBA player says what we are all thinking when we see a male frame in drag dominating women. Is this just rage bait? A page out of Rules for Radicals? Or maybe it is all of the above and a part of a control regime?

Who Runs the World?

The real point of the culture war is to keep us overwhelmed and distracted. As we are divided on how to define a woman or being told it is anti-semitic to oppose Israel killing the Semitic/Palestinian people, they quietly move pieces to strengthen their control of the world. This ‘they’ being the hands that move pieces on the global chessboard, the billionaire elites, the intelligence agencies, and all of the Epstein-class. These are the people who make money coming and going—stirring the conflict and the profiting from the war.

https://x.com/i/status/2086838463890903385

A name that came up in the Epstein emails, the well-connected pedophile speaking to a guy named Peter Thiel (who happens to be the Co-Founder and Executive Chairman of Palantir Technologies and a sponsor of JD Vance), with Epstein telling Thiel: “As you probably know, I represent the Rothschilds.” The Rothschild’s a powerful banking family which drew the U.S. into WW1, on behalf of the British, in exchange for Palestine. The Balfour Declaration states it explicitly:

His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

This is not conspiracy theory. This is simply a fact. 116,516 American boys died, and as many maimed, fighting in a trench war that did not have any bearing whatsoever on the nation they were from or their future. It’s an early price of Zionism before we even knew what to call it. It started with the sacrifice of American blood and continues unabated a century later in the Holy Lands.

Also Interesting, contrary to the effort under way to erase Palestinian identity, as part of a genocide, it is very clear this location was called Palestine. And the terms of Balfour’s declaration, “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,” have now been broken long ago. Now the occupants of this land claim “free Palestine” is hateful of Jews?

The West needs to wake up, the same who were dividing up Gaza long before October 7th became a pretext for ethnic cleansing, have designs to flood the U.S. and Europe with the refugees they create. They want Christians and Muslims killing each other and never united so their own small group of elites has total control (operating behind the chaos) of our government, our property, and our children. These Epstein-class elites already employ immense power over our culture—own both sides of the political divide which is a false choice. They want us to be simply be too confused or preoccupied to ever tell them “no” together.

The Rothchild dynasty, JP Morgan, banksters, responsible for incredible human suffering as a way to secure their wealth.

Have you seen what happened to Spain as they take a moral stand against genocide and decided to be neutral rather than host the U.S. Air Force as we rained missiles at girls’ schools in Iran? It’s not coincidence that recently tens of thousands of military age Moroccans invaded the Spanish territory in North Africa. Not a coincidence either that my social media feed was simultaneously full of Hasbura drawing the false equivalency between Spain having territory outside of Europe and Israel actively slaughtering people in Gaza, Lebanon and West Bank. Refugee crises are not merely leftist social engineering—it is a strategy to leave us fighting each other and helpless against the hand behind it.

This is no different from the strategy of modern missile offensives. The attacker hits the air defenses from all angles with cheap drones and missiles forcing a response. If they do not shoot down the low cost munitions they will do real damage. However, interceptors are expensive and limited in supply, when a defender’s finite capacity is tied down then they start to slip in their big punches. This is what the culture war is about, it is about keeping us fighting each other or distracted on the refugee chaos rather than focus on the strategy and who is behind it. You can’t defend against what you do not see.

Migrants flooding in is no coincidence.

We live in a matrix. One where good Jews are driven into conflict with good Muslims and Christians by those who have a totally different god and want to keep us deceived and blinded by prejudice. There are many who are Jewish and speaking out against those who have hijacked their identity and use it as a human shield against legitimate criticism. Zionism is a man who insists on invading female space, the aggressor who plays victim, and denies the reality of their own hate-fueled against Palestinians.

Good Jews and Muslims can get along.

Zionism is NOT Judaism

You have lifted up the shrine of your king, the pedestal of your idols, the star of your god—which you made for yourselves.

(Amos 5:26)

Zionists are to Judaism what Nazism is to Christianity. Zionists use Jewish identity as a cloak, they proclaim their “Judeo-Christian values,” yet they do not have Jesus as their king nor do they act justly despite a claim of righteousness. The book of Acts, repeating Amos, has a word “Molek” in place of “king” and “star of Remphan” as part of Stephen’s speech to the corrupt Sanhedrin. He uses the mention of this star to accuse them of idolatry. There is not any mention of a star of David in Scripture. It’s Kabbalahistic. It’s anti-Christ. While more non-Jews say they are Zionists, Christian Zionist is oxymoron and is impossible for the same reason you can’t be a racially inclusive Nazi.

Six is associated with human effort (6th day of creation) and the anti-Christ.

Israel claims to be a democracy while also preventing millions from voting, says that it represents the West when making laws that allow the execution of Palestinians but not Jews, and then calls it “anti-semitic” to call this apartheid or oppose their genocide. It is a state that brutalizes Palestinian Jews—Zionists assassinated Jacob Israël de Haan for opposing their violent ethno-nationalism and trying to secure agreement for peaceful Jewish residence in Palestine in 1924. He was accused of being a traitor and killed by a Zionist terror squad. This was mirrored in 1995 with the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. His only offense? He was having success negotiating peace with the Palestinians.

Zionist Israel has routinely exploited (or orchestrated) Jewish suffering their ethno-nationalist gain.

I would venture to say that most Jews, like most Muslims, aren’t bloodthirsty criminals and would rather simply get along with all people. It is the extremist fringe that believe they’re better than all others, want absolute control and can’t coexist with those different from them. Zionists are the equivalent to ISIS in a business suit. They know how to charm a Western audience while secretly harboring a Bronze Age barbaric mentality and celebrating the murder of children. They spend millions to dress up their genocide as protection of the West all the while Netanyahu carries a around a “Jews vs Romans” grudge and quips about needing to “win the next one.”

The blessings of Abraham are distributed to the world through Christ Jesus—a true Jew—and not through the mob who murdered him for speaking out against their corrupted version of Biblical religion. The first Jewish followers of Jesus truly embodied spirit and faith of Abraham rather than being “hostile towards everyone” (1 Thessalonians 2:14) as was the case of those who rejected the Gospel. That is what Zionism boils down to: A rejection of the Christ who said ‘my kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36) and taking up the offer of the devil in the wilderness:

The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. If you worship me, it will all be yours.” Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’”

When Jesus declared “I am the way and the truth and the life,” proclaiming himself to be the only way to God, he’s talking about what he embodies and the real costs of rejecting him. Christianity was a schism in Judaism, one embracing broader humanity with love and the other in a conflict with all in pursuit of dominance. Jesus rejected the sword—warning those who live by it die by it—while the Zionist reframes their violence as being a righteous defense of their inheritance. It only starts in the country called Israel, look who dominates banking, entertainment and politics: There’s no doubt that the rejection of Christ Jesus has a reward.

This isn’t compatible with Christ or Western civilization.  It’s a twisting of Scripture to justify theft of inheritance.

Judaism, in general, is not the issue. We’re all born somewhere and the Old Testament law, like Islam, isn’t a bad starting point. It’s incomplete, from the perspective of the true believers in Jesus, but the books point us in the right direction. But when the rejection of the way of Christ becomes willful, truth is the first casualty and death will follow. Yes, cunning, deception and exploitation are a quick route to worldly wealth, the system of usery is the driver of inequality and anathema to an idea of giving with no expectation of return in the teaching of Jesus. Those who do violence to others may gain the world—but they lose their own soul in the process.

