All of a sudden, More Liberals celebrate America.

Behold! More Liberals than usual are expressing their public fondness for America. In years past, we were never without the constant reminder of America’s past transgressions (and so it’s ugliness) by our Liberal brothers and sisters. Of course, this was always passed off as a means to temper the excessive and misplaced pride of Conservatives who allegedly delude themselves (and some do, make no mistake) about the awesome nation that is America. But, as I suspect, it was always more of a hidden disdain for the traditions (now almost non-existent) that characterized America. Veterans loved to fight for these values and citizens loved to thank them for it.

But now that’s changing…

More Liberals than ever are suddenly posting numerous photos with flags on social media, their unwavering love for America, and express their gratitude for veterans. Basically, Liberals love what America now stands for: a land where the individual and their personal expression of self is venerated as something sacred. With homosexuality given equal standing as traditional marriage, the welcoming of Bruce Jenner as female, lax immigration policies, declining national identity and a rise in white hatred, there’s much for Liberals to celebrate this Fourth of July. It reinforces the idea that Liberals only love and celebrate something if and only if it conforms – or begins to conform – to their collective will.

Happy Fourth of July.

You Cannot Love Your Own People and Be Multicultural

Here’s a question to think about: 

Is it possible to appreciate and love your culture and be multicultural at the same time?

I for one think it is utterly impossible to adhere to both. My culture factors into my identity and personality (as do many other things, like genetics and nurturing by my parents when I was younger for example). As such, it separates me in specific ways from those not parented by the same cultural standards. Culture therefore has a natural way of dividing people, at least in a particular way.

Multiculturalism assumes that the standards born out of culture are not only relative but also arbitrary. A history of each society, how it has evolved, according to those who have ascended to power, have determined these arbitrary standards which are neither true or false. Nobody has the “Truth”. We all have different yet equally valuable ways of encountering reality. Blending those interpretations, ideas, customs and “truths”, etc. will only enrich our human experience, so the story goes according to a Multiculturalist.

Multiculturalism is then asking you to accept that your culture and civilization is no better than anyone else’s. It says you can love all cultures the same. While this seems noble and respectable, especially in a civilization that has been told time and again that by having a sense of pride in one’s history, in their culture and customs, even their identity is wrong, it is anything but respectable. One can only have a sense of pride and appreciation of a standard in their life if it sets them apart from others in such a way that puts them closer to an ideal. The only thing that can do this is truth. It is never respectable to neutralize your cultural standard because it is never respectable to deny truth – or even imply that your cultural standards are not true or even aligned with such a thing.  People are proud of their cultures because people naturally believe – even if they are wrong or until proven wrong – that their culture and cultural practices isn’t lacking truth.

The only people who are happy to accept multiculturalism are Westerners, especially white people. But we must stop this destructive behavior and this experiment should be closed off, locked away, and sunk to the deepest depths and darkest hole. You simply cannot love your culture, your people, your way of life and invite an agenda that asks you to think ever less of those things. If some social ideology came about that prompted you to love your family less so you could love non-family more and more, you would naturally be suspicious – but when Multiculturalism and “diversity” implicitly ask you to love your people and heritage less and less in order to love those who are not of it more and more (even at the expense of your people and heritage) people are more than happy and to do it.

Rather than a respectable and loving thing, multiculturalism is anti-culture, anti-human and a kind of hatred. It is a kind of hatred because it exclusively focuses on the unsatisfactory things of a culture (mainly white cultures) until the people are so disgusted with it they are willing to invite every other cultural way in as kind of redemption and enriching feature. This can only point to one thing: a sense of pride and personal respect within a people is dried up and evaporated. This cannot be a source of love – a proper love of self or a love of the many things that make you YOU (true diversity)

