Empathy

Perspectives, Not Truth: Why Our Moral Codes Are Always Incomplete

Standard

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.

Marcus Aurelius

I will attempt to bring multiple threads together in this blog and the quote above is a good starting point. If there is objective reality it’s not going to be something possessed by one human. We do not know all circumstances nor can we vet and independently verify every fact we receive.  Or at least not without becoming totally hamstrung by the details. We put our trust in parties, traditions, systems, credentials and the logic which makes sense to us.

The deeper we dive into our physical reality the murkier it all gets. The world ‘above’ that we encounter feels concrete. But there is not a whole lot of substance to be found as we get beneath the surface. The rules that we discovered—of time and space—end up dissolving into a sea of probabilities and paradoxes at a quantum level that we don’t have an answer to. And this is the ‘concrete’ observable reality. We all see our own unique perspective, a slice, and build our model of the world from it.

But it is even murkier when we get to topics of social science. Morality and ethics, built often from what we believe is fact or truth, is more simply opinion and perspective than it can be hammered out in words everyone is able to agree on. Even for those who are of the same foundational religious assumptions—despite even having the same source texts—do not agree on matters of interpretation or application. So who is right? And who is wrong? How do we decide?

1) Patrick: We Don’t Need God To Be Moral

My cousin, Patrick, a taller, better looking and more educated version of myself, an independent thinker, and has departed from his missionary upbringing—gives this great little presentation: “Where Do You Get Your Morality?“

His foundation for a moral value system is concepts of truth, freedom and love which he describes in the video. I find it to be compelling and compatible with my own basic views. Our cooperation is as natural as competition, it is what makes us human, and a conscience gives potential for better returns.

However, while I agree with his ideal, there is also reason why deception, tyranny and indifference are as common in the world—they are natural—and this is because it can give one person or tribe an advantage. Lies, scams, and political propaganda all exploit trust and can be a shortcut for gaining higher status or more access.

No, cheating doesn’t serve everyone. But the lion has no reason to regret taking down a slow gazelle. By removing the weak, sick, or injured, it inadvertently culls the less-fit genes from the herd, strengthening the prey population over time and even preventing overgrazing of the savannah. It’s just a raw service to ecosystem balance, much like a short seller who exposes those overvalued stocks, forcing the market corrections and greater efficiency—acts of pure self-interest yielding a broader good.

Not a friendly neighbor.

Herd cooperation or predator opportunism are different strategies, both 100% natural and amoral in their own context. I’m neither psychopath nor a cannibal, but I do suspect those who are those things would as readily rationalize their own drives and proclivities. Nature doesn’t come with a rulebook—only consequences.

I’m certainly not a fan of the “might makes right” way of thinking and that is because my morality and ethics originate from the perspective being disadvantaged. But I also understand why those who never struggled and who have the power to impose their own will without fear of facing any consequences often develop a different moral framework.

We need to be invested in the same moral and civilizational project. Or else logic, that works for only some who have the strength or propaganda tools, will rule by default. I don’t disagree with Patrick, but his core message caters to a high IQ and high empathy crowd—which does leave me wondering how we can bring everyone else on board?

2) Kirk: A Way To Focus Our Moral Efforts

Charlie Kirk wasn’t a significant figure to me before his death. It may be a generational thing or just a general lack of interest in the whole conservative influencer crowd. I feel dumber any time I listen to Steven Crowder and assumed Kirk was just another one of the partisan bomb throwers. But, from my exposure to his content since, I have gained some appreciation.

Bring back the Ten Commandments, because it worked so well the first time?

Arguing for the Ten Commandments has never been a priority for me. It’s a list with a context and not standalone. Nevertheless it is a starting point for a moral discussion and also one that it seems Charlie Kirk would go to frequently in his campus debates.  The two most difficult of these laws to explain to a religious skeptic are certainly the first two: “I am the Lord your God; Have no other gods before me and do not make idols.”

We generally agree on prohibition of murder and theft, or even adultery, but will disagree on one lawgiver and judge.

Why?

Well, it is simply because divine entity is abstract compared to things we have experienced—like the murder of a loved one or something being stolen from us. You just know this is wrong based on how it makes you feel. The belief in celestial being beyond human sight or comprehension just does not hit the same way as events we have observed. And it’s also the baggage the concept of a God carries in the current age. I mean, whose God?

It seems to be much easier just to agree the lowest common denominator: Don’t do bad things to other people.

But then we don’t. We justify killing others if it suits our political agenda, labeling people as bad for doing what we would do if facing a similar threat to our rights. If I’ve learned one thing it is that people always find creative ways to justify themselves while condemning the other side for even fighting back against an act of aggression.

Self-proclaimed good people do very bad things to good people. Like most people see themselves as above average drivers (not mathematically possible), we tend to distort things in favor of ourselves. Fundamental attribution error means we excuse our own compromises as a result of circumstances while we assume an immutable character flaw when others violate us. We might be half decent at applying morality to others—but exempt ourselves and our own.