The intense hatred of Christianity, that is the heart of Zionism, stems from an inheritance being taken away and given to another. The “kingdom of God,” meaning the true spiritual inheritance of Abraham, was taken away as a result of wilful disobedience. That’s what the Parable of the Tenants (Matthew 21:33-46) makes abundantly clear. Outside of the way, the path of and letting go of pride or a spirit of entitlement, there is no other way to salvation. You can reject and kill Jesus, go on to gain the world by cunning or violence, even convince many with false prophets or fake miracles—but you can only ever enter the kingdom through Christ.

The real reason why Sophie Cunningham and Arianna Hamilton are treated as a bigger threat than extremists, for moderate and reasonable views, is because they will expose the absurdity of the narratives being pushed if left unmolested. The media and Rami Feinstein understand that the truth is not on their side and thus their only defense is to extinguish the voices that call them out for what they are. Those who seek to erase the children of Gaza and Palestinian identity are of the very same spirit as those who cancel a person for telling the truth about the biological men who invade female spaces. The truth is not in them and the lies they embrace are corrupting the world.

The truth sets us free: The Gospel is for the Jew as much as the Gentile.

So with that I say: Free Palestine from the rule of the Zionists who immediately broke the terms of the Balfour Declaration.  Protect women from the men who appropriate womanhood—invade and occupy spots designated for women.  We should call out those who hide behind co-opted identity and perpetual claims of victimhood as an excuse for their own abuse. 

Spectacle.

Standard

The stage has been set for Trump’s fight on the White House lawn. The UFC octagon is set up and ready for the big June 14th event showcasing championship bouts between a series of professional athletes. A spectacle purported to celebrate the President’s 80th birthday and officially commemorating the nation’s 250th anniversary.

To many Democrats this is travesty of epic proportions. California Democrat Senator Adam Schiff suggested it is “out of touch” and others questioned the price tag to the American people (apparently the UFC CEO Dana White eats the entire cost), there was even a lawsuit filed to stop the event. But to the Trump faithful, and many in America, it’s the entertainment they love.

The UFC is wildly popular. No, probably not with cat lady’s (although I can’t be sure), but with just about everyone else. Millions will pay to watch UFC Freedom 250. This won’t offend anyone who matters so far as Trump is concerned and—if anything—this outrage of the Democrats only strengthens MAGA.

This country is full of those blue collar beer (not Bud Light) drinking types who—in act of rebellion against the decades of being lectured, shamed, and policed by coastal elites, corporate HR departments, and woke scolds—thrive on “liberal tears.” They more or less live for laughing at all those hand-wringing and pearl-clutching talking heads at CNN or MSNBC. They revel in being the hated ‘deplorables’ for not being politically correct according to the left.

And in the other corner? Those transgender and drag queen types who—for reasons not entirely clear to me—want to do a story hour for kids?

From the Biden administration going out of their way to fill positions with men wearing dresses to those attention-seeking displays at state houses. Republicans, for their part, play right into this, introducing bills and thus spark a backlash of “transphobia” accusations from the over-the-top sashaying activists. The great irony is that this mess of confused sexuality, gaudy woman-face flamboyance, originates in psychology that is similar to the MAGA hat wearer in NYC.

Trump loves spectacle. He loves being the center of attention, praised and celebrated—or even attacked—as long as he’s always the main event. The abnormal spray tan, the cartoonish signature hair, the provocations that dominate every news cycle: Yup, he is extraordinary and in nearly the same way as some drag queen diva. He tries to provoke a response. They call him thin-skinned, yet he thrives on the negative attention as much as the positive, so long as the whole planet is watching him own the room.

The biggest difference between Trump and the left’s woke spectacle is the audience he caters to. He wins the Boomers, those who think Lindsay Graham represents them over Thomas Massie, whereas LGBTQ+ presents as an exaggerated individualism and giving special exemptions to those who can claim the most intersectionality points. Both from an outsider looking in are just absurdities—people gaining aura by deliberately making a show of themselves.

Had Trump decided he would have had an easier road to the White House on the blue team the only thing different is he would be surrounded by a line of prancing men doing high kicks in long boots. That’s the irony of it all. If Trump were still a Democrat the left would see him as a crazy uncle, at worst, or a man breaking down conventions. Switch his UFC Freedom 250 with a drag show with a similar name, in this scenario, and Adam Schiff would certainly be calling it stunning and brave—a ‘historic’ moment!

The fall of Rome was a historic moment. So was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, where Josephus described rebels adopting women’s dress, perfumes, and effeminate mannerisms amid the moral collapse which had preceded the city’s ruin.  The bread and circus of Rome.  And what we’re witnessing today is not ultimately a matter of right versus left, but it is emblematic of a broad decline in American culture—a triumph of spectacle over substance.

Snow Woke—Disney’s Female Empowerment Fairytale

Standard

Apparently the Snow White remake bombed at the box office. We could just go with the standard “get woke, go broke” traditionalist assessment. Rachel Zegler comes off as the female equivalent of Andrew Tate—as being angry, entitled, selfish and toxic—which isn’t appealing to a broad audience.

But, before we get into the remake, let’s talk a bit about the original Disney animation of the fairytale. The character deviates quite a bit from the Grimm version. For a start, the fair-skinned protagonist is half the age (7 rather than 14) and there’s no “true love’s kiss” in this original version. Furthermore, she’s a sort of blank slate archetype—not some ideal 1930s homemaker mothering a bunch of dwarfs. In short, the adaptation then was not completely true to the source material and created an image of feminity relevant to that time.

The Grimm version was darker in tone and featured a prince weirdly obsessed with a dead girl in a glass coffin. The dwarfs did not have distinct personalities. And Snow White awakened when the poisoned apple is dislodged from her throat when a servant carrying her coffin stumbles. And it was at this point the prince professes his love and proposes marriage—which she accepts.

The latest Disney live-action takes liberties in a very different direction. It is even less true to the original (other than elimination of the Disney romance) and reimagines Snow White being a sort of feminist militia leader who leads a bloodless insurrection against the usurping queen. But the “mirror mirror on the wall” remains and a poisoned apple—despite the heavy edit of the script where an empowered woman replaces the worn damsel in distress trope.

Why People Don’t Like Snow Woke

People enjoy new takes on old genres, like Shrek or Furiosa and also powerful female characters such as Ellen Ripley in Aliens, Sarah Connor in Terminator or even Katniss Everdeen in the Hunger Games.  They were relatable, we saw them develop, circumstances made them tough to survive, and audiences loved them.  What they don’t like is preachy dialogue or lack of any real character development. A Mary Sue, a hero with no weaknesses, is unrelatable. It is the problem with Superman and with the many woke adaptations of stories.

We like the image of a woman against the machine.

Christian movies have a tendency to be bad for the same reasons. They can come off a little campy or forced. Sure, it may work for drawing your ideological camp, but it isn’t a compelling story for the unindoctrinated or the broader audience. Which is not to say that movies about Christianity can’t be great for entertainment.  I love gritty true stories like that of Hacksaw Ridge or profound, like Silence, will have anyone at the edge of their seats—the key being relatable characters.