The Tyranny of Diversity

Culture, by its very nature, discriminates. It sets a people who give it a life apart from those not embraced by it. A culture, like a nation, always shares a unique history and relationship with a very particular group of people. White Europeans are responsible for the high culture of Western Civilization. Their work in science and medicine, technology and engineering, political and economic policies have been so pragmatically important that foreigners literally risk their lives in order to benefit from these rewards. But the problem of immigration – or more properly legislated foreign colonization – is quite clear today: foreigners are not willing to renounce their heritage and history, their culture or their ethnic, racial and national affiliations. Many of them are keen on the advantageous position they are in due in large part to Multiculturalism and diversity, for the vast majority of foreigners exploit white people, who are conditioned by the agendas of diversity and inclusivity to welcome, tolerate, give and support those who are not white as a sign of good faith and moral character (and if you do not support non-whites, then you simply lack these traits and are branded a “racist” and “bigot”). In order for Liberal egalitarianism and multicultural agendas to succeed, the barriers of a culture, which is a unique element for any people, must be broken down in order for absolute inclusivity of all people. While this is now often promoted as something good and enriching – even enlightening – liberal egalitarianism and multiculturalism is an anti cultural movement and anti human. Anything that seeks to subtley destroy a fundamental element of human identity and personality cannot be good for human beings in that regard, or at least it cannot be good for a particular group of humans. A movement that subverts the very culture of a people cannot, at the same time, be a benefit to that culture. A culture distinguishes a group of people from another group of people, so it’s an element of identity and personality. The attractiveness and beneficial nature of Western Civilization has brought all kinds of people here in search of “something better”. This presupposes the fact that Western Civilization is a higher and more superior culture than the rest. There is no other reason for mass migration from the Third World except that Western Culture is “something better”. But a culture is not some disembodied entity that informs a people, rather a people create and inform a cultural standard. Thus, culture reflects the characteristics of ethnicity and race. We cannot blame the culture for creating people, we must blame the people for creating the culture. Only they can change the culture and indeed it is their responsibility to do so  (and any time another people tries to change a culture not their own, there is the feeling of a threat). This is clearly seen in more Conservatively Liberal policies where changing the culture of blacks will inevitable lead to changed black people. But this has backfired and made blacks more isolated and more threatened as a group. The reason is simple: Those outside a group that seek to change the cultural standards of a people will generate anxiety and a feeling of threat within that people (and following this are tensions between those groups). But the same is happening to white people and white, Western Civilization on a whole. Europe, America and Canada are bleeding. Multiculturalism and diversity are a weaponized means to conquer Western civilization. For as long as Western Civilization is herald as “something better” there must necessarily be something worse, i.e. the Third world. The conditions that make the Western world great must be shattered in order to break down those last discriminating features which exclude non-westerners. Thus, multiculturalism and diversity ask us to appreciate the differences of other groups as an equal yet different avenue of human expression. But it is these very differences of other, non Western groups that have made non-Westerners “something less” and in search of “something better”. So, asking us to appreciate those cultural differences as adding to our culture is a ridiculous request! By asking us to view our cultural standards, our traditions, our religious history as something equal to other cultures and histories amounts to us no longer favoring and revering our way of life as something unique. These requests are the requests of “outsiders” and they are intended to obliterate any responsibility of the foreigner and the minority to adapt and therefore appreciate 1) Western society and 2) the fact that their cultural standards were not capable in providing them with a happy life. The “outsider” makes these requests in order to easily transit from their society to ours and thereby absorb resourses necessary for their success without identifying as one of us (and without admitting the failures of his own culture). This is precisely what the vast majority of Hispanics do by coming here, bleeding our social services, exploiting the economy and then sending that money back to their motherlands. When a culture is bastardized and perverted, the people related to it are overthrown in their own countries, they’re polluted from without by ideas and theories which have proven historically harmful for other people and nations, and they are asked never under any circumstances to question the differences of others, even if they are a swelling infection

For this reason, liberal egalitarianism and multiculturalism is the strong arm and tyranny of the minority, which seeks to supplant the majority, it’s history and rewards, dismantling their identity in order to take what is not rightfully theirs from another people. It lessens the quality and pride of a people for the sake of the outsider who, more often than not, hates Westerners but has no problem taking our benefits. When the pride of a people has diminished enough, they will stand idly by and watch as others loot and riot, their economy bled dry, and as their race is interbred to the point of extinction but many of them will continue to say “This is all a good thing”.