So morality needs a focal point beyond us as individuals. There must be a universal or common good. Which might be the value of a theoretical ‘other’ who observes from a detached and perfectly unprejudiced point, the ideal judge. Not as a placeholder, but as the ultimate aim of humanity. One God. One truth. One justice. This as the answer to double standards, selective outrage and partisan bias. If we’re all seeking the same thing there is greater potential of harmony and social cohesion where all benefit.

At very least it would be good to promote an idea of an ultimate consequence giver that can’t be bought or bribed.

3) The Good, the Bad and the Aim for What Is Practically Impossible

The devil is always in the details. And the whole point of government is to mediate in this regard. Unfortunately, government, like all institutions, is merely a tool and tools are only as good as the hands that are making a use of them. A hammer is usually used to build things, but can also be used to bash in a skull. Likewise, we can come up with that moral system and yet even the best formed legal code or enforcement mechanism can be twisted—definitions beaten into what the current ruling regime needs.

The United States of America started with a declaration including the words “all men are created equal” and a Constitution with that starts: “We the people…” This is reflection of the Christian rejection of favoritism and St. Paul telling the faithful “there is no Jew or Greek” or erasing the supremacy claims of some. An elite declaring themselves to be exempted or specially chosen by God is not compatible with this vision. We never ask a chicken for consent what we take the eggs. We do not extend rights to those who we consider to be inferior to us or less than human. Human rights hinge on respect for the other that transcends politics.

That’s where the labels come in. If we call someone a Nazi, illegal, MAGAt, leftist or a Goyim we are saying that they are less than human and don’t deserve rights. This is the tribal and identity politics baseline. Those in the out-group are excluded for decency, their deaths celebrated as justice (even if there’s no due process) and we’ll excuse or privilege our own. All sides of the partisan divide do this—we create a reason to deny rights to others often using things like truth, freedom and love (Patrick’s foundation) as our justification: “Those terrorists hate our freedom and democracy, we must fight for those we love and our truth!”

Bringing this to a practical level: Looking at Minneapolis, the ICE and anti-ICE activities, we have competing moral narratives and a different vision for application of American values. On one side of the debate you have those who say that “one is one too many” if an illegal immigrant kills a US citizen—then suddenly do not care when Federal agents shoot a fellow American. The defiant “don’t tread on me” opposition to mandates and masks during Covid somehow shifting to “comply or die!” On the other side you have those outraged about Kyle Rittenhouse and who have been traditionally opposed to the 2nd Amendment defending Alex Pretti while the Trump administration condemns a man for carrying a permitted firearm.

Judgment is for the other, it seems, rights for those who look like us or agree. It’s this inconsistent eye, the call for understanding of our own and grace for ourselves with the harsh penalties applied to those within the forever shifting lines of our out-group, that shows how our political perspectives cloud our moral judgment. The ‘sin’ is not the act itself, but whether or not the violation suits our broader agenda. This is why ‘Christian’ fundamentalists, who will preach the love of Jesus on Sunday, can be totally indifferent to the suffering of children with darker skin tones—their God is about national schemes not a universal good or a commonly applied moral standard.

The aim needs to be justice that is blind to who and only considers what was done. If pedophilia is excused for powerful people who run our government and economy, then it should be for those at the bottom as well. If the misdemeanor of crossing an invisible line is bad, a justification for suspension of due process for all Americans, then why is it okay to violate the sovereignty of Venezuela or Iran over claims of human rights abuse?

The US fought a war of independence, took the country for the British and yet has been acting as a dictator, installing kings, when it suits our neo-colonial elites.

That’s immoral.

We’re all immoral.

The moral code of Patrick, Charlie or myself is incomplete—because every moral code is incomplete when filtered through human eyes. We start from our different premises: Patrick’s secular triad of truth, freedom, and love; Kirk’s religious appeal to the Ten Commandments and a divine lawgiver as the only reliable check on self-deception; my own reluctant recognition that empathy and cooperation are real, yet fragile, against the raw arithmetic of power and advantage. Yet all of our approaches circle the same problem: without some external, impartial standard that transcends our biases, tribes, and self-justifications, our morality devolves into competing opinions dressed as facts—exactly as Aurelius observed.

We cannot fully escape the murk. Objective reality, if it exists, slips through our fingers like quantum probabilities—and moral truth fractures along lines of culture, experience, and interest. Even when we agree on broad principles (don’t murder, don’t steal), the application often splinters: whose life counts as being worthy of protection? Whose borders, laws, or children deserve a defense? And whose “justice” is merely revenge in better lighting?The temptation is cynicism—just declare all values relative, retreat to my own personal pragmatism, and then let might (or votes, or algorithms) sort the rest. But that is a path leads to the very outcomes we decry—dehumanization, selective outrage, and the erosion of the entire civilizational project that allows agnostic high-empathy and high-IQ arguments like Patrick’s to even exist. Yes, nature may be amoral, but us humans build societies by pretending otherwise, by our aiming higher than baser ‘animal’ instincts—reaching for God.

