Culture of Violence?

Grace Durbin, a fellow blogger on WordPress and writer for Elitedaily, published a piece back in November on the state of violence in ourculture of violence country. The first half of her post records her pregnancy, her partner abandoning her, then the birth of her now 1-year-old daughter, followed by the epiphany of living in a  “culture of violence”.  What would she do if something tragic happened to her? Who would care for her young daughter? As she witnesses, reads, and hears about young girls being sexually assaulted, young men, like Mike Brown, who “hit the ground in a storm of unmerited violence” and boys like Tamir Rice, she can only conclude that her daughter’s life is imminently threatened by this “culture of violence”. She says “Police officers gun down our children and then justify it”. We have a “culture of violence” and “a tolerance of injustice” she tells us.

Durbin surely has a left-leaning mentality but is well intentioned in her fight against problems that plague our society With that said, I want to address her notion of a “culture of violence”. It is all too common to speak about diverse behaviors in our society as a “culture”. For example, a “culture of violence”, a “rape culture”, “drug culture”, “misogynist culture” (which has started the “war on women”) and so on. Social ills get lumped into a kind of  “culture”. There’s a reason for this.

A culture is the sum total of shared behaviors and commonalities between a particular group of people. Therefore, their activity and active lives with one another set the apart from other groups (multiculturalism seeks to over throw this by merging all cultures into one, larger conglomerate). A culture informs the people of a group on various standards, principals, and guidelines in order to function in a given society. If one were  some how disjointed from his cultural rearing, it would be almost impossible to interact in that given society. He would feel foreign and others would see him as a foreigner. The patterns of behavior, mannerism, customs, and minutest details of culture are so ingrained within us that it is hard to even be consciously aware of these at times. Culture is a strong basis in the formation of identity (multiculturalism splinters identity by suggesting that different sources of conflicting cultural information can be received without any problem whatsoever).

In a diverse or plural society, a common culture above all inhabitants, guiding them like a star, is obviously absent. Shaking hands is just one of many ways we greet people; it can never be the de facto way we greet people in a diversified society. Each path a person decides to take is simply another form of human expression and is equally valuable in the way of human perfection and happiness. This is the very essential nature of a diverse society. No common avenue can monopolize a group of people; there has to be many different streets and winding roads (all of which end at the same place). The trick though is that these “paths” are being made as the individual walks them. They are never truly set. This is called  the “creativity” of the human spirit. This creativity in conjunction with individual autonomy is the recipe for self -determination (as Mark Richardson, from Oz Conservative calls it). What this means is each person decides for himself what the meaning of his life is and nothing/no one has any authority in that very sacred experience (if you don’t believe me, try and tell someone else they are wrong or suggest to them another way of living and you will find yourself condemned). Thus, happiness is completely and utterly left to the human will and spirit – having no meaning apart from this – and the means by which a person achieves happiness is set to the person himself.

But this raises a problem. Under Modern Liberalism, societies are becoming more “diversified”. What you get is a plurality of lifestyles ( and this certainly opens the door to call everything a “culture”). However, not every choice can be called good, even Liberals accept this. It is clear that rape is a serious crime, that drugs are destructive, and violence is rising on the home front and around the globe. Should the Liberal be consistent and accept responsibility for this? After all, personal choice is a reflection of autonomy and creativity. Liberals are wise to have a kind of “safe word” if you will. Before things get too awful, personal choice and autonomy can only be respected so long as it does not disrupt the “journey” of other self-determining agents. For this reason, we have law and human rights. “Rights” protect the individual in their pursuit of self-created meaning. That’s what life is all about, right? Imagine a local baker refusing his service to a gay couple wanting to wed. His disapproval of their choice is wrong, because it violates their “rights”. But what else can that mean except that he has suggested there is way people ought to live whether they like it or not?

The conundrum is this: The individual is the most fundamental and sacred thing in a society; individual will is the source of meaning in a persons life. They must be protected from others (institutions included) who would seek to violate this and thereby control them.  But not every choice an individual makes is respectable or worth upholding. Thus, law and “rights” are interpreted as those things that protect each individual from each other, inasmuch as those choices would hurt the other(thereby isolating those kind of choices as disagreeable to the liberal experiment). But what makes this violation “wrong” or “bad”. What standard does a Liberal have, if the most fundamental and sacred thing is the individual and their will? That is the problem. Liberal egalitarianism means respecting every instantiation of human expression (so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else). We cannot respect every choice for obvious reasons. Liberals are hard pressed to answer why choices that violate the “rights” of others are “wrong”.