When you hear “Diversity” or “multicultural” they should be reflags symbolizing the tyranny and intended destruction of Western civilization.

A Troubled Heart

Anthony Stokes, a “troubled” teen from Georgia, pleaded for help with his medical condition. He vowed to change his delinquent behavior if given a second chance. Stokes asked doctors for a heart donation but was quickly denied. His “troubled life”  along with negligent behavior (Stokes didn’t take his medication for his medical condition) was the basis of that denial, but civil rights groups saw it as an act of discrimination and racism. With their help, Stokes ascertained a new heart. Shortly after, he returned to the “thug life” and died after attempted robbery followed by a police chase.

How many young children and truly deserving people now suffer because their chances at a donation are further diminished by another act of injustice brought to you in part by “Civil Rights”? Only in a world twisted by racial confusion could we convince ourselves that Stokes deserved priority in this instance.

Why is it that every black criminal is “troubled”? When a young black person is arrested (or killed) for their behavior, the media usually characterizes them as “troubled”. But troubled can mean two things: in one instance, it alludes to or implies a kind of victimization; a subjection to the cruel hand of fate. Whatever the case, the person is trapped by extraneous circumstances beyond his control. This leads to despair, despondency, and existential crisis. In this sense, the Biblical Job was “troubled”. In another sense, we become our own downfall (whether by our own propensities and inclinations, or by habits and traits, or by our flawed deliberations and choices) and so the very cause of our trouble – and what is affected by it – is simultaneously our self. For whatever reason, we cannot see this and eventually we meet our end. In this sense, Macbeth was “troubled”.

But all too often the media invites us to see young, black men immersed in criminal behavior as Biblical Jobs – caught up in some cosmic wager; a victim of circumstance (only this time the devil is white and his torture device is ‘institutional racism’). We’re never invited to see them as a Macbeth; they’re never defeated by their own hubris, because they’re “troubled”.

Story…

Urbanism and the Broken Spirit of Man

During the day, I hurriedly finish tasks so I can free up time for something else only to find myself rushing through that. I feel rushed. I notice this phenomena all around me. It permeates through everything.

As I drive from work to my house, I notice how hurried I am. I cannot get out of my car fast enough; I cannot get to my destination fast enough. I feel more aggressive in my car and traffic only worsens these feelings. When I do reach my destination, I feel drained from the experience. I need to defuse. I sense that others deal with this far worse than I do myself. A few days ago a couple of Hispanic men ran me off the road and as they passed by they proceeded to smile at me (while flashing money at me for some reason). Not a day goes by that I am not honked at for not moving immediately once the light turns green. Even if I cannot, I am still honked at forcefully. I may get a derogatory sign, like the finger, because I am not going the satisfactory speed of those behind me. Usually, I would think “Tough luck, pal” but as people are getting shot and attacked for not submitting to others on the road (Here and Here) it’s best to be accommodating and move out of the way. But this leaves me sad and slighted; I want to defend myself and confront these people lest my dignity evaporate. People will say “Yes, but you must pick and choose your battles.” In a world descending into madness, a person no longer has this option. Letting others do as they please lest they burst into spontaneous rage and kill you seems like the only sensible thing to do; however, it leaves one always questioning whether they have any courage. That can hurt, especially if you’re a man.

Inside the city, I feel like I am wasting everyone’s time and yet I feel like everyone is wasting mine simultaneously. I often laugh as I pass through traffic, looking to my left and looking to my right, seeing people scrolling through Facebook (and whatever other application they might be using). I honk at them, because “this isn’t the place to be using social media”. But then as I am sitting at a light, I notice that I too am engaging the use of applications on my phone (and I become disgruntled as others disrupt me with their horn). It’s clear we cannot endure a measly minuet at a red light anymore. A minuet sitting with our self inside a car is like torture. We need a distraction.