Zegler is a bit much. Totally insufferable in the eyes of some. And she plays a part that is equally annoying. The departure from the source material is just too rude. Sure, there is room for an update, but you would never reinvent Rambo as well adjusted pacifist in a mission to avoid too much sun exposure. Disney dumped the essence of the original and replaced it with another tired ’empowered woman’ cliché. You wonder if Zegler herself wrote the script with lines like, “I’m not waiting for anyone to save me” or groaner, “The fairest isn’t about beauty—it’s about justice!”

Ouch.

Oh well, at least even apologists for woke seem to understand that it is just bad. They did not even bother accusing the audience of being racist or misogynistic this time around.

Smash the Symbolism!

What is truly lost is the symbolic depth of the original tale. Snow White was beauty and purity contrasted with the vanity and evil of the obsessed queen. They gutted what made the Grimm tale a significant message about the triumph of innocence over the destructive power of pride. This, obviously, is too nuanced for a superficial sexual organ obsessed militant far-leftist to understand. The producers of the new film replaced purity of motive against cunning with a banal competition for power.

It’s not even moral inversion. They totally lost the point. It makes me think they lack any layers to their being. It’s all about their grievance and getting back at those they’ve scapegoated for their own misery. Like the evil queen, with all the power, they envy the beauty and peace of others and attempt to kill it with their poisoned apple. Snow Woke is the toxic fruit. Zegler is an icon of their privileged ‘diverse’ female with an entitled chip on her shoulder and not the slightest bit of appreciation for all the good men who made her ignorance possible.

This is not to say those who are fixated on the literal whiteness of the actress are any better. Grimm was not writing about racial supremacy anymore than woke supremecy, if anything the original story was about our transcending politics and Zegler would be perfectly suited for the role if she were able to embody that spirit. But our culture, in a desperate need of critique, it dichotomizes everything—divides the world into friend or foe, as if life is a zero-sum game and there is never anything to gain through fusion of opposites.

Zegler is as Puritanical (and Pharisaical) as a religious fundamentalist. She reframes a rescuing prince as a stalker and romance as weird. More rigid than a patriarch, more domineering than the system she is taught to loath. A preacher rather than an actual protagonist. Basically, a young idealist who wields her moral certainty with a convert’s passion, and yet stumbling into hypocrisy under scrutiny—reaping benefits of every institution she claims to reject.

The Female Power of Beauty, Gentleness and Grace

A few years ago, I was in the checkout line and suddenly noticed the cashier. She was beautiful, pale or ashen-faced, with hair that was jet black, pleasant smile and yet there was something uncanny valleyish about her appearance. I could not quite put my finger on it. But then she spoke. This would send a shiver through me. Never before did I have that sort of feeling simply by hearing someone talk. There was a certain quality to her voice that was almost child-like, soft, pure, and really threw me for a loop. And it occurred to me that this young woman was a real life Snow White.  I had not thought this would actually be attractive in person, but it had me momentarily smitten.

As it would turn out, in a later conversation, I learned she was mixed race, Filipino mom and dad of some kind of European descent, which is likely what gave her this stunningly feminine appearance. Now, no doubt this gentle exterior was cover over a tough and capable individual. She drove an old pickup truck and lived apart from her family with a sister, and may well have been a teenager or in her early twenties. In many ways she is like Zegler (who is herself a mix of Colombian and Polish heritage), but this real-life Snow White wielded her beauty, gentleness, and grace as a quiet strength that captivated without preaching, Zegler’s strident zeal turns a timeless tale into a soapbox, losing the feminine power of subtlety for a hollow shout of self-righteousness.

This is what outspoken angry feminists fail to grasp, forcefulness isn’t the only kind of power. My petite wife could never command me to do anything. I’m 50% bigger than her and have twice the upper body strength, I would shrug it off. But she does not need to force me to do anything. She overpowers me by other means. For example, early on, before we were married, she convinced me to stop drinking so much soda, she told me water is a symbol of her love “pure and clean” and when I drink it I could feel her love. I didn’t need to be told twice.

When I look at my baby daughter I would do anything for her. She’s so vulnerable—there is a strong desire to protect and defend her—I’m drawn, not compelled.

So what does female empowerment really mean?

Is it empowering to a fish to be out of the water?

A visual representation of society telling individuals they need to be something else to be happy.

Humans are wired for their base biological and physical functions. Reproduction is a big part of this. It becomes clear after you see process through from courtship to baby in a carriage. Early in the pregnancy, given our financial goals, my wife had considered sending the yet to be both child to be raised by her mother. But as soon as the bundle of cuteness arrived, along with the appropriate hormones, it was never a question. Family is empowerment. My sacrifice, as a father, is more rewarding than the toys I could buy for myself as an independent bachelor.

We’re relational, not rational.

Therefore, the things we think will make us happy do not give us long-term fulfillment—the woke Zegler types are privileged, given preference as women or minorities, and yet always unhappy and looking at what others have and they do not. They are a paradox, enjoying female privilege—then miserable and wanting what men have.

It is toxic, it is their impurity of spirit, and it destroys their natural beauty and potential for true empowerment.

In all honesty, I don’t really have a problem with Zegler’s passion or outspokenness.  I guess I tend to prefer women with a real personality and feel she is right on the Gaza issue.  But what is wrong is that she’s not the right character to play what is supposed to be an embodiment of purity and the power of innocence against evil.  Snow White isn’t supposed to be Mockingjay or a story where physical force met with force—but of a different kind of power.

Ultimately, the 2025 Snow White stumbles not just as a film but as a misguided anthem, with Rachel Zegler’s shrill militancy drowning out the subtle power the Grimm tale once whispered. The original’s purity and even Disney’s 1937 grace knew strength isn’t loud—it’s captivating, like the cashier whose soft voice and uncanny beauty stopped me cold, a real-life Snow White wielding gentleness over force. My wife, too, overpowers me not with commands but with a love pure as water, turning a stubborn man into a willing protector, and just as our daughter’s vulnerability stirs my soul to shield her. Zegler’s remake, obsessed with preaching justice over enchantment, misses this: true feminine empowerment doesn’t need a megaphone or a militia—it’s the quiet, relational magic that binds us, a truth the poisoned apple of ‘Snow Woke’ chokes out, leaving a hollow echo where a fairytale’s heart once beat.

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.

Philosophical Candidates

Standard

Remember, as a child, those day-dreams of a life unrestricted by parental control, where it would be video games all night, ice cream, pizza, and soda all day?  What is amazing is upon reaching adulthood the thought of this lifestyle is disgusting.  First off, it would be horribly unhealthy—in the sense that those who indulge bulge.  Second, a party every day is totally unsustainable, someone has to do the work to keep the lights on and put food on the table.

Many people become more conservative as they mature and start to realize the value of the limitations they once spurned.  Yes, an adult will modify what was taught to them by their parents and community.  And some grew up in social environments where there was not much worthy to be preserved.  But to totally throw away everything inherited from prior generations is a terrible mistake.  Only an ideological extremist believes stripping it all bare is necessary and good.  It is wiser to build on what works.

That is not to say that the tradition passed down can’t become stifling and overbearing or limiting our potential either.  There must be a bit of flexibility, some Oikonomia, or means to adapt the rules as the need arises.  However, the opposite ditch, of discarding everything and starting from scratch very quickly becomes chaotic, everyone does what is right in their own eyes, and it soon requires authoritarian measures to enforce the vision.  This is the thing Nietzsche warned about—our morality is not self-evident and we should think long and hard about those monsters that we will release with our neglect.