So perhaps the most honest conclusion is not to claim possession of the full truth, but to commit to pursuing it together—knowing we’ll never quite arrive. We definitely need focal points that force some accountability beyond ourselves: whether that’s a concept of one ultimate observer who sees without favoritism, or by a shared commitment to universal human dignity rooted in principle beyond biology or tribe, or simply just the hard-won habit of applying the same rules to our side as to the other. Blind justice isn’t natural or self-evident—it’s cultivated. Morality is an aim which requires vigilance against our own double standards, humility before the limits of our perspective, and courage to defend principles we claim even when they inconvenience us.

In the end, we don’t need perfect agreement on the source of morality to agree that inconsistency in application is poisonous.  What goes around will certainly come around and if we live by the sword we’ll die by it.  If we can at least hold each other (and ourselves) to a standard higher than “what works for my group right now,” preserve the space for mutually beneficial cooperation over cruel predation—a shared conscience over mere convenience. Anything less, and the gazelle never outruns the lion for long—and neither does the society which forgets why it tried.

Jesus vs. the Narcissists: When Compassion For ‘Others’ is the Ultimate Offense

Standard

Q: How do you enrage a narcissist?

A: Tell them they’re not the most important person in the world.

There’s this mess of entitlement, of eternal victimhood, self-admiration and severe lack of empathy we call narcissism.  And it does seem to be everywhere, most especially in a situation where someone is able to escape normal pushback for their overinflated self-image and sense of importance.  But this is not something new or merely a product of modern life—it is as old as the Bible.

What Jesus confronted most severely in the religious elites of his day was a narcissistic attitude.  Indeed, he was not killed as threat to Rome.  The Roman authority, despite the facilitation of the mob, did not buy into their reasoning and declared him to be  innocent.  The real issue is that Jesus offended an ideological cult of ethno-supremacists, those who believed a book (or rather their own errant and self-serving interpretation of the text) made them a cut above all other people.  

They believed that they were God’s favorites and yet Jesus said even the rocks could accomplish the mission.  He did not need their permission to speak and insulted them at every turn.  How did he insult?  Well, mostly by reminding them that God loved all people and not just their own tribe.  In defiance of their narcissistic self-belief, he held up the good examples of Samaritans, Canaanites, Syrians and Romans—presenting the foreigner as a righteous contrast to them.  And they could not argue with him, he knew their Scripture better than they did, so they killed him.

Here’s six examples of where Jesus took on the ethno-nationalist pride and narcissism of religious peers: 

1. The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37)

In response to a lawyer asking about who is our neighbor, Jesus tells a parable where a Samaritan (despised as ethnic outsiders by Jews) acts heroically with mercy, while a Jewish priest and Levite ignore a wounded man. This framing of an answer intentionally swerves off the beaten path to offend his ethno-supremacist audience by portraying their loathed ‘enemy’ favorably and implying that true neighborliness is something that transcends ethnic boundaries:

In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. […] “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Imagine that, this smug religious expert, who thought he was self-justified, getting shown up rhetorically by the outsider.

2. The Faith of the Roman Centurion (Matthew 8:5-13)

A Roman centurion (a Gentile military occupier) approaches Jesus to heal his servant. Jesus not only heals but praises the centurion’s faith as surpassing anything being found “in Israel,” and implicitly rebuking the Pharisees’ assumption of Jewish spiritual superiority. This favorable portrayal of this Gentile outsider was extremely offensive to these ethno-supremacists:

When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.” […] When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

He’s stomping on their entitlement at the end, literally saying that they’ll be thrown out and then replaced by Gentiles in God’s kingdom!

3. The Faith of the Canaanite Woman (Matthew 15:21-28)

Jesus initially tests a Canaanite woman (a Gentile outsider) seeking healing for her daughter but he ultimately commends her persistent faith and grants the request. This interaction challenges Pharisaic purity laws and ethnocentrism by showing a non-Jew’s faith as exemplary, even using the language which highlights ethnic barriers only to overcome them:

A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

This passage illustrates the ethnic-supremacist attitudes of even the disciples of Jesus.  Whereas today, in the West, you can barely say people are different in ability without it being controversial, nobody cared that this woman was referred to as a dog in this audience.  But his actions of love and compassion spoke louder than his words and this woman’s lack of narcissism was a stark contrast to the prideful racist disciples  Her prayer was answered because she was humble.