Urban life leaves you exhausted, disoriented at times, and anxious; you’re more tense than relaxed, rushed,  fearful, and often feel insignificant. I don’t say that this is applicable to everyone, because there are surely people who pretend to enjoy this (or at the very least, people who would never admit to feeling like that in the city and suppress these feelings). Horns blow, trains abruptly stop you (or wake you at night); gun shots and sirens, smog and exhaust, and always more waiting. There’s neon lights, billboards and skyscrapers to dizzy the senses. Our senses are bombarded with anything and everything. Our malaise is grounded in this sense stimulation. We need a remedy…and we know it.

Urbanism (this lifestyle of excess, efficiency, progress, and prioritization of pragmatic affairs, like status and work) is analogical to drug addiction. The drug addict often knows that the drug is the source of his suffering, yet he fully believes it is the only the thing that can relieve him of that suffering. In a similar way, the urbanite probably understands on some basic level that the city brings much internal discord and strife. Yet it some how, like a drug, it becomes the only think that can remedy the agitation. Urban environment intends on cheapening genuine rest and replaces it with a kind of perversion. No matter what city you find yourself in, you are never in short amounts of strip clubs, bars, smoke lounges, fast food restaurants, move theaters and arcades, casinos and resorts, etc. These are brief, superficial forms of non-work, non-efficiency, non-progressive outlets for a person. Let us call this respite. Respite is, by its very nature, short lived and it leaves us wanting more. But ultimately it never truly satisfies or fulfills us either. This sets up the diabolical duality of Urbanism. We’re often given brief periods of pseudo-rest (or “breaks”), which in turn, being short lived and nice, leave us wanting more of it. They’re never fulfilling, because a break doesn’t offer us the time for genuine rest. In a way, we get a glimpse of it but never really experience it. We return to work. This conditions us as a kind of proverbial beast of burden always chasing after the elusive prize. If we want that break, we must work hard for it. But because the break, by nature, a respite, is short lived and brief, it doesn’t fulfill us. Because our activities while breaking don’t actually satisfy, we’re not fulfilled. It’s frustrating. We want more break! (But we have to go back to work to get it so we think). This is evidenced by the fact that people get bored very quickly while on their break from work, whether it be during the day or their weekend (sometimes even during vacation). Sometimes we feel like our break is a complete waste because it doesn’t fulfill us as we had hoped or envisioned it would. So, we start this process over again. What is peripherally happening is work becomes fundamentally necessary for human beings; it make us chase after cheap, perverted rest only to then realize we’re not really fulfilled and find ourselves going back to work to alleviate the boredom engendered by this superficial humdrum we call “rest”. Work is designed this way, because it cannot be presented as some end in itself; it’s an absolute, satisfying good. Nobody would accept that (we all know work is toilsome and burdensome). It removes us from the finer and more valuable things of life. If one can diminish rest (and the forms of rest) as something cheap and ultimately meaningless, work seems like the best thing to do with our time. While work has a valuable place in a man’s life, it does not deserve the priority and importance it now receives.

Urbanism is a paradox. It functions both as sanctuary and desecrator. Inwardly, our spirit is reduced to a vicious cycle (and therefore a trap). One cannot ever count on or achieve peace, which is the very ingredient of genuine rest, with a life dictated by such a diabolical structure.

In truth, that is what urbanism does to a man. It breaks him down into a perpetual oscillating state of restlessness (and restless man is always conditioned to keep moving and doing). Nothing is ever genuinely restorative or restful (not work and not the current/popular forms of rest provided to man). Without proper rest, they have no time for peace and he cannot transcend the economic, working, industrial world. They have no idea of themselves, no understanding of their  emotional states, their intellectual or psychological states or their spiritual state because they lack the introspection to put words to this. All they knows is that they are agitated inside. But they cannot heal because they have no time for silence and quiet. They are petrified by eternity and by Paradise, the stillness of this, believing these as fanciful myths but, by their nature, contrary to “how life is” (and life is about work of course). These are the same people who reduce vacation to a kind of unreality. “Back to reality” people often say when their vacation is over, as if a time set apart for family, for leisure, for relaxation, is surreal (the only real thing being the “work a day world”). They have no relationship with the land (and what I mean here is the joy of a cool breeze, the rustling of the leaves, and the smell and texture of freshly cut grass; they fear the silence and very structure of the country side, the trees, and the vast natural skyline uncluttered by buildings). They are repulsed and nauseated by the “laziness” of rural, un-urbanized people. They are embarrassed by what these people call common sense and intuition (and truths grounded in these); he is happy to reduce this to unscientific and simple thinking. He laughs at tradition as myth. They scoff at their love of heritage as bigotry and racism. Unwittingly, they are revolting against a life consistent with and complimentary to the development of familial and spiritual living. But if you told any of them this, if you told him they were drowning in their industrial, urban complexity, would they possess the aptitude to believe you?

