The Day the Neocons Cried

This is one of those moments when I’m relieved to not be on Facebook reading the overwrought conservative responses to Cruz backing out of the race. I’m sorry; Trump was always a better candidate than Cruz, and I’m not ashamed to say that. Poor Trump just can’t speak the party line right. He’s always saying something off-script because, if appearances are correct, he isn’t part of the establishment and therefore hasn’t been handed the script.

Take the abortion issue as an example. It was an issue he hadn’t spent much time thinking about, so when he was pushed for a response, he gave a natural cause and effect answer — the kind of honest answer that no republican will speak. If abortion is illegal, then there naturally has to be a punishment for people who violate the criminal code. Like a good politician, he recanted, but at least he pulled the cloak off the hidden truth for a while.

Other ways he’s off-script: We’ll look at the documents and find out the truth about 9-11! We’ll shut down the borders and not give in to the globalist agenda! We’ll give to Americans first!

LOL. Is Trump for real? He may not have known the abortion script, but surely he knows the script on the above talking points.

I don’t fully know what Trump is about; I don’t think any of us do. When Trump first jumped on the scene, I suspected him of being a shill to get Hillary elected, as it was clear he knew the Clintons at least casually. But then I began to wonder if he really does know the Clintons and is trying his darnedest to keep another one out, which he may not be able to do. Judging by Cruz’s clear lack of popularity, however, he clearly didn’t have a ghost of a chance, either.

Perhaps keeping Hillary out was never the point for Cruz conservatives. On a talk radio show, I heard some conservatives claim they would vote for Hillary to keep Trump out, which, in this climate, means they are for the establishment and not much else. And what is it they specifically don’t like about the Donald? I’m not sure. Elizabeth Warren — obviously not a neocon, but still an establishment player — calls him a racist. But, nah, that can’t be it. The term racist is hurled at people so willy-nilly it means nothing. It’s about like calling somebody a nincompoop.

True, there are a lot of people with ethics who believe he’s an immoral hypocrite. Okay. But at least he’s a known quantity. Everything’s out there for the world to see, and he’s unapologetic about it. Am I a Trump supporter? No. I never have been, as I’m far too circumspect to be (I’m also not a republican, so can’t vote in the primary). If I were going to vote at all in the final election, I’d vote for him in a heartbeat over Hillary, though.

Why? I don’t know if anything Trump says is real, but his talking points are anti-globalist and Hillary’s are not. That is a foundational issue because, honestly, pause to think this through: none — and I mean none — of this election hullabaloo means anything if we’re not a sovereign nation working together for our own good. All the other talking points, such as healthcare and income gap and equality, are only meaningful if we’re a nation of citizens working towards goals that matter to us.

Oh, and for the record — nationalism does not automatically equate to fascism. Almost every politician in recent times has been compared to Hitler, including Hillary; calling somebody less specifically a fascist is about as meaningful an insult as calling somebody a racist. It’s just yawn-inspiring. George Orwell pointed out how meaningless it was in the 1940s. For the record, Trump likens himself to FDR instead, which is a little worrisome, but whatever.

I probably won’t vote, anyway. Gasp! I might. Either way, I’m finding this election cycle to be more entertaining than the last cycle, and the idiocy slogan “Choice 2012.” Yeah, choice. Huh. It was like going to the grocery store and finding that all the yogurt brands are lowfat with the same ingredients list.


Weasels Will Weasel

In a departure from my political and/or philosophical posts of late, I’d like to know, did you hear about the weasel that shut down the Large Hadron Collider? It might have been a marten, actually. But the species of creature is not up for question because, you see, whatever type of mammal it was, it was charred to a crisp as it gave its life to stop the 7 billion dollar proton smasher…to stop the machine that was just about to…collect new data on the Higgs Boson particle.

You do know what the Higgs Boson particle is, don’t you? An ironic atheist called it the God Particle, because if anything, atheists are ironic. Really, it’s the particle that purportedly endows mass to other particles as they pass excitedly through. And it happens to be the nature of small mammals to be the guardians of particles.  Or so it seems. Mass is not an idea to trifle with. First it was the raccoons, and then the weasel and/or marten. And it’s not just mammals that join in; in the past, birds have done their part to shut down the smasher.