4. The Healing of the Ten Lepers (Luke 17:11-19)

Jesus heals ten lepers, but only one—a Samaritan (an ethnic outsider)—returns to thank him. Jesus highlights this Samaritan’s faith, questioning where the other nine (presumably Jews) are, thus favoring the outsider and critiquing ingratitude among insiders:

As he was going into a village, ten men who had leprosy met him. They stood at a distance and called out in a loud voice, “Jesus, Master, have pity on us!” […] One of them, when he saw he was healed, came back, praising God in a loud voice. He threw himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him—and he was a Samaritan. Jesus asked, “Were not all ten cleansed? Where are the other nine? Has no one returned to give praise to God except this foreigner?” Then he said to him, “Rise and go; your faith has made you well.”

The entitled can’t show gratitude.  Perhaps, as the self-declared chosen, the others who never came back felt they deserved this healing—that it was their birth right?  But Jesus was unimpressed by them and highlighted the foreigner who was thankful instead.

5. The Samaritan Woman at the Well (John 4:1-42)

Below Jesus initiates a conversation with a lowly Samaritan woman (an outcast on multiple fronts: Samaritan and female), he reveals himself as the Messiah, and leads to many Samaritans believing in him. This breaches ethnic and social barriers, totally offending Pharisaic norms of separation, as the Jews typically avoided Samaritans:

When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” […] The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.) […]  Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did.”  So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. And because of his words many more became believers.

This was Jesus deliberately breaking down a barrier.  The Jews of this time weren’t just racist, but sexist as well, and would see this entire encounter as an egregious violation.  Here Jesus was humanizing the Samaritan enemy and—even more scandalously—he was talking directly to a woman!  While rebuking his own ethnic and religious tribe he hung out with the impure!

He’s practically as evil as Tucker Carlson…

6. Jesus’ Sermon in Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30)

In his hometown synagogue, Jesus reads from Isaiah and then references the Old Testament prophets helping Gentiles (a widow in Sidon and Naaman the Syrian) instead of Israelites during times of need. This enrages the crowd, who try to kill him right there and then, as it directly challenges their ethno-supremacist expectations that God’s favor is exclusive to Jews:

“Truly I tell you,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown. I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land.  Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”  All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this.  They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff.  But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.

The passages all illustrate Jesus’ pattern of associating with and elevating of outsiders, which offended the Pharisees’ ethnocentric pride and their self-righteous “we’re chosen people” claims by his stubborn inclusion of sinners, tax collectors, and Gentiles.  

Had it not been for a miracle Jesus may be remembered as being thrown off a cliff for praising the foreigners in front of a Jewish audience.  He was hitting them directly in their Hindenburg sized egos.  They had the most severe case our own [excrement] don’t stink that’s possible.

Ms. Rachel is an ‘anti-Semite’ for loving all children?

 A Zionist organization, StopAntisemitism, has named Rachel Griffin Accurso, a very popular children’s content creator, a finalist for their “Antisemite of the Year” and for a very specific offense: Ms. Rachel dared to treat the suffering of Palestinian children as equal to that of Jewish people!  How dare she humanize the child of an enemy!  Those in this Zionist cult love themselves only and make a strict dichotomy between their own and the dogs.  The spirit that Jesus rebuked is maintained in this perverse tradition.

I didn’t know much about Ms. Rachel prior to the birth of my daughter, but she’s not a Hamas apologist or sympathizer and has expressed similar sentiments about Israeli and African children.  Only the arrogant Zio-bots used her concern as a cause for their vicious accusations and vile labels.  They can be the only victims and treating Gaza’s children with the same love as their own is a terrible offense in their supremacist eyes—only their suffering can matter.  

He didn’t say Hamas.  He said Palestinians.

Ms Rachel committed their most grievous sin of believing children are not terrorists because of where they are born and now—as another enemy—she must be destroyed.

That is the narcissistic attitude of Zionism.  You must choose between them and others, they cannot share your concern with those who are inferior beings.  It’s an insult, as if they have been made equal to a dog, which is what they think of us Gentiles.  Listen to what they say, they believe that they should be treated like gods—in the words of Jewish supremacist and the former chief Rabbi of Israel, Ovadia-Yosef:

“Goyim (gentiles, non-Jews) were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel,” he said, according to the Jerusalem Post. “Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why gentiles were created.” 

Rabbi Ovadia-Yosef, in his own words

Treated as our lords.  That is the nature of Zionism.  It is about their narcissistic view that they deserve to be our masters and to do with us as they please—as they may an ox that plows their fields.  Which is what is so disturbing about an Israel-Firster, Ben Shapiro, proclaiming that retirement is stupid and that Americans should work until they drop.  Says a guy who sits around and talks as an occupation.  This, of course, does not represent all Jews or Israeli citizens, but it is written in the Talmud and lines up with the Likud party leadership of Israel.

Zionism does not represent all Jews.