A Paradox of Modern Life

A paradox of a techno-immersed, consumerist age heavily influenced by that modern liberal principle of autonomy:

Take the phrase “I don’t care what other people think” or “I don’t care what [insert name] said or thinks.”

People say this all the time. It’s quite the cliche now; in fact, I think it is so much a cliche now that whenever people hear this, barring exceptional cases when people truly do not care, we immediately assume people are simply trying to convince themselves they do not care, not us. Personally, for the most part, I never truly believe anyone when they say this. Neither do many others when they are subjected to other people uttering this phrase. Whatever else this phrase is meant to symbolize, it mostly functions as a way to convince ourselves (and others) that we have transcended an interconnected community. What others think do not matter (in fact, I would say in a world now obsessed with personal autonomy the thoughts and sentiments of others about my self cannot matter if I am to be truly free). It is no surprise to me that many people say “I don’t care what you think” or “I don’t care what others think” when they go on making their personal choices. It is their choice after all – and not yours – so caring about what you or anyone else thinks is disruptive to their so-called freedom. This phrase is meant to show others that this person, who supposedly doesn’t care, is beyond the influence of other people. They live their life exactly as they please and wish apart from any concern or worry about others – a truly modern Liberal Übermensch.

But could anything be further from the truth? Sure, people like to pretend this is what they actually believe but I have serious reservations about this (and I always have). A world so immersed and controlled by technology suggests otherwise. People who spend inordinate amounts of time on social media, fishing for “likes” as a form of affirmation, posting pictures of their life and possessions; tweeting their aphorisms, their vacation spot; snapping their participation at the biggest and best party, or their meeting a celebrity typically do these things because they want others to think and feel a particular way about their life. Our buying the most up-to-date version of a phone, or buying the newest and most progressive form of technology, like an Ipad or Mac computer, is also another way of symbolizing our status, which amounts to a whole lot in our culture. But status only means anything if others recognize and affirm it. In a word, consumerism has driven many of us into an obsession of what others think about us. Consumerism, as it has been said by other writers, convinces us to care more for quantity rather than quality. For example, people usually care about how many friends they have rather than the kind of friendships they have (again the quantifying of “friends” and “followers”  on social media only goes to support this).

This isn’t complex or complicated. It’s just  a paradox of a technologically immersed, consumerist world also heavily influenced by that modern Liberal principle of personal autonomy. You are not beyond the thoughts and feelings that others have about your life choices (which the phrase “I don’t care what you think” suggests), if almost everything about modern industrial and technological life seems to suggest you do in fact care what others think about you .

Virtue now Diseased

The current state of virtue and vice seems now peculiar and perverse. What was once considered virtue now functions as a sort of vice (or a weakness, if you prefer) while the old vices themselves are lauded as something virtuous. This is in large part due to a shift in the ultimate aim of human action. Gone are the days of describing those attributes that enable or disable our happy disposition as “virtue” and “vice”. The words themselves have even been replaced (now called “strengths” and “weaknesses”).  For one small payment of $19.99,  you can take a test to determine your strengths and weakness. Don’t pass that bargain up! Oh the many accomplishments you will have with this knowledge.