The Higgs Boson may not be the God Particle even in an ironic sense, but small creatures are God’s minions. Remember that the next time a rat chews through wires on your car. Or cockroaches control your console. Or your cat knocks the letters of her name from your keyboard in a brazen code, as my cat did once.


Questioning the Identity Narrative

In the species of mankind, there have historically existed two genders: male and female. The coming together of these genders furthers the human race. When these two genders refuse to come together or can’t due to circumstances such as large numbers of the male gender dying in warfare, the birthrate drops. In the Western “civilized” world, the birthrate has dropped below the replacement level in every country. Some countries have teetered dangerously close to the negative or zero rate. This opening premise is basic to demography, history, and science. It takes both the male and female to further the human race.

History also demonstrates that homosexuality exists within human populations; that is, men who are attracted to men and women who are attracted to women. This small portion of the population still exist as genders, i.e. it would be difficult to use the term “homosexuality” at all if the male and female homosexuals were not men and women respectively. The term would be meaningless.

Sociology and psychology inform us that men and women possess traits along a spectrum of what one would consider masculine or feminine, with the vast majority falling into the average of their genders. Most men are not Genghis Khan; most women aren’t Helen of Troy. Some women and men are, for whatever reason, outliers in the opposite direction and exhibit highly masculine or feminine traits respectively. However, these women and men are objectively still women and men due to human sexual dimorphism.

All of the above seems legit and logical. It used to be basic biological science. Not only did it used to be basic biological science, but it used to be instinctive knowledge. This instinctive knowledge operated on a subconscious plane, whereby men and women didn’t need to take a sex-ed class in order to understand that they were men and women; they just were. Some no doubt felt inadequate if they exhibited physical, mental, or personality traits that caused them to be perceived as unfeminine or unmasculine, but their feelings of inadequacy didn’t change material reality.

So why is it that modern man has just “discovered” that all of our basic instincts were wrong? How has gender become not only a fluid concept, with gender traits existing on a spectrum, but one in which if a woman feels masculine, she is suddenly a man? I’ve heard so-called transgender people claim that as children, they always felt like the opposite gender. But my question for transgender people is really quite basic: How do you know what it feels like to be the opposite gender? Honestly, how do you know from your own limited experience? If you are a woman who feels like a man, how do you know you aren’t simply exhibiting feelings of inadequacy because your vision of womanhood (this goes the other way, too) is fixed and rigid — more fixed and rigid than even the vision of religious folks, who still are willing to concede that a big hearty farm girl with a deep voice and the ability to bale hay all day is still a female? How do you reconcile your feelings with the fact that you have to undergo hormone therapy and surgeries in order to fully achieve what you identify as?

I’m focusing on womanhood mostly because I am a woman, and also because I recently came across this scientific study, which demonstrated that masculine traits in women have been increasing over the course of about forty years, while feminine traits in men have not increased to such a degree. I find this a curious phenomenon. Because of the basic biological construct that says there are really only two genders, the increasing masculinity of women can be viewed one of two ways: biologically, the human species is trying to stabilize its population by decreasing it; the masculinization of women has been manufactured.

I think if we’re honest, we know which has actually occurred and is still occurring. When it comes to insecurity in one’s gender, the feminist movement has heightened this effect; so has Madison Ave, of course. Cosmo and Seventeen magazine were the epitome of this unholy fusion when I was young, and I read the Seventeen garbage for years. Owing to that and many other societal factors, I used to be fairly insecure in my gender. Thankfully, I’m stubborn (not always a good trait, but comes in handy sometimes), and chose not to resist my own biological instincts that told me I was feminine regardless of my (perceived) undesirable physique, that informed me I wanted children so desperately that I needed to discard my birth control pills early in my marriage — birth control pills that were supposed to “regulate” my horribly feminine and fertile cycle, ironically.

I would not go so far as to project my experience of femininity on other women; my point is quite simple and more honest than that. I learned to recognize the way I was being manipulated and have slowly, slowly killed off the worms implanted in my brain over the years. Now I’m at an age where I could become a grandmother, and as a grandmother figure, I’m here to urge young women to be a little more circumspect so that they can recognize how they are being manipulated by marketing forces that are bent on destroying who they are at core. They want you to be dissatisfied; that way you buy into their system of mental illness and all the products they are selling you to alleviate the mental illness. They are like the succubus of ancient lore, seducing you to bad health and soul death.