This wasn’t a sacrilege, it was a lament of what happens when you yank the foundational rug out from under a moral system.

Cultural revolution, while always promising to upend systems of oppression and usher in a new utopian age, ends up being worse than what it is replaced.  Yes, “All animals are equal” may be the founding cry, but is very soon after modified by opportunists who sadly are now unrestrained by those institutions despised and yet there for a reason.  The only good thing is that this out-of-balance off-kilter, ‘we know better than all who came before’ attitude, tends to implode on itself if given time.  The Soviet Union only lasted as long as it did because of Christian ethics within the population.

Two Visions For Our Future 

Recently, with the decline of Joe Biden and a failed assassination attempt against his rival, the Democrats decided it was time to make a change up top.  It is her time now—that is to say Vice President Kamala Harris—and there is plenty that could be said about her career thus far, but there is one peculiar repeat statement she has made that really deserves our attention:

“What can be, unburdened by what has been.”

This strange little mantra has been widely panned by the right.  This is more Kamala word salad, they chortle, and yet—while she does sometimes explain things like a school teacher talking to a kindergartener—it is not gibberish.  This is something Harris has apparently put some thought into and is something with a meaning that we should try to unpack.

What does it really mean to be unburdened by what has been?

I’m not going to sinisterize.

Most on the left I know have a glowing hope for the future and could never imagine that their philosophy could lead to Gulags.  I do not believe Harris intends it this way, but it does hint heavily of Marxist thought where we are to be liberated or emancipated from all that came before.  On the surface, this is an inviting thought.  Imagine a world with no abuse, no poor, everyone has their needs provided and has complete freedom.  This would be wonderful—and this is what every cookie-cutter college leftist has in mind as the end product of their efforts.

So how does the unburdening begin?  Well, it already has.  If you have been paying a bit of attention, everything normal is now being called fascist.  Believe that women exist as a category and isn’t something a man can ‘transition’ to?  Fascist!  Maybe you like the nuclear family and see it as a praiseworthy social convention?  Fascist!  How about a border where there is reasonable control over who is allowed in and who is kept out?  That makes you literally Hitler!  And Harris has embraced this side of the debate, she announced her pronouns and the nature of her politics.

None of this is to say that Harris is a terrible person.  I simply don’t want a leader unbound to existing ethics or any standard of decency, or who can write off Constitutional law as being a “what has been”  product of wealthy white men with some of them slave owners and thus should be discarded.  Sure, it may be a document with flaws, and could possibly use more amendments too, but it is better than nothing and represents the will of the people who signed onto this national project to this very day—white, black, Native, or immigrant alike.

What was established is for our benefit.  It is no more a burden than a wool coat in the blistering cold.  To think that we know more than every other generation that came before us, that science and technology have made us into gods, is delusional. 

Furthermore, the left’s unboundness means they do not care about precedents (except as a tool to restrict their rule-obeying opponents and the ends justify the means.  And they mean well.  They plan to fight injustice.  But this script has played out many times before and is the very thing that tradition is a bulwark against.  At the very least those who believe what “has been” has value will hesitate and consider before they destroy the foundations of civilization.

Make America Great Again

Donald Trump rolled out his red hats and MAGA slogan in his 2016 campaign.  The message was simple, a repeat of Ronald Reagan’s “Let’s make America great again” encouraging answer to the total economic disaster of the Carter years.  As he said, in the 1980 Republican convention:

For those without job opportunities, we’ll stimulate new opportunities, particularly in the inner cities where they live. For those who’ve abandoned hope, we’ll restore hope and we’ll welcome them into a great national crusade to make America great again.

Trump knows a good brand and borrowed it from the best Republican leader since a guy named Abraham Lincoln.  The progressives lost their minds.  They dug up the one time it was used by the KKK.  And couldn’t decide to condemn with “America was never great” or be offended because “America is already great and how dare Trump suggest anything otherwise!”  If you were playing a game of “wrong answers only” this harsh criticism of MAGA as white supremacy would make a bit of sense.  

MAGA is not hateful.

When the left says, “Do you know who else said make America great again?” and then goes on to associate this benign statement with all manner of evil, they’re poisoning the well.  There is zero reason to interpret this slogan as Trump’s desire to bring back Jim Crow or the racial policies that were once championed by Democrats.  But this does whip the left into a frenzy and it keeps them from deviating and making an independent decision whom to vote for based on the actual positions of candidates.

What does Trump mean by “make America great again”?

Trump is a businessman, his interests are mostly economic, rebuilding our industrial base, bringing back gainful employment for blue-collar workers lower taxes, and less red tape standing in the way of entrepreneurial spirit.  My wife, who opened a store in her home country, complains that the US is not a free country and is appalled by the many layers of taxes and requirements.  This is what dooms many to working for “the man” or corporations that can afford compliance costs while drowning their competitors with cheap imported foreign goods.

The legalism of US law would make a Pharisee uncomfortable.

From a 2016 Trump campaign speech on jobs and the economy:

Jobs can stop leaving our country, and start pouring in. Failing schools can become flourishing schools. Crumbling roads and bridges can become gleaming new infrastructure. Inner cities can experience a flood of new jobs and investment. And rising crime can give way to safe and prosperous communities.

Had Trump’s first term not been sabotaged by COVID and blue state shutdowns, there is no doubt this would have been fulfilled.  In fact, by the third year of his presidency the minority unemployment rate reached record lows.  Even NPR, while downplaying it, could not deny these numbers Trump touted were real.  Biden’s only success comes from not rolling back those tariffs the fear-mongering media had so roundly criticized.  It is strange how the success and failure of policies is determined only by who is employing them, isn’t it?

No, Trump’s not woke.  He believes in hiring based on qualifications.  He doesn’t want to continue world policing and the massive expansion of government programs.  This is why he is the enemy of those who derive all of their power from the administrative state and sap our resources.  He is keenly aware that a free flow of cheap labor, while it helps elites who want nannies and landscaping at a discount, pulls down wages for those who do not come from wealth.  Even a Senator named Barack Obama understood this:

If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole—especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan—it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.

Make America Great Again is not about a swerve in the direction of Nazism or some new form of ethno-nationalism.  It is about restoring the economic conditions that had allowed our grandparents to buy their home and a car on a single income.  Back in 2015, Bernie Sanders had blamed open borders on a right-wing conspiracy, that will make everyone poorer, but now the left is saying that normal border security is racist.  What changed?  Why are these Democrat policies, like the immigrant cages during the Obama administration, demonized under Trump?

Compassion means disincentivizing illegal crossings where human trafficking is a concern requiring sorting facilities.

It is really disorienting for those who soak propaganda like a sponge.  They never see that Democrats did this full 180 on multiple issues where they had been right.  Trump is right about the border.  It should be the top priority.  Just the Fentanyl overdoses alone are a reason.  I’ve lost a former high school classmate and football teammate this way— 83,000 Americans died in 2022 alone—and it had ironically played as much role in the death of George Floyd as a knee on his shoulder.  Why do we even talk about that dozen killed in a school shooting or Ukraine in light of this?

Reform, Not Revolution 

Progressives tear at the fabric of civilization without understanding the consequences of their actions.  They believe that the erasure of history, destruction of monuments, or the degrading of religion (see Paris Olympics) is a path to a better future.  But this amounts to cultural vandalism and is ignorance of the positive contribution of these religiously created values we’ve internalized.  There is truly nothing that is written on the substrate of the universe that says slavery is wrong or that genocide is evil—the stopping point to “unburdened by what has been” is a return to animalistic impulse.