This brings us back the topic of “culture”. One way Liberals deal with this inconsistency is by displacing personal or individual responsibility and replacing it with “culture”. This does not mean that the person goes unpunished or unattended though; however, the popularity of explaining away problems through “culture” is clearly on the rise. Nobody questions the experiment of modern Liberalism when a young man rapes someone (i.e. it can’t be this obsession with personal freedom and a doing-what-you-please-all-the-time mentality that causes any problems) ; it’s due to “misogynist culture” and the “war on women”. Sure, the young man must face a judge. But how do we stop rape? We certainly don’t place the blame on the young man, at least no entirely; we attack this abstract thing called “misogynist culture” for influencing our young men with erroneous ideas that compel them toward this behavior. When a drug addict cannot escape his addiction, we take him away from the “Drug culture” that has compelled him to behave this way.   People are not entirely or even majorly responsible for their behavior; it is caused and created by factors apart from their will.  As long as extraneous factors play a large part in the decision making process of the individual, they are not free in their “creativity” and determination of meaning in their life (as any good Liberal will tell us). Thus, a very popular way the Liberal thinks he saves himself from inconsistency and submitting to the idea that inherent qualities might play a role in who and what people are and do, they demarcate a plethora of different “cultures” responsible for all the “bad” behavior. Instead the individual being blamed in any serious or genuine way, culture is a way to substitute this and thereby surpass the problem of morally wrong choices an individual makes.

Liberals are wrong though. There is no ethereal thing (“culture”) that exists out there secretly influencing people to do things against their precious little wills (the implication being if there weren’t these diabolical “cultures” out there, nobody would be living like this). Culture is just the way we describe the habits and patterns of behavior of a given group of people; it comes to exist because a group of people, through custom, tradition, myth, and behavior create that culture. If people kill each other with guns, they do not do so because of a “culture of violence”;  a culture of violence emerges because groups of people are becoming more violent (and violence then becomes normalized). If people are addicted, they’re not addicted because a “drug culture” made them this way; the popularity of drugs emerges because more people are using drugs as a norm. It is true that once culture is established it comes to inform those brought up under it. But Liberals are one-sided with culture: they choose to see it as a powerful influence while ignoring that people are responsible for the very existence of a culture. . A “culture of violence” and “black culture” protect kids like Mike Brown and Trayvon Martin who rob stores and threaten police officers (and likewise, saying “white culture” is the problem with white people ignores the possibility that white people may in fact, by their very nature, be more inclined towards a destructive and oppressive ambition). Treating culture like this diverts our attention from the responsibility of a group, and even the possible qualities and inherent propensities of a group, because we think the “culture” makes them behave this way. Thus, if we can change the “culture” we can help the people oppressed by it (and thus we find all kinds of government agencies that seek to do just that). But once again, treating culture like this is backwards. The group of people are responsible for their culture; culture is not responsible for them. People do not like to entertain this idea because it does not fit neatly with modern liberal egalitarianism (it suggests that bad things can and do often come about through the will and choices of individuals and groups of individuals). It also suggests that some groups of people are better off than others (which definitely explains the mass immigration of Hispanics, Blacks, and Arabs into white countries).

I disagree with the sentiment that these “cultures” are responsible for the way people behave. People are responsible for the existence and sustenance of their culture. It is a reflection of those people. Whatever “cultures” we find in a society are directly related to what people in that society allow (and so it is more a testament of choice than a person being influenced and coerced to choose).

Transgender Teen’s Suicide Note and Leftist Thinking

Alcorn 1

Last weekend a young teenager, Josh Alcorn, committed suicide by apparently throwing himself in front of a moving truck. Alcorn was convinced he was a girl “trapped in a boys body”. As a boy “trapped”, he was in need of obvious help, and that help of course meant others – not just understanding or accepting him – but completely committing to the conviction that his lifestyle was as normal as any other. Leftward thinking people truly do whatever it takes when it comes to convincing others that their lifestyle – and other lifestyles – are simply equal expressions of human life. “What’s the big deal” they ask. I will return to this momentarily and look at some of the things Alcorn said in a suicide note. As for now, let us begin with some important foundations.