The Tyranny of Democracy

Yes, we tyrannize the world with it, as well as ourselves. I’ve long been skeptical of democracy simply owing to my nature of being a social outcast. Social outcasts won’t ever forget their indelible childhood experiences, even if those experiences form a tainted reference of the world. An average social outcast knows he’s impotent to fight the majority thought. A smart social outcast recognizes that a system can be implemented to change majority thought — public education, for example. A manipulative and brilliant person, not always or usually a social outcast, can be very effective at changing group thought, but he often uses the system in place to his advantage.

Manipulating group thought, however, smacks of nefarious intentions. Not that massive propaganda campaigns are always bad, of course. Look around: nobody smokes (in public anyway), people gag down their whole grains (shudder), they use designated drivers (now there’s no stigma to drunkenness!), the youth engage in joyfully safe sex (regular use of antibiotics=safe sex…right?), and everybody can do anything that they wanna do (wait, that was the Blue’s Clues theme song, but it just came up unbidden as though it was lurking in my subconscious…).

All that being said, I have not spent too much time considering whether our political system of democracy, albeit not a pure democracy, is a legitimate state. At this point, we are still operating under one in the United States. Many people still proudly head to the polls and pat themselves on the back for doing their duty. Some people still believe in the ideal. I don’t completely disregard a democracy as a political system. However, I’ve long been troubled by the notion that democracy is legitimate inside the corridors of a church. And this comment by friend Jay DiNitto reminded me. In answer to my query about what he considers a legitimate state to be, he says:

“But if I could decide for me and my domain (i.e., my household), I’d probably choose to live under a contractual/covenantal feudal religious rule…no, not a theocracy, which nowadays means religious rule combined with a lot of other things I don’t care for. Think of pre-exile Israel, where families were the rule of law, and some things cascaded down from the priestly class. In the modern sense of the ‘church age,’ the priestly class would be whichever church we’d happen to be a member of. Something like that. Churches would have to be a lot different than they are now to accommodate this, so I wouldn’t think something like this could be airdropped in the middle of America or anywhere else to make it work.

Now, he might be unhappy with me for highlighting thoughts he is working through that haven’t been finessed into cohesion, but I’ve highlighted the portion that I find relevant to this post. Indeed, it’s one thing to imagine living under a different political state, and it’s another thing entirely to believe that this can happen without an enormous measure of change. We have been trained to believe that democracy is not simply the right way, but the only way to govern. This is why we can sell the “planting of democracy in wayward, non-conformist countries” to a hapless American public lost in group thought. To be fair, it’s becoming more difficult to sell this ideology to an American public, but that is because of competing ideas of group think, such as the unjustified nature of aggressive warfare. Despite the distaste for war that many have, the American public is still strapped to the oak of democracy, whose tentacles have crept into the doors of the church.

I’m not going to parse my words. The idea of consent of authority is a sham. If a man is consenting to authority, he is merely attempting to usurp authority. If an authority figure can be deposed the minute a democracy of men determines that they will no longer consent to him, then the democracy of men has set itself up as the authority. A true authority figure cannot be voted out. And yet this is what happens in churches all across America. They vote their pastors in; they vote their pastors out. They vote bylaws in; they vote bylaws out. They vote on mission work and budgets. And on curtains and carpets and building plans and…

In a telling example of tyrannical church democracy, a pastor in a church I used to attend determined that we were going to make a decision by drawing lots. We’re going to put this decision in the hands of God, he said. It was a relatively small decision in the scheme of things, but it was one that impacted very real people. The church could not abide this. They had to vote. They would accept no other way. They overruled the pastor and made their choice by majority vote, after a fair amount of discussion as to what was the most logical approach, which was the only way they felt comfortable. The other way — I don’t know what to call it, faith? — scared them. It smacked of — dare I say it? — superstition.

In the modern American conception of church, men need not accept the authority of the pastor; they need not accept the authority of God. The will of man is paramount. There is an irony lurking here, though. The concept of consent is truly a sham when it comes to God. God, by his very nature, is implicitly in charge. He doesn’t need our consent in order to rule. Man has two choices when it comes to God: he can either choose to be obedient to his authority or he can choose not to. Either way, God’s authority has not and never will be voted out.