By design, not accident.

The frontal lobe of the brain is developed by the myths and moralities that progressives do everything in their power to destroy with ridicule and sacrilege.  And it will inevitably go much further than anticipated.  We rarely have enough appreciation for what we have been given.  Everything is taken for granted until it is gone.  And when there is a vacuum that is left to fill, and the ‘demons’ waiting in the wings will come rushing in:

When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it.  Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order.  Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation. (Matthew 12:43-45 NIV)

Christianity led to equal rights in the West, the abolition movement, is a product of St Paul advocating for Onesimus or telling the Galatian church, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”  The left assumes the values it has are universal.  They see only the faults without giving credit.  

“You will not surely die!”

The progressive left, by contrast, denies all limits and conventions.  Their “can be” may seem good at first glance.  But is opening Pandora’s box, it is releasing what previous generations have built social structures to contain and could end up being more like a trip on Event Horizon.  America has been good and bad, had moments of greatness and failure.  We should tune the ideal it was founded on, not tear it down to start all over again.  There is much to conserve in “what is” with an eye to improvement.  Veer not too far to the right or left.

At least with Trump, morally corrupt as he may be, he comprehends that our inheritance is not a burden. For him, there is something that can be recovered “again” from the past generations even if those lessons were not perfectly applied to him.  He’s a grandpa, he has seen trends come and go, old enough not to care about what is currently popular.  Trump may have some narcissistic traits, at least that is the character he plays on television to the roar of the WWE crowd—but he isn’t trying to be God.

Conspiracy Central

Standard

Conspiracies happen all of the time. It is not a surprise that people plot evil schemes and would be more strange if they did not.  But it doesn’t mean that everything that happens is a conspiracy.  Being old enough to recall the black helicopter theories and warnings of imminent UN takeover.  Who can forget the FEMA camp claims and those pictures of ‘coffins’ Barack Obama’s administration would soon be loading us into?  Strangely many dates come and go, but none of those who push these wild global plots come forward later and say, “You know, I may have been wrong about JFK being the Antichrist… “

Wild conspiracy theories are about political ideology more than evidence.  It is oftentimes a product of those who feel disempowered and seek uncomplicated explanations.  The left, for example, hallucinates nebulous things like systemic racism or white privilege.  Not entirely claims without any merit and yet if it is used to explain every outcome—if you see it lurking behind everything people do—then stop, get some help!  The fringe right likewise, turns to fantasy when reality is too hard for their simple minds to understand.  Inflation can’t just be about the Fed printing trillions of dollars devaluing currency, no it must be fires at food processing facilities! 

There is always a motivated misunderstanding of evidence that is involved beneath this kind of claim—a misuse of statistics and facts to form grandiose theories.

The common thread of conspiracy theories is that they can’t be disproven.  They are all established on faith, firm belief evidence connecting all the dots can be found and can shape-shift as needed.  If one part can be disproven they can simply move the goalposts or deny the evidence is legitimate.  If someone does not want to believe that the moon landing happened you could show a Saturn V rocket, introduce them to one of the astronauts, thoroughly explain all of the alleged irregularities they see and they’ll still believe that it was faked. 

It is a matter of political orientation, not facts or plausibility, and stems from assumptions and a general mistrust of the system.

To the conspiracy-minded folks, everything becomes a conspiracy, there can never be an accident, or a lone wolf attack, no such thing as coincidence in their world. Sandy Hook couldn’t be a deranged (drugged out) Adam Lanza.   No, to Alex Jones it must’ve been a false flag with the casualties being crisis actors rather than real people.  And some of those hunch I understand, this is what happens when every tragedy is treated cynically as an opportunity by control-freak politicians. 

Why did we go to war with Iraq after 9/11? 

Is it so hard to believe that the CIA may have played some role in the JFK assassination when they do regime change all around the world?

The real issue I have with Q-Anon, where all is a hidden criminal plot (and everything is going according to the plan) is how it sucks the oxygen out of the room for discussion of real observable corruption.  The far-flung theories, worse, are used to discredit those reasonable concerns about the expansion of government power and proliferation of unaccountable agencies.  We should be far more concerned with what those with power are ‘legally’ doing in plain sight—and not giving them cover of cockamamie theories they happily use to dismiss us all as crackpots.

That’s the irony here, the conspiracy theorist is aiding the conspiracy.  For example, fact-checks of “Covid is a bioweapon” were used to strawman the reasonable questions about a possible Wuhan lab-leak.  This is why we couldn’t have a serious conversation.  

So why do the kooks need to speculate so far beyond the evidence?  Why can’t they stick to what is known or factual, the most plausible explanation, rather than always having to gallop to the craziest possible conclusion?  In some cases it might just be stupidity, that they simply aren’t very good at tracking normal human motivation.  But in many cases, it is just a form of resentment, they are unserious people—with a massive inferiority complex—who both need to distinguish themselves and also discredit those who did attain more.

It is basically the working-class equivalent of pulling the race-card.  

And yet this is not entirely without cause.

They’ve endured globalism, they have seen their jobs outsourced, prices rise and wages stagnate.  This was not the America that was promised to them.  A place where their own dreams would be the limit.  They see things going the wrong way, opportunities drying up for people like them, as a flood of new faces replace the familiar.  There has been a sort of conspiracy against them, but not in the way they imagine.  Yes, in many ways, they have been screwed over by their betters—so perhaps that is where the deep suspicion originates?

BAY-BEE, Identity Language and Oppression Narratives

Standard

The nurse pronounced baby as “BEE-bee” in our prenatal class and it got me thinking of how language develops.  Words will shift to reflect their usage.  The meaning eventually match with the reality when we attempt to disguise unpleasantness in flowery speech or try moral inversion.  Cultural values will shine through and snap understanding back where it was prior to the manipulation.

How did “bAy-bee” become “BEE-bee”?  

The latter evolution in pronunciation is cuter and therefore a better representation of the subject matter.  The word never will change the thing it describes.  Yes, words influence our perception, they also change to reflect a new understanding of the things that we are describing.  For example, the word “baby” only changed in pronunciation for me when considering the little human now within my wife’s belly.  It was no longer an abstraction or vague category, but a tiny vulnerable ball of loveable life.

When we experience something firsthand it is harder to deny what it is.  We can use the terms detached and technical to distance ourselves from the emotional content.  Say that a baby is just a clump of cells or some kind of parasite—up until the moment when we finally hold it in our hands.  To keep up the charade after this would be delusional or psychopathic.  It is not human to see an infant as anything other than precious.  The political lexicon becomes irrelevant.

A Tangled Ball Of Words 

Words trigger emotions.  I was thinking of this as a tear formed while the instructor in a prenatal class described the ideal of “skin to skin” and a soothing environment.  Some of this reaction may be feeling the weight of my wife’s pregnancy.  But it also has a lot to do with my own identity as the “premie” and “fighter” who struggled for life.  Discussion of baby care today compared to what it was for me.  The thing is, while my experience certainly impacted my development, I don’t have memories of the trauma.  It probably only looms large as a part of my personal identity because my mom told me what I went through and reinforced it.  The I gave further shape and form to it by attributing many of my struggles to the events of my birth—everything from my delayed growth to difficulties with focus in school.