America, as a diverse or plural society, has neutralized the notion of a common culture. Historically, a Alcorn 2nation possesses a rich union with a particular people group, which ushers a nation into existence, and this group of people and their way of life gives that nation a name and so an identity. The result of America’s now absent identity means each individual must meet America on their own particular (and peculiar) terms, and once this happens America’s identity – no longer seen to have an existential or historical relationship with a group of people – is defined in terms of very individualistic sentiments and tastes. “American” simply means what you want it to mean. A way of life is then no longer something common; it is plural or diverse varying from person to person. A “right” is the kind of thing granted to us by diverse and plural societies that act as safeguards against people, like myself, who would think that a common culture is an integral part of any nation. There must be these safeguards in diverse societies, otherwise people begin philosophizing about, questioning, and “judging” other people’s life choices. Without these safeguards, people will of course throw themselves in front of tractor trailers; after all, a life is not worth living if the entire society does not respect your decisions as equal as their own. Thus, a diverse society needs these “rights” which will protect the human being as a self-determining agent and protect them from other human beings that would question their “creative spirit” as the artist of their own self.

Let’s take a look at some of Josh Alcorn’s final words. Alcorn 3Josh, who demanded others call him “Leelah”, left behind a suicide note last weekend before his death. Shannon Coolidge, from, writes “In life, Leelah Alcorn felt alone. Born male, she feared she would never be the woman she felt like inside.In death, the transgender 17-year-old – born Josh Alcorn – wanted to make sure others never felt the way she did.” But how did he feel? Just Alone? Surely he did not throw his entire life away believing that in doing so nobody else would ever feel lonely again. No, he felt misunderstood, judged, and out of place as a transgendered person. Alcorn said: “The only way I will rest in peace is if one day transgender people aren’t treated the way I was, they’re treated like humans, with valid feelings and human rights”. There’s that word “right” again. Josh uses this term as I described above: as a sort of safeguard that protects his will ( or his self-determining feature), his “journey” of self-creation (his journey from man to becoming a woman), and his “creative spirit” that authors this self into existence. All progressive minded people hold to this view of the self with varying degrees of intensity (Josh more intensely than a lot of others). People are born with “predetermined descriptors” according to the Progressive. This means people are born and then, according to the standards of society, described and conditioned as specific things – males or females,  or heterosexuals; they are part of families that function this way and not some other way, their race is a part of this culture and not that culture. And so on and so forth. These descriptors bar us from true, unadulterated freedom says Liberalism. A “journey” of self-creation begins by casting these descriptors aside and determining what we are for ourselves – this is the only way we can be truly free people. It is no surprise that news outlets keep saying this about Alcorn: “Leelah Alcorn, who was born Josh Alcorn…”. You see, this human was Leelah Alcorn because that’s what was determined and created through that particular human spirit and will; that particular human was merely born as Josh Alcorn. Being born a certain way has no bearing on what you are, unless you are gay of course (a typical double standard of Liberals), and in most cases must be cast off so that you define and create your self – a new identity – and thereby truly experience real freedom.

Alcorn said this to his parents in the suicide note: “Fuck you. You can’t just control other people like that. That’s messed up” and responding to his parent’s Christian disapproval he said “Even if you are Christian or are against transgender people, don’t ever say that to someone, especially your kid. That won’t do anything but make them hate them self. That’s exactly what it did to me.” Her parents said that she was just “going through a phase”, that “God doesn’t make mistakes”, and “She would never be a girl”. Alcorn’s decision and behavior is so inconsistent that it is has to be addressed: Josh tells others that you “can’t control people like that”. Like what? Is disapproval a sort of control? I would ask if parenting is a kind of control, but it is all too clear Liberals now think it is and kids should have more and more freedom from their parents – a clear indication why so many vicious little cretins are running around the world today. “Discipline”, “direction” and “guidance” are just code words that controlling parents use. Get with the times people! Like I suggested above, people that inherit this leftward attitude think anything that in any way truncates their lifestyle as anything less than equal to other people’s lifestyle is a form of control. Why? Disapproval is allegedly a form of control when it makes us feel, as it often does, like we’re wrong for thinking and believing certain things. The only way to win approval is to fall in line with the worldview of the one disapproving, otherwise we must find away to live as we wish regardless of what other people think of us. Imagine that. But Josh couldn’t do that, because he held the mentality most liberals possess and that is the only way one is truly loved, truly respected, and truly an equal member of society is if their choices and lifestyle are not only equally respected but equally validated as other lifestyles. Each life style must be seen as an equally valuable form of human expression, otherwise you fall into oppression and control.The only way to guarantee this does not happen, by liberal standards, is initiating a diverse or plural society (mentioned above).