Why I No Longer Call Myself a Classical Liberal

This post has been coming for a long time. That is, I’ve been thinking about it for a long time and mulling over writing a post. However, I’m not entirely resolved about the issue — but then, that’s never stopped me from writing a post in the past. What ultimately inspired me was a dream I had last night, as well as someone who introduced me to this blog. I won’t bore you with all the dream details, but in the middle scene (dreams usually come in three parts), I was walking through a mall that sold expensive, traditional Christmas ornaments and doll houses and accessories. They were having a show for the wealthy and elite, and the proprietors snubbed me and told me to leave because I hadn’t been invited. I left, and as I walked through the other shops on the street, I saw a woman in 18th C garb. I complimented her on her costume and asked her where she was going. I’m going to cause trouble and clear all the people out of the mall, she said. I thought this very amusing (as they had snubbed me) and followed her. From the back, her costume was that of an 18th C man in breeches, waistcoat, and buckled shoes. She did as she’d said; the customers cleared out. The proprietors didn’t look surprised, merely unhappy. My amusement faded, and I wondered what the point had been. I couldn’t ask the woman, as she’d already scarpered. I left with the disappointment of having witnessed yet another meaningless war.

I have long called myself a classical liberal, or even a libertarian. In my perspective, Marxism was the evil that had in the 19th C subsumed classical liberal ideals, albeit originally calling itself “social liberalism.” Social liberalism was merely a softer form of Marxism. But as somebody who had been a student of the Enlightenment, had at times obsessively studied the history as well as the salient works written between 1666 an 1830, I had a niggling doubt about my worldview. That niggling doubt essentially came down to this: classical liberalism and social liberalism — Marxism even — all sprang from Enlightenment thinking. They were springs from the same river. There was no way in which I could be a scholar of this time period and deny that. All of these philosophies come down to the common core of the right of mankind to do what he chooses rather than be regulated by a tyrannical authority. And so the revolutions began.

But, you might protest, some of these revolutions were moral. You could make that argument. But what these vying rights-based philosophies come down to is what we see around us today. One person cries out because his rights are being denied to him due to somebody else’s rights trumping his. It’s all about rights, rights, rights. Even the libertarians who believe in the concept of negative rather than positive rights still use rights as their political starting point. Or, to put it another way, it is their ad hoc of existence.

This is, of course, inherently problematic. The ire caused by rights-denial can be over little things. For example, I was upset when I couldn’t earn a scholarship in college through hard work and a 4.17 GPA because the scholarships prioritized people of color. While I’m smart enough to understand that I don’t have the right to any scholarship at any point for any reason, the worm of false injustice (that is, my individualism being trampled on), informed me that I should be angry. That is a small example. A much larger one is the exclusive female right to abort her offspring, which trumps the male right to his own offspring. By comparison to a scholarship or a college education, which would be classed under “positive rights” and is meaningless in the long run, the right to raise one’s own offspring is so fundamental to humanity that denying this right to men will ultimately destroy society.

And that is how I envision a rights-based society ending — self-destruction. This is such a foundational shift for me that I don’t know what I believe politically. Before I shut down my Facebook account a while back, I was so tired of the political memes that I wrote a snarky post about how we should return to feudalism. A return to feudalism would not eradicate human greed and envy, but it would certainly curb the use of greed and envy to get a rights-based populace frothing at the mouth to vote for me, the person who will give you the rights you prefer. Or as Summer promised in Napolean Dynamite, she would put Bonnie Bell lipgloss dispensers in all the bathrooms (appealing to female rights), and nobody would have to eat chimini-changas (not appealing to Mexican and/or masculine rights). She didn’t win because Napolean did a better dance, which is in itself telling. Who came to power during the French Revolution and its declaration for the rights of man to reject religion, to divorce one’s spouse, etc.? Napolean. A great military leader who brought liberal reforms by force to much of Europe. But what do you know? Feudalism is now gone. We should be rejoicing, and yet we can’t because some of us are still lacking the things we want given to us in the way we want them, lipgloss for example. I like lipgloss, and in any case, chapped lips are a medical condition, and I have the right to free medicine….