However, it is impossible to know, outside of creating a genetic clone, if I would have been much better off with a normal birth or with more human touch rather than being in a plastic box with ‘stimulating’ music.  This had some impact, no doubt, and yet there is the bigger psychological complex I’ve built on top of this named thing.  Like an irritant in an oyster, it provided a nucleus to attach all of my insecurities to and blame for my failures and shortcomings.  With a normal birth would I have been more like my more accomplished siblings and less a mess?

However, it is very easy to reverse cause and effect to give ourselves an excuse for our being lazy and taking of exceptions.  We become the label that we apply to ourselves as much as it truly describes us.  We act the part.  Things of identity, like race, sexuality, religion, are as much a construct or fantasy as they are facts.  We live up to our name to an extent.  My mom would often tell me that my name meant “strong-willed” and it might be one of those self- fulfilling prophecies.  If we tilt confirmation bias in a direction it isn’t a big surprise if our character develops that direction.  It is like strapping a young tree to influence where it grows.

In a sense, nobody is truly “born this way,” it is a statement discredits conditioning and culture too much. But the environment itself doesn’t make us where we are as much as those descriptive words that reverberate in our heads.  A child that is called “stupid” by a parent or teacher may spend many years trying to sort through their doubts.  My dad letting me look over his blue prints and then giving some affirmation when spotted an error made by the engineers is likely what led to my being confident in my abilities and a career in design.  Our reality is influenced by use of language.

These are just personal observations, but it is also backed up by other sources that put it more succinctly:

Language is not just a medium of communication; it’s a lens through which we view the world and a mold that shapes our identity. From shaping cultural perceptions to influencing personal identities, language’s role is pivotal in constructing our social and personal realities.

Language as a Mirror and Molder of Reality and Identity

Language is more than a mere tool for communication.

It’s a portal through which we perceive and interpret the world.

Imagine how our understanding of colors evolves when we learn names for shades we previously couldn’t distinguish.

With each new word we acquire, a facet of reality emerges from obscurity, offering us a richer tapestry of experiences.

The Dynamic Relationship Between Language and Reality

 Neither of those sources are academic or truly authoritative, but do say what I’m saying in a different way and thus useful so far as my goal here which is to provoke thought.  New use of language reframes the world.  It can amplify our efforts and transform society as more people begin to see the world through the lens we provided.  Memes do this, as do pounding of propaganda headlines, it is why “fact-checkers” exist—all to reinforce a particular narrative.

With so much power in our words there is plenty of reason for cunning and conniving people to exercise this for their own selfish ends. 

They take advantage of insecurities and level accusations to shame or confuse the innocent. 

Wordsmiths, they could turn a baby into a villain and murderer into a saint—beware. 

His talk is smooth as butter, yet war is in his heart; his words are more soothing than oil, yet they are drawn swords. 

(Psalms 55:21 NIV)

There are some use the guise of compassion to gain control.  Their promises are about attaining power.  They seek only to bind us and yet many people are blinded to these motives because their identity has been hijacked by these nefarious actors.

Categories Are Social Constructs 

The structures and constructs of language are entirely fabricated.  There is no person who is “black” or “white” by birth, no, rather these are categories we create, clans that we join, and always artificial divisions.  We are often grouped by others using various label words and internalize the divisions as being inseparable from our own experience, in that we identify with other “rednecks” or “blue-collar” types as those ‘like us’ and yet also *become* like that.  Nothing requires a rural person to use country slang or go buy a massive diesel pick-up truck, some of the markers of this lifestyle (chewing tobacco or dress) can impact opportunities.  This is about politics, not genetics.  It is about the strength of an identity group that helps us gain power for ourselves.  Being a victim of an “ism” is a lever, a social tool or means to build a coalition against others.  

The individual without these groups, that is denied the right to put their fist in the air in solidarity with others ‘like them’ is weakest and most disadvantaged in this game.  That is the irony of the “systems of oppression” language.  Those who describe this kind of problem are actually creating it more than they are simply observing.  In the same way that observation in quantum mechanics is an influence of reality (collapses the wave function), the ‘study’ of human interaction is an interaction and is a product of our bias as much as it has basis in reality.  Those who are concerned with the existing ideas (of racism, sexism, or heterosexism) steal attention (and thus disenfranchise) victims of systemic heightism and those who lack privileges in ways not discussed, defined or even recognized.  The individual is the most vulnerable, a minority of one, and frequently abused by recognized groups.  Bullies travel in big groups—victims are often alone.

This line of questions quoted below is most likely well-intended, but is exploitative:

1) “Language both mirrors reality and helps to structure it” (2). Explain and give an example.

2)Racism, sexism, heterosexism, and class privilege are all interlocking systems of oppression that ensure advantages for some and diminish opportunities for others, with their own history and logic and self-perpetuating relations of domination and subordination (3). Explain what this means. Do you agree/disagree? Why?

3)What are the economic impacts of constructing race, class, and gender?

Sandwiched between the lines of this effort to build awareness (indoctrinate) are a pile of assumptions that, in the end, only serve to darken these artificial dividing lines. 

It is rewarmed class warfare rhetoric, Marxism, and is basically designed to feed envy or feelings of being an other and disenfranchised.  No, this is not to say that prejudice or abuse is entirely a social construct.  What it is to say, rather, is that their worldview, segregated by these simple binaries, is too compartmentalized and minimizing of other factors.

There isn’t one group of oppressor and one group of oppressed. 

There is no hierarchy of victimhood. 

Everything depends on the context or situation.  A Jewish student that is harassed on a college campus because of the IDF dropping bombs on Gaza is not privileged in this moment even if they are ‘white’ and rich.  Nor is it anti-Semitic to characterize the decades long campaign against the Palestinian people as an ethnic cleansing.  Labeling terms like “terrorist” or “occupier,” while useful to an extent, rarely explain accurately and are dehumanizing ends of conversation.

The whole point of claiming the existence of “interlocking systems of oppression” is to make anyone who dares to question their narrow perspective a part of a monolithic enemy rather than an individual with life experience to be respected.  It is truly the educated left’s own version of a conspiracy theory where anything they don’t like is part of some invisible system that can teased out of the statistical categories they created to emphasize identities based on color and physical features.  If some in one of these groups lag behind then some other group must be at fault.

Building humanity requires the de-emphasis of meaningless boundaries and formation of bonds based on behavior.  Skin color is not synonymous with culture or the choices one makes that shape their outcomes.  Yes, we must identify mistreatment of people on the basis of appearance, but this isn’t black and white, nor is it oppression to apply the same standard to all.  Indeed, some people are treated unfairly, but many end up being marginalized for antisocial behavior and yet claim to be victims of oppression when the chickens come home to roost.

Call A Turd a Baby…

Bringing this full circle, the word “baby” is cute (and the pronunciation of the word is becoming cuter) because babies are cute.  The language of description is merging more and more with the reality adorableness that we perceive in a human child by our instincts.  Using the word “baby” to describe an adult does not make them cute.  Albeit pet names, used to convey fondness, do imdue the quality a bit or at least will hijack some of the sentiment that associated with babies.  However, this is something that can only be stretched so far before the absurdity is too obvious.  