Happiness has traditionally been described as man’s end; however, in a consumerist world, success has taken it’s place. They’re not meaningfully different for most people. Today one is not happy if they are not successful; likewise, one is not successful if they are not happy so we are often told (therefore, buy “x”, “y” and “z” and you shall be). I have always found the word “success” vague and broad. Apart from the fact that many people use the word differently (intrinsically valuable things like friendship and love may be a symbol of success for some, whereas extrinsically valuable things such as money and cars may be a symbol of success for another), nobody every tells you what success in fact is; they just tell you if you don’t pay inordinate amounts of money to corrupt bureaucrats at the local University and acquire a degree you will never be successful (and therefore you will be a “loser”. So, buy “x”, “y’ and “z” and you won’t be a loser anymore). But how do you ascertain that “stuff” that won’t make you a loser anymore? Well, duh! You get a job that will pay boat loads of cash.

Now you’re ready to achieve the good life: Long hours working to pay back more money than you initially borrowed, nights fighting with your loved ones over hours spent at the office instead of with them, or not having “enough money” to do this or that (all while rationalizing this ambition and work-obsession under the term “success”). You will have probably betrayed a few “friends” along the way, stepped on a few heads, and sacrificed your integrity (nothing booze, pills and a therapist won’t fix). But, hey, you’re a successful guy now and at your reunion you’ll be the life of the party while everyone says “Wow, look at you Mr. Bigshot!”.

The dynamic of virtue and vice with human completion has not changed, although the meaning of virtue and vice (along with what we think completes us) has no doubt changed. Everyone, either consciously or not, understands with some degree that some attributes, powers, habits or – if you prefer – strengths are necessary in order to reach some end-state where we have achieved some modicum of perfection. Everyone wants to be better than they were yesterday. While traditionally being better than yesterday was an inward venture (a matter of character and spirit), it now begins with the outward and extrinsic. “Stuff”, many of us believe, has the power to heal, satiate, and specify worth and dignity (and so our character). I imagine we look at “successful people” in a very similar way that the ancients idolized and looked at the virtuous heroes of the past. But let’s also not pretend there is something better or more noble in saying that a person with many friends, a strong family, passion and love, honor and respect should be the standard of success.

We often think that by calling these people successful, we have some how excluded them from any different materially obsessive lifestyle. But are they, at bottom, any different? They still look at their friends and strong family bonds, their love and passion for life, their faith and whatever else we might call a more “noble success” as something they own. To them, these things are like products. Saying they’re successful for having these things is like saying they have some better version of these things as opposed to the kinds of things so-called materialistic people have. At bottom, both kinds of people are materialistic, because both treat these things as objects for personal use and gain alone. While the materialistic person is open about his superficiality, the person of “noble success”, as I am calling it here, hides behind this façade that he is some how different than those “materialistic assholes”. The truth is, in our consumerist world, even truly non-material things, like faith and home, are reduced to something we own, possess, and exploit as symbols of success (and so we think of as happiness).

This of course only cheapens these good things, since we refuse to look at them for their true worth. Of course they are much more than “items” or “objects” that we own but we now sort of need to see them like this, because possessing things is now some how directly correlated to happiness. It’s what we have in our life that symbolizes we are in fact happy people. This might explain the popularity of social media, like Facebook and Snapchap because they provide us with the means to constantly demonstrate – real or not – the many wonderful things we have. It can be a relationship or maybe just a pumpkin spice latte from Starbucks (but by God you are going to know I have these things in my life). And so relationships, like lattes, become entirely something I have, that I own, that I possess, and drink up for my satisfaction rather than (and more importantly) something I am apart of with another. Rather than cherishing and nurturing it, we wish to consume our relationships and exploit it, like any product, until there is nothing left to be had of it just so long as we are affirmed in our having the stuff that determines and specifies we are exactly who and what we need to be. Afterwards, we will just find another one. It’s no surprise why relationships are so superficial today – they’re just like any other product we use for a time (and like all products there will always be something better and more appealing sooner rather than later).