Zionists don’t just want to rule over the current territory of Israel or the Holy Lands.  No, they want Jerusalem to be the hub of their Greater Israel and later one world government where their own version of a Messiah cleanses the world of all who defy them.  They rule because you’re too stupid to live free.

Judas wanted an Israel like this.  A worldly kingdom where he would be served.  Jesus, by sharp contrast, taught a kingdom not of this world—where the greatest would serve rather than be served.  He corrected heresy that made the blessing of Abraham only about a genetic inheritance rather than a matter of sharing the patriarch’s sincere and simple faith.  It was the very opposite of what they believed they were owed as the self-declared special people.  Jesus offended by telling them they weren’t special and calling the children of the Devil rather than of Abraham.  Ethnic supremacy and self-righteous pride is the basis of Zionism, Christianity heralds repentance as the foundation of true faith in God, as John the Baptist declared:

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.  The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. 

(Matthew 3:7-10 NIV)

Water is wet.  The sky is blue.  You can’t be a Christian and a Zionist too.  We must pick one or the other.  There is no union between light and darkness, no yoking of believer to unbeliever, we either believe what we’re told in the Gospel about a “synagogue of Satan” (Rev 3:9) and who Jesus himself declared to be children of their father the Devil (John 8:44) or we deny that Christ is King.  It’s just astounding to see so many who either never read the New Testament or had eyes glazed over in those sections where Jesus rebuked those who thought their Jewish supremacy and genetic ties to Abraham would save them.

The unrepentant narcissist will never enter the kingdom of heaven.  Pride was the sin of Satan who thought he could rival God and it is also the sin of those who rejected Jesus for his acceptance of all and not caring about their ethnic pedigree.  They hated him for exposing them as religious frauds.  And the campaign they waged against him was very similar to that being used currently to try to silence critics of Israel.  The role of a good Goy is to simply believe whatever they say and allow them to be the gods they believe they are—to kill or rape as they please.

Facing the Truth

Standard

I decided to take on one of the lies being spread on social media today and found myself bumping up against the Facebook censorship regime once again.  And what they allow or disallow is purely about the partisan narrative they’re pushing.  Leftists can post memes all day long showing Elon Musk with his hand raised, claiming that he is a Nazi, but you can’t even post a plain old picture of Democrats with their hands in an apparent salute without that “misleading” blackout being slapped on it.

InDePeNdEnT fAcT-cHeCkInG

This is the kind of protection those left of center can expect.  They’re never held to the same standard as those on the right.  If you are conservative any soundbite can ripped out of context and disseminated without a fact-check.  Republicans are guilty until they prove themselves innocent.  By contrast, the corporate media mouthpieces do not confront the left for their hypocrisy and require Democrats to denounce the left-wing violence.   And Billionaire’s like Mark Zuckerberg play interference for them by not even letting us make a comparison to show how ridiculous their claims are.

This is what I posted on Facebook with the image above:

What happens when you put a conservative guy with Asberger’s syndrome in front of an audience of leftists?

Bullying.  

The left is about conformity.  

You march to the beat of their drum or they will ostracize and belittle.  Name-calling is a leftist invention.  They love their categories, white and black, haves versus have nots, and it is always about pigeonholing people into tribal groups and robbing all people of their own unique identities. 

But turning Musk’s awkward movements, as a guy clearly on the Autism spectrum, into a Nazi salute—even the ADL said that’s taking it too far.  Unfortunately this misinterpreting of his hand motion has become that moral justification the far-left wanted to unleash a terror campaign of vandalism and violence—a Krystalnacht redux.  

Why did Nazis hate the Jews?  Well, there was the same envy of wealth and influence then that the left is now directed at public figures like Musk.  To the left a billionaire’s money should belong to them, the ‘fasces’ or their elite managerial class, whereas an American vision is that people should keep their lawfully acquired gains.

Patriotic Americans believe in free markets and rule of law.  In stark contrast, the Antifa left (deceptively named) believe in central control (in their hands) and rule by mob if anyone dares to resist their ‘progressive’ regime.  They are everything un-American bundled into one ugly package, unforgiving, anti-freedom, big government, collectivist (you do what ‘we’ demand or else) and do not believe in civil rights—starting with that of respecting property and persons.

As I travel in Asia there are Swastikas all the place.  If we judged their usage by our own narrow interpretation and understanding we would issue travel warnings to Jews.  But it is not the symbols or gestures that matter—it is the attitudes and actions behind them.  Musk wants taxpayers to keep more of the money they’ve earned.  While the left, along with their Democrat enablers, want to scare you away from choosing the best EV brand there is because they’re control freaks.

The left totally lacks empathy.  Sure, they claim it, like they claim everything else on the planet they didn’t earn with their own work.  It’s all about them, their Narcissistic small-minded worldview, that is why they can only ever project, accuse, self-deceive and destroy the success of others.  They’re an organism that thanklessly destroys their host and condones hate, theft, arson, and murder of anyone who does not lockstep with their cult agenda.