In this regard language that is used in an attempt to counter popular perspective, or overrule accurate description, will eventually take on the meaning that it was supposed to erase.   The language police can only temporarily remove a stigma (albeit never long enough to make the effort worthwhile) and it is because the unpleasant reality will always bubble to the surface again.  In fact, “special needs” today probably carries more negative baggage than the use of the words slow or retarded in the past.  

Likewise when a person is accepted at the university or get your job simply as a result of the particular identity group they belong to rather than only on the basis of equal qualifications this leads to an asterisk with the accomplishment—even when equally earned.  New terms like “diversity hire” will spontaneously and organically come into existence as a result of need to delineate between identity and merit based.  These, sadly, are far more damaging stereotypes applied to minorities who are outstanding by their own right.

Just as one cannot relabel a turd as a baby and expect people to cradle it once the truth is revealed, one can’t just apply credentials or distinguished titles to someone thinking this will change a lack of qualifications.  It will only degrade the meaning of words and in the long-term will do nothing to solve the socio-economic divide. 

Calling someone a fisherman and giving them a pile of fish is not the same thing as teaching them how to fish.  You can’t simply declare reality as the left believes they can.  Turds are only cute when the term is used ironically to describe something truly cute.

An Affirmative Reaction

Standard

The Supreme Court has finally ruled against the practice of blatant racial discrimination in university admissions.  This, after Harvard and other schools, in pursuit of filling quotas, would find means to select against qualified Asians to meet an ideal for diversity based on skin color.

The Affirmation Fairy… 

African Americans, at least as a collective whole, have suffered disproportionately and this is a historical injustice that is not easily solved.  Much of our success later in life has to do with the homes and communities that we were born into.  The values we receive via our culture make a huge difference so far as outcomes.

I remember a viral video, a few years back, that lines up a bunch of young people on a grassy field.  The announcer asked various questions, such as “Take two steps forward if both of your parents are still married,” and those who could answer yes advanced.  The results of this survey were framed as ‘white privilege’ and yet none of the statements had anything to do with race.

Social inequality is certainly not a black-and-white issue, many children of European and Asian ancestry lacked a father in the home, worried about fitting in, did not feel safe at night in their neighborhood, worried about having enough to eat, and lacked access to private education or tutors.  I once begged my mother to take me out of public school after a rough patch.  I changed my hairstyle as a response to classmates who made note of my ‘Mennonite’ side part.  I decided to quit college rather than go deep into debt.  

Am I underprivileged?

Exactly how much am I disadvantaged as a learning-disabled child of two high school dropouts, with a father who had to be away all week to support our family?

There problem with all “affirmative action” is that it is a vast oversimplification of a very complex and multi-layered problem that may be more about culture than color.  We simply cannot account for every factor or rate every single subcategory of ethnicity and culture for statistical disadvantage.  For example, do we know the college graduation rates of Americans of German ancestry or Irish and Italian?  Are a proportional amount of these ethnic groups represented?

Furthermore, our own disadvantages can be advantages, in that they can provide u much-needed motivation.  Sure, having money may mean a trip to Harvard and a certain level of success.  However, the same is true of those who are tall and athletic.  Jeff Bezos, at 5′-7″ tall, may have benefitted from having some ‘short man syndrome’ or that extreme desire some have to compensate for the discrimination they faced for physical characteristics that were beyond their control.

Affirmative action is wrong in that there is no way to rank hardships.  It is wrong because it isn’t addressing the root causes of social inequalities, even as defined by the privilege police, in that we’re not talking about things like fatherless homes or inner-city violence and cultural forces that discourage the behaviors that aid in academic achievement.  You can’t wait until a person is eighteen, then wave a wand of university education and credentials as a solution to these underlying issues.

Asterisk Graduates…

The true underlying message of affirmative action was that minorities, specifically those of African descent, couldn’t be successful without the help of the government.  As liberal arts universities continue to seek to fulfill a narrow color-obsessed definition of diversity, using quotas rather than qualifications, they unintentionally degrade all of their minority graduates—even those equal in merit to the non-minority graduates.

The idea of a “diversity hire” or a person not equally qualified to others who applied and yet are given preference only because of their special category of race or gender, is a direct consequence of discriminatory affirmative action programs.  People know how to read between the lines (albeit often unfairly) and will diminish accomplishments that weren’t actually earned or can be perceived as being unearned.  It is why we do not see the work of those ‘born into wealth’ as being equal to that of those who are self-made.

A classic example of the patronizing white saviorism that is lurking behind divisive equity campaigns.

Just as a university degree would lose value if everyone were simply given a diploma for breathing, admitting some primarily on the basis of skin color devalues the effort even in the eyes of those who benefit.  It only serves to feed an idea of black inferiority, that they need a ‘white savior‘ to swoop in and rescue them from their plight, and is grossly unfair to all who were truly qualified on the basis of merit—but will still deal with the asterisk due to systemic compensatory color preferences or racially discriminatory quotas.

The hate crimes against Asians, like the murder of Yao Pan Ma, rarely receive coverage as other racially involved crimes.
The hate crimes against Asians, like the murder of Yao Pan Ma, rarely receive coverage as other racially involved crimes.

You cannot defeat unfair discrimination with a new kind of unfair discrimination.  It is not right that overqualified Asian students were being overlooked because of their race or on some kind of subjective basis that the worth of their own “lived experience” is less than a person of African origin.  Many Asians have overcome extreme hardship, faced intense pressure at home and hate crimes (often underreported for going against the typical racial narrative), yet won’t ever express this due to cultural reserve—why should they be punished for the success of their peers?

Two-tiered or lower standards for some will never achieve the goal of equal outcomes.

Favouritism Forbidden…

We’re living in a time of moral inversion, a time when those who lived a life of crime and abuse are treated as victims simply on the basis of their outward appearance.  It is as wrong as the favoritism of preferring the wealthy over the poor for the potential benefits:

Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.

Leviticus 19:15 NIV

The problem was favoritism, preferring one party based on who they are (what they can provide for us) rather than the actual merit of the case.  Fairness of judgment, not equality of outcome, is the goal.

Christians were told not to judge by a person’s outward appearance:

My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

James 2:2-4 NIV

Many, trying to make a show of their own righteousness, take a Scripture like that above and turn it into a call for social justice or a special preference for the poor or otherwise disenfranchised.  However, this kind of reverse favoritism totally misses the point.  Trading one kind of perverse judgment for another is not a virtue.  No, it is a virtue signal and something people do for the social benefit of merely appearing to be an advocate for those recognized as being disadvantaged.  Even if sincere, this is a misguided approach that goes against the instruction not to show favoritism.

Affirmative action, in the end, is just a new form of white supremacy that is expressed as patronization.  It frames differences in outcomes solely in terms of identity groups while neglecting to correct the factors causing the inequal results or truly helping people to cross over these unhelpful, artificial, and arbitrary divisions.  Jesus taught more of a gracious meritocracy, where our behavior did matter and we would ultimately be judged on how we treat other people irrespective of their deserving or appearance.  In this regard, our equality comes only in repentance and our obedience to the law of Christ—not by force of courts or legislation.

We do not save the world by trying to force others into compliance or control outcomes. Rather we change ourselves and become an example of impartiality and love to all people. Honest and fair equal opportunity is having the same requirements for all and not preferences tailored to some at the expense of others. You cannot rob Peter to pay Paul. We shouldn’t love bomb some, even to make them feel better about themselves, by removing opportunities for those who truly have earned their place.