The virtue-happiness relationship of old is different from the virtue-happiness relationship of today, or more properly the strengths-success model. As it was, happiness entailed having real goods necessary for the realization of it. Thus, happiness is only achievable through these goods. Instead virtue has now become the more modern concept of “strengths” (vice now “weakness”), and these strengths receive their value if and only if success is realized in an individuals life. Thus, success is not achievable through supposed strengths; in truth, there is no absolute reality of strengths, which is why it is so popular to discover your personal strengths. But one only discovers their strengths by supposedly achieving certain successes in their life. So one might say they have the strength of “drive” because they never think about anything else but having what it is they want. Another way of describing this so-called strength is “goal oriented”, while common sensible people just see it for what it truly is: obsession and destructive ambition. You see, we no longer live in a world where virtues are applicable to a human nature found in every human being. This “drive” may be a strength for some, but a weakness for others (and only by achieving success can we and will we know whether this or that is a strength or weakness). More concisely put, if you have everything you want then look to those things that helped you ascertain them and you will see your strengths. Did you betray friends, lie to people, partake in opportunistic behavior? That’s okay! You can call that “adaptability”. Did you never spare a cent for anyone, always motivated by an ever evolving need for more? Call this being “frugal”. Do you always do what you want, never listen to anyone but yourself, and see yourself as the best possible manifestation of humanity? You can call this “Confidence”. And for just $19.99, you too can learn your strengths (through a test, created by “professionals” and “Doctors” of Psychology; or, more accurately put, by people who, through their “strengths”, take advantage of you and your wallet for their success).

Virtue is now diseased, like the spirit of man, because it’s value and worth is also wholly specified and determined by the products we own. So, what was once thought to be a virtue, like honesty, can now possibly be a weakness (if it prevents you from having what you want and being who you wish to be). What was once vice, like selfish ambition, can now be a strength (if it helps you achieve what you want and be who you wish). A virtue or vice – now more properly understood as a “strength” or “weakness” – is only understood to be such if they bring us to or prevent us from having what we want.  Success – and so the things we possess and own – has redefined virtue and vice and any good, traditional person who would see the necessity of true virtue restored would do well to examine themselves and rid themselves of these modernistic and consumerist notions.

The Incredibles and Anti-Egalitarianism

If you haven’t already heard, Pixar is working on their follow up to The Incredibles. The movie was successful but not as popular as their other films, like Toy Story and Finding Nemo. Long after it’s release, The Incredibles became ever more popular, especially with young adults who like to indulge in movie nostalgia.

After hearing the general excitement over this announcement, I began to wonder why so many people are feeling this way; after all, it’s not like the theme of the movie is exactly a popular idea nowadays.

The Incredibles is not consistent with Liberal egalitarian principles; in fact, it’s in opposition to those principles. “Supers” – or those human beings with extraordinary abilities – roam the streets of Metroville fighting crime and protecting ordinary citizens. As the supers clean up the streets of Metroville, buildings get smashed, windows are broken, and sometimes innocent by-standers are hurt. A law is eventually passed that forces the Supers into ordinary lives. The supers reluctantly accept this, but many of them secretly fight crime when and where they can. Their lives are a testament of what it is like to possess abilities and talents that elevate you beyond many others while pretending these abilities and talents don’t exist so that you do not “trigger”, “intimidate” or “exclude” others.

And that is exactly the plot. The antagonist of the film, Syndrome, is not a super; he’s one of those ordinary guys who holds a grudge against all Supers because they won’t let him pretend he is a super. However, the world expects the Supers to pretend they’re ordinary (when they’re not) and this is some how okay. This makes the world especially vulnerable and weak to depraved minds (i.e. Syndrome). It’s no coincidence that the villain of the film has a name like “Syndrome”; he doesn’t possess the mental fortitude to accept the very basic truth that some people are in fact better and more deserving than others in some regards. This creates Syndrome’s psychological motive, as he says “When everyone is super, no one will be.”

Syndrome goes onto exploit the mediocrity of an absolutely ordinary world and the Supers who are oppressed by it. The writers put these ideas into Syndrome, the antagonist, for a reason: they want us to associate them with villainy, not heroism.

It’s strange to see a world so in favor of egalitarianism be so excited by the release of a second Incredibles film. But then again, Egalitarians are not always the most logically consistent kind of people either…

I look forward to the second installment of this film and hope it stays true to its theme (although I won’t be surprised if it doesn’t).