Musk’s “my heart goes out to you” gesture…

The problem isn’t only that the left has a clear double standard, it is that they think they’re the worthy judge when they’re clearly as biased as they come.  A little humility would go a long way for this lot.  At the very least they could let us be free from their grip to spend our own money and live our own lives—but then that would be too democratic for their tastes.

Oxygen Masks and Civilizational Math: Empathy’s Breaking Point

Standard

Anyone who has flown commercial knows the safety rundown before take-off.  You’re instructed on where to find lifejackets and how to put on the oxygen masks.  And one thing they emphasize is before taking care of anyone else, including children, they need to secure their own oxygen first.  This does not mean that a passenger shouldn’t care at all about anyone else.  What it means is that caring for ourselves first can make us more able to help others.

I came across a post of Facebook about the vandalism and terror campaign against Elon Musk’s Tesla brand.  In the comments I saw a left-wing activist justifying their violence by using a paraphrase of Musk, “empathy is a weakness.”  So I looked into the claim and found a quote of Musk during a Joe Rogan Experience podcast:

There’s a guy who posts on X who’s great, Gad Saad? … Yeah, he’s awesome, and he talks about, you know, basically suicidal empathy. Like, there’s so much empathy that you actually suicide yourself. So, we’ve got civilizational suicidal empathy going on. And it’s like, I believe in empathy, like, I think you should care about other people, but you need to have empathy for, for civilization as a whole, and not commit to a civilizational suicide. … The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy, the empathy exploit. They’re exploiting a bug in Western civilization, which is the empathy response.

I’m not sure where “empathy is a weakness” can be found there.  What it seems Musk is saying is to keep everything in balance and not go to self-destructive extremes.  I would call it rational pragmatism rather than use a weird sounding “suicidal empathy” and yet it is a poignant point.  We can understand and share the feelings of others (empathy) while not destroying civilization in the process.  It is sort of how I always listen to my son, but don’t always give him stuff that he wants—because the soda and sweets could lead to tooth decay and diabetes.

This is the Gad Saad quote referenced by Musk in the interview:

Imagine an entire civilization that is taken over by an emotional parasite called suicidal empathy that trumps every other instinct that is within your adaptive repertoire. You are willing to sacrifice everything at the Altar of Suicidal Empathy. Nothing is more important than that.

What he’s taking on is the ideologies that demand we recognize, accept and finance every kind of bizarre behavior.  Money being sent for transgender operas when we have crumbling infrastructure, for example, this is what suicidal empathy looks like.  Or letting a confused men destroy women’s sports—there is an opportunity cost to these special accomodations and, with limited resources, it means many will suffer for the whims of a few demanding empathy in the form of their own exemptions and privileges.

My son may want me to taking him fishing every day.  To him I have limitless time and resources.  He says it would only take me a few minutes to drive him across town to his favorite spot.  But what he doesn’t really get is how doing this is difficult given I can’t just leave baby at home and it also cuts into my time to do the chores he neglects.  To him it seems simple and he reacts with disgust as if he is entitled to transportation and a life of leisure at the expense of everyone else in the house—yet the adults know better.

Performative Empathy vs. True Compassion

Nobody at DOGE is saying we should beat or bully transgender people or forbid people from donating to foreign causes.  What they have advocated is for efficient and effective use of public funds.  Yes, it could be called “tough love” and yet it is really essentially to the thriving—even surviving—of the country that we don’t bleed resources for minimal or no real return.  Government is not a charity, it relies on coercion to attain funds, for that reason it should only be used for things the majority of people support.

Those burning Tesla supercharger stations, smashing out dealership windows, or even attacking vehicles owned by individuals not named Elon may claim to represent the side of empathy, but their’s is only performative empathy and part of their partisan political agenda that is all about maintaining their own power and control over others.  Those same people forcing mandates, in the name of climate change, have now spun a 180 to creating unnecessary pollution.  They never cared about the planet—it is always about their belief they have the right to rule us.

That is what toxic empathy is about.  It is a manipulation game, a virtue signal, and like the jealous boyfriend’s love.  Sure, they say they love, and yet would murder before they would ever let their significant other go their own way or be apart from them.  This is, of course, symptomatic of leftism.  They want complete control over your life and yet call a billionaire greedy for being allowed to keep the wealth they’ve amassed.  And that’s the real culprit here: Envy.  It’s not that those on the left care so much about people, it is that they are looking for a moral justification for their rage against successful people.

Leftist ’empathy’ strikes again.

Elon Musk is many things.  He’s extremely motivated.  A problem solver.  A billionaire.  A bit of an online troll.  A father of fourteen children.  Efficiency expert.  And also has Asberger’s syndrome.  It is that last item on the list that puts him at odds with normies who prefer lawyerspeak to bluntness.  Musk doesn’t coat anything in syrup, he analyzes, identifies the problem, and states it plainly rather than beat around the bush.  Contrast to the left, he puts logic and reasoning first—feelings second.