Shedding Identity

Standard

There was a time when I could simply say “I’m Mennonite.”  That is what I was.  It was my religion, culture and ethnicity wrapped up into one tidy package.  It was as real to me as my gender and first name.  But now, having left the denomination of my youth behind, it is really difficult to buy-in to a new identity or at least not to the extent of feeling a significant attachment to the distinguishing title.

We live in a great identity crisis.  We might celebrate more identities than ever, and yet somehow along the way, we have lost the very meaning of the words that we use to define these identity categories.  

What is an identity?

An identity is a word used to distinguish one from another.  Or a statement of what we are in comparison to the whole group.  Are you Catholic or Protestant?  Black or white?  A Republican, Democrat or Independent?  And whether it is identity or not has much to do with the emotional weight that we place on these categories and terms.  In other words, blue-eyed is certainly a category that some of us belong to, but is not currently an true identity marker.

There are also various kinds of identity, there are those inborn or assumed—Charlotte, due to her inherited genetics, is Kankanaey, and would be no matter what she believed about herself or if she prefers that another term be used.  Then there are those types of identities that are less about our immutable being and more about what we are doing.  By contrast, trucker or truck driver is an identity, and even comes with a license to prove it, but it is not something that is actually written in a CDL holder’s DNA.

Trump ‘identifies’ as a trucker…

Identity is never something we can select for ourselves.  I can claim to be a Dill Pickle and even legally require the moniker be used in reference to me. But this is never going to change what other people will perceive me to be.  Identity is something that others construct, with us, and not only a thing that we independently choose for ourselves.  Put another way, a rose by any other name is still a rose and even if we paint it blue.  And blue does not become yellow because we switch the color identity labels either.

Our “I am” identity…

I’m sexually attracted to the female form and this has dictated my priorities and activities throughout the years.  But, as important as it is to me, I don’t tout my ‘straight’ preference as being my identity.  I am many things, but my sexuality is not something to hang my sense of who I am on.  There are no hetero pride parades for this reason and no need to fly a special banner in front of my house to announce my preferences either.  Sexuality is not who we really are.

So, when someone says “I am gay,” my mind always must go to the question, “you are a sexuality?”  The reality is that this identity is about far more than what they do in bed.  It is about the community or lifestyle and an identity built around being their status as an exception.  Being “gay” is just as much about the social aspect as the orientation.  It is not just something you only do in private.  No, it requires a public display and solidarity with others like you.  If it were simply about sex there would be no parades or neverending need to be legitimized by others.  Identity is bigger than the individual.

And trans is simply the next level.  Those calling themselves “trans” may (in direct contradiction with their biological gender assignment) self-identify as a man or a woman.  But those who are truly male or female simply are and there is no need for hormones, reconstruction of genitals or to exaggerate gender stereotypes with weird provocative displays.  On the other hand, no matter how much  surgery is performed on the body of a ‘trans’ person they will always be trans.  The more trans people try to force others to recognize them (despite our own eyes) the more they will stand out as being different.  Which is truly the point.

Identity is about our distinguishing ourselves from the larger group.  It is also about what is the most important thing to us.  If a person were ask who I am I would probably start with my given name.  That is where I am oriented in society, as a product of my parents, and also gives others a shorthand to address my person.  Then I might mention my role as a husband and father as those things are currently the most meaningful parts of my life.  Of course, also in the mix is my religious affiliation and occupation.  Sexuality, while very important, wouldn’t even make the top of the list.

Furthermore, there is no need for anyone to defy their own eyes or be forced to recognize anything about me against their will.  Identity is not only about what I declare.  A large part of real identity is what others recognize with no coercion.  If I had to demand that my son call me daddy or that my wife appreciate my bad cooking the same as she did the work of a master chef, would their bending to my will really make me any more legitimately those things?  No, it would certainly not!  It would make me a bully and look very insecure.

The Identity Gambit…

Special identity is a way to gain advantage over others. In the past it was about having the right privileging title or family pedigree. Now it has become a no holds barred fight between various victim categories. But in both cases it was about unearned respect, about people who did not do anything noteworthy enough in their lives to be recognized and thus invent illegitimate reasons why others must genuflect to them. These frauds are enabled by those who have twisted morality and a corrupted political system.

Stop. I look like a police officer!

People can lie about their identity for many reasons.  Impersonation of a police officer, for example, gives a person false authority and ability to manipulate the unsuspecting.  Or stolen valor, in the case of those who, for attention, dress like and pretend to be a military veteran.  Sure, the act is usually off, since these posers don’t have the requisite qualifications, but it fools enough people that they get the payoff of the true identity—or at least until caught.  Then again, prancing around and pathologically pretending to be a girl is now extremely lucrative for some men.

Pretending to be a doctor or airline pilot is something children do innocently and yet it would be silly to legally recognize this as not to make them feel bad.  True identity is not an act or a costume we put on. 

Shedding identity…

Identity is powerful.  For example, a person calling themselves a “gangsta” or “thug” is declaring a whole package of behaviors and dress styles.  It is a choice as well as a habit, they could change and yet their momentum is in a particular direction.  They have been conditioned, for years and years, by culture and peers, to assume this posture towards the world.  

There is some truth to the statement, “you can take the boy out of the country, but you can’t take the country out of the boy.”  We have many things instilled in us, accents to tastes, but this is not written into our DNA and doesn’t mean it is an “I am what I am” excuse.  We will send children to speech therapy if they have an impediment rather than let them be their true selves.  We can and should modify things that an identity is built from.  This notion of a genuine self that can’t be changed is ridiculous.

Right now there is a Ukrainian vs. Russian war.  The narrative we’re being sold is that there is a vast difference between the two sides—that this is a fight between freedom and democracy or authoritarian rule.  We are told the Russians are barbaric and cruel, the Ukrainian’s heroic and capable.  But both are from the same Kievan Rus origins, speak a dialect of the same language, and truly have much more in common with each other than they do with us.  Furthermore, the regime in Kiev is hopelessly corrupt, and had been shelling those trying to escape this rule for years prior to the Russian invasion—it isn’t a distinction worth dying over.

Ukraine vs. Russia is more like the US Civil War than WW2.

The reality is we are not bound to identity, especially not to those that are more about what we are currently doing rather than our actual being.  We choose our divisions as much as we are born with them.  Sure, we can’t help what side of a border we are born on nor if our personality traits are judged as being masculine or feminine.  But we can decide what is most important to us.  And, more importantly, we can pick identities that are greater than sexuality or gender.  We must reject this idea that we can’t change or improve while also accepting what we are and were born to be.

Many people get off from being contrarian and offending others, they especially enjoy being able to force others to go along with their language games.  But, in the end, their ‘preferred pronoun’ is a distinction without a difference.  We will remain what we are no matter how we dress it up or how much we compel others to go along with the delusion and falsehoods we peddle.  It is only in our spiritual transformation, in finding a bigger purpose, that we can be free from needing the approval and attention of others.

More and more I have no identity to cling to outside of being who I am.  I am what I am and don’t need to hide behind a special label or find my place in the world.  While many in my religious past hold conference in search of their identity and as many converts in the tradition in which I currently participate tout the Orthodox adjective in the manner some do they/them pronouns, I have little interest in joining them in this inane competition.  St Paul, in Galatians 2:38, would have us shed our divisive identities for a joint identity in Christ.