The inconsistency here is Josh’s disapproval not only of his parent’s lifestyle but his disapproval of a world where people like him could make decisions that might be subjected to scrutiny by others. He simply could not fathom this great mystery. Therefore, his death needed “to mean something,” and that meaning depended on bringing change; people, especially transgendered people, could live in a world where their decisions were not scrutinized, where their lifestyle was not questioned, and where others did not imply his life in this particular way was in any way less meaningful or valuable than another person’s life . According to Josh 1) People should not control others, because they are self-determining agents capable of choosing their own identity and self, and controlling them through disapproval creates resentment, anger, clearly depression, and causes them to hate themselves. People’s way of life should be equally respected and accepted. 2) My death must mean something – it must have such a significant impact that people who do not think like me end up thinking just like me, at least about these things. The inconsistency seems pretty clear to me.

It is remarkable how leftward thinking works on the mind and spirit of human beings.It reminds me of Islamist thinking – but that’s me. While Liberals continue to define human beings as unique things that cannot be categorized and as they continue teaching people they are self-determining agents who decide just what they wish to be, human beings continue to defy this by questioning and judging the choices of others. Human beings seem to have a real knack for judgment – not “judgment” in liberal terminology where questioning other people and their lives is feigned as immoral behavior – but researching and observing qualities that are good or bad in others, like when we decide who is worth hiring, worth marrying, worth considering for our team, or worth a scholarship for example. As more kids, like Josh Alcorn, become immersed in diverse societies and believe every way of life is equally valuable and true, they enter a struggle between how people commonly are and their philosophical predispositions of reality and human nature. Being unable to reconcile these things, they interpret the world as “nasty” and full of “hateful, bigoted people” that subject decisions and lifestyles to scrutiny. What’s left for some of them is suicide. The only benefit of this goes to Liberalism, who inherits a child-martyr that draw attention to their cause, while people lose a friend and a family loses a son. This is just another small piece of evidence of liberalism’s attack on common culture – and the acceptance of a pluralistic society where everyone supposedly determines their own self according to the many options a pluralistic society provides –  will only breed continual confusion for our youth and other citizens.

The Problem with young Conservatives

Most people understand that Conservativism is often caricatured as a bad joke. Times they are a changing and Conservatives seem stuck, which apparently makes them a peculiar and curious sort of exhibit. In some extreme instances, Conservatives are said to have a kind of disease. Barry X. Kuhle associate professor of Psychology at the University of Scranton and featured author on “Psychology Today” says Conservatives admit many telltale signs of psychopathology. Khule even invokes the voice of Pope Francis who allegedly said that ideologically obsessed Christians are mentally ill. Now, Khule does use “Republican” and “Conservative” interchangeably – I think this is a mistake – and it’s not a surprising mistake for a generalizing liberal to commit. Of course, not all Democrats are “Progressives” anymore than all Republicans are “Conservative” (in the truest sense of those terms). But this really doesn’t change the point Khule is making because what he really wants you believe is that anyone who is not Liberal in some regard is de facto mentally ill. Ian Tutle, in an article he wrote for the National Review, tries to also demonstrate that Conservatives are mentally ill. In a humorous quote, he says: “And certainly this impulse [impulses related to metal illness] was on display in the quarrels above. How is one to debate whether Rudy Giuliani says what he does merely because he is a white supremacist? “But I am not a white supremacist!” he might object — which is, of course, what all white supremacists say!” So, by that very fact if one were to ask a black person – say the new Conservative Senator in South Carolina – if he were a “white supremacist” and if his answer was “no”, we should then assume that he is in fact a white supremacist by virtue of the fact that he said “No, I am not white supremacist”, since saying you are not a white supremacist de facto incriminates you as, well, a white supremacist.

Liberals work tirelessly to smear and poison the Conservative. They have an arsenal of linguistic devices used to elicit strong feelings of guilt and shame in Conservative people: “Racist”, “bigot”, “intolerant”, “homophobe”, “Islamophobe”, etc. These words are used so often that it has become increasingly difficult for people to understand what is meant by them. What’s more difficult for those using those terms is to provide any serious or meaningful definition of them (We should also demand people who use them against us to define them immediately). In each use of