As an aside, CEOs and political leaders have a higher likelihood of being psychopaths.  It is what makes them good at their jobs.  You can’t make good decisions for a corporation or a country when you’re too zeroed in and obsessing over impacts to individuals.  That is going to lead to analysis paralysis and no necessary corrections being made.  Instead they think on the macro scale.  This is not to say they don’t care about the parts, but the good of the whole is what matters to them and they distribute concern according to the overall picture.  Sure it may seem cold and calculated—but serves the common good much better than empathy run amok.

As much as those on the left like to crow—as if their great empathy stretches across the globe—the reality is their typically very focused on their own feelings.

Their ’empathy’ is unsustainable.

Myopic.

Blind.

Christian compassion, in contrast, balances judgment and mercy. You do unto others as you want them to do to you, but also speak the truth in love—even when it gets you killed by an angry mob that doesn’t want to hear it. The tension or fusion of love and accountability keeps it grounded; it’s not a free-for-all where every whim gets a blank check. Unlike leftist empathy, which often bends toward appeasement or control, Christian compassion holds a line—help the widow and orphan, yes, but don’t burn down the house to warm them. It’s personal, not performative, and it doesn’t bankrupt the future for the sake of today’s applause.

Breathing Room for Civilization

In the end, the clash isn’t about empathy versus apathy—it’s about who gets to breathe first when the masks drop. Musk and Saad aren’t wrong to call out the self-inflicted wounds of suicidal empathy; they’re just pointing to the scoreboard: civilizations that forget their own oxygen don’t survive to help anyone. Leftist empathy, with its envy-fueled ‘virtue’ and reckless spending, dresses up as love but flirts with collapse—torching Teslas while preaching care, funding operas while bridges crumble. Christian compassion, for all its flaws, at least remembers the whole plane matters, not just the loudest sob story. We don’t need more performative tears or smashed windows—we need a hard reset on what keeps us aloft. Secure your mask, folks; the turbulence is just beginning.

Morality as a Fluid Mess: Conditioning, Conflict, and the Mirage of Universality

Standard

We cling to morality like it’s a lighthouse in the fog—steady, universal, guiding us home. But it’s a lie. It’s a battered flag, flapping in whatever wind our tribe’s blowing, stitched from the yarns we’re spun by family, faith, or flag. Raised Mennonite, I drank in peace and love for the outsider as if they were carved in my bones—until I saw they weren’t. Nature doesn’t whisper “thou shalt not kill”; it shrugs while we slit throats or swipe bread when the need hits. History’s littered with it: Biblical Israel butchered Canaanites—whole towns, babies dashed on rocks—‘cause God handed them the deed (Deuteronomy 7:1-2), and the faithful sang psalms over the ashes. 

Fast-forward to 2025: Israel pounds Gaza, kids buried in rubble, and the justification’s “security”—Hamas tunnels, rockets, survival. Insiders nod; it’s moral, necessary. Morality’s no fixed star—it’s a mirror, reflecting who we’re with and what we want.Look around today, and it’s the same mess. Russia rolls tanks into Ukraine, March 2025 still grinding on, flattening Mariupol redux—schools, hospitals, grandmas in the crosshairs. Putin’s line: “denazification,” protecting Russian speakers, historical destiny. His people buy it, or enough do—state TV’s been marinating them in it for years. The West screams “war crimes!”—sanctions pile up, Zelensky’s a saint on X—but that’s the outsider’s perch. Kyiv’s got its own blood on the slate: shelling Donbas for a decade, shrugging at Russian-speaking dead. Both sides sanctify their kills; morality bends to the banner. Or take the U.S.: Trump loyalists storm Capitol Hill in ‘21, “stolen election!” on their lips, while Biden’s crew locks ‘em up, crowing “democracy!” Same act—violence for a cause—flips from treason to justice depending on the lens. It’s not universal; it’s us-versus-them, conditioned to the core.

Look around today, and it’s the same mess. Russia rolls tanks into Ukraine, March 2025 still grinding on, flattening Mariupol redux—schools, hospitals, grandmas in the crosshairs. Putin’s line: “denazification,” protecting Russian speakers, historical destiny. His people buy it, or enough do—state TV’s been marinating them in it for years. The West screams “war crimes!”—sanctions pile up, Zelensky’s a saint on X—but that’s the outsider’s perch. Kyiv’s got its own blood on the slate: shelling Donbas for a decade, shrugging at Russian-speaking dead. Both sides sanctify their kills; morality bends to the banner. Or take the U.S.: Trump loyalists storm Capitol Hill in ‘21, “stolen election!” on their lips, while Biden’s crew locks ‘em up, crowing “democracy!” Same act—violence for a cause—flips from treason to justice depending on the lens. It’s not universal; it’s us-versus-them, conditioned to the core.