Celebrating White Guilt

Julianne Hough recently admitted making a grievous error last Halloween. She dressed up as a fictional character, who happened to be portrayed by a black person, and so administered black paint as an element of her costume (but she looks like she has a bad spray tan instead). What this means of course is that Hough was, consciously or not, actively participating in behavior that offends and hurts black people. How this is so should not matter – if a black person is offended, that in itself is proof and evidence that there is racial wrongdoing. Many people have denounced her decision for various reasons (mostly because it has some relation to “blackface”), but others have suggested that media outlets are fueling and igniting racial tension on purpose.

It’s not provocation though; it’s celebration of public confession. Hough is publically admitting a supposedly grievous wrong she committed and the media is showcasing her confession (as it does in so many similar cases). She is ready for new, more enlightened kind of life. Like a person emerging from the baptismal pool, Hough is now washed clean of her white identity. Celebrities are idolized (there is a kind of hero-worship with them, as there was with Roman emperors) but not all of their behavior can be venerated (and it shouldn’t be for obvious reasons). The media knows all too well how many people kind of deify celebrities today. It capitalizes on their errors, especially those revolving around racial issues, in order to push a point (which I will get to below). Many readers and viewers of these racial issues and stories do feel provoked though. When people make the comment that media outlets are “stirring the pot”, they mistake the effect these stories have with the intention. The intention behind these stories is to inspire, particularly white people, into action, i.e. inspire people into admitting a sort of ‘ignorance’ (an ignorance that comes along with simply being white). Only then can true education and change occur. The effect it is now having on many people is akin to hearing the same song played on the radio repeatedly everyday; it’s not inspiring, it’s repulsing and even discouraging.  While many whites are still unable, whether because they are not capable of putting words to their thoughts or because they are uncomfortable speaking up on behalf of their race and people, plenty of those reading this story (and other stories) are entirely disgusted with this sort of propaganda. One may assume that successful and affluent (white) people are more than willing to admit to their grievous wrongs (as is evidenced by Hough and so many other celebrities) and if you want to be successful too then look to the example of these celebrities who are learning from the error of their supposed white-ignorance, or a kind of hereditary negligence imbedded into the very core of white people that blockades true “equality”. As the media highlights these stories of high-profile whites reveling in their ‘ignorance’ and guilt ad nauseam, a theme becomes real clear (at least for me): White people must feel sorry for being white, accepting the burden of their ancestor’s errors, in order for real equality to materialize. Julianne Hough, and so many others like her, are merely exploited by the media as exemplary behavior.

The media, in my opinion, doesn’t intend to provoke; they honestly believe it will inspire, as it has many whites in the past, towards a confession for the sin of being white. Here Hough feels sorry for pretending to be – not some fictional character – but a black person. How dare she! She didn’t realize, that as white person, she has a supposed propensity to “offend” and “hurt” others. Ignorance, she says, isn’t always a bliss. The subtle invitation imbedded in these stories is for (white) people to reflect upon themselves and ask “Am I being ignorant in a similar manner?” If my entire social and public life is not geared towards the ceremonial respect of the minority (and eventually abolishing majority/minority distinction) , if I do not observe and respect the idea of national neutrality (no national identity), and if I do not profess a universal condemnation for the white race and the crime of my imperialistic, oppressive ways then it is clear that I am ignorant. I am invited, much like Hough and company, to renounce this ‘old life’ and be born again if only I would repent the nature which stains me and keeps me from true righteous egalitarian living – my white identity.

https://celebrity.yahoo.com/blogs/celeb-news/julianne-hough-on-her-blackface-costume—it-makes-me-so-sad-195207493.html

What Has Become of the Family Reunion?

What has become of family reunions? The annual gathering of dispersed family members is a fading thing. Setting apart a time to remember the extension of heritage and bonds is likely vanishing. I genuinely wonder why. Besides the fact that family is no longer celebrated, and that younger family members of a generation bent on egocentric living – or “experiencing life” if you prefer – likely no longer find a family reunion worth their own time. I do wonder if there are other reasons.