Objections bubble up like clockwork. The optimists—call ‘em Pinker’s crowd (2011)—say genocide’s revulsion proves we’ve got a moral spine, empathy baked in from caveman days. Hunter-gatherers shared meat, Confucius preached kindness—see, we’re wired for good! But that’s a half-truth, and a flimsy one. Those old tribes cared for their own; strangers got the club. Same with today’s wars: Ukraine’s defenders weep for Bucha’s mass graves but gloss over their own artillery sins. Israel’s critics howl at Gaza’s death toll—over 40,000 by late 2024, per UN counts—yet Hamas rockets barely dent their outrage. Why? Fundamental attribution error: outsiders slap “evil” on the doer—Russia’s a monster, Israel’s a bully—while ignoring the stew they’re boiling in: encirclement fears, decades of tit-for-tat bombs. Insiders don’t see villainy; they see survival, righteousness, their conditioning kicking in. Evolution’s no saint—it’ll cheer cooperation or carnage, whichever keeps the clan breathing.

Objections bubble up like clockwork. The optimists—call ‘em Pinker’s crowd (2011)—say genocide’s revulsion proves we’ve got a moral spine, empathy baked in from caveman days. Hunter-gatherers shared meat, Confucius preached kindness—see, we’re wired for good! But that’s a half-truth, and a flimsy one. Those old tribes cared for their own; strangers got the club. Same with today’s wars: Ukraine’s defenders weep for Bucha’s mass graves but gloss over their own artillery sins. Israel’s critics howl at Gaza’s death toll—over 40,000 by late 2024, per UN counts—yet Hamas rockets barely dent their outrage. Why? Fundamental attribution error: outsiders slap “evil” on the doer—Russia’s a monster, Israel’s a bully—while ignoring the stew they’re boiling in: encirclement fears, decades of tit-for-tat bombs. Insiders don’t see villainy; they see survival, righteousness, their conditioning kicking in. Evolution’s no saint—it’ll cheer cooperation or carnage, whichever keeps the clan breathing.

Zoom out, and the pattern’s stark. Morality’s a tool, not a truth—always has been. Libertarians’ll shoot to guard their patch, Marxists’ll guillotine for the proletariat, U.S. elites’ll drone-strike weddings to keep oil flowing—all cloaked in principle, all serving their pack. Russia’s “special operation” is Ukraine’s genocide; Israel’s “self-defense” is Palestine’s ethnic cleansing. The outsider’s gasp—those viral X posts of Kyiv’s ruins or Rafah’s craters—ain’t proof of a moral bedrock; it’s just a rival script, misreading situation as sin. We’re not debating ethics to polish some eternal gem; we’re wrestling over whose story rules. Take the Houthi strikes in Yemen, 2025 heating up: U.S. bombs “terrorists,” Saudis cheer, while aid workers tally starved kids—same act, split morals. Conditioning calls the shots.

The rebuttal’s got one last kick: if morality’s so fluid, why bother refining it? They say it’s progress, not just haggling—reason taming our beastly side. But that’s wishful polish on a cracked hull. Ukraine’s Zelensky begs for NATO jets, Israel’s Netanyahu quotes scripture for settlers, Trumpers and progressives sling “fascist” like mud—reason’s just a megaphone for the tribe. Authenticity’s the only anchor: own the bias, ditch the sanctimonious dance. Russia’s generals don’t lose sleep over Bucha; Israel’s brass don’t flinch at Gaza’s toll—they’ve got their why, and it’s enough. Outsiders clutch pearls—#WarCrimes trending—because they’re not in the fight. Morality’s a fluid mess, shifting with the players, not a lighthouse. Stop pretending it’s more.

Stepping back from the fray—whether it’s Putin’s moves in Ukraine or Hamas’s salvos from Gaza—offers an authenticity that sidesteps the knee-jerk noise and stares down our own fundamental attribution error. Take Putin: some tag him as a ruthless tyrant, others see a strategist pushing back—NATO’s ring of bases and war games from Poland to the Baltics isn’t exactly a welcome mat, but Russia’s leveling cities isn’t a handshake either. Hamas gets the same split: outsiders call them terrorists, yet in Gaza—two million penned in, scrappy and stubborn—they’re fighting a chokehold, though rockets don’t win halos. My Mennonite roots nudge me to judge NATO’s chest-thumping ‘values’ or Hamas’s bloodshed, but I’ve got my own baggage—my folks kept the world at arm’s length too, just with hymns, not guns. Seeing that, owning how my lens twists the view, points a pragmatic way forward: not crowning heroes or villains, but cutting through the sanctimony—NATO’s not spotless, Gazans aren’t pawns, and I’m no referee, just a guy sorting his own slant in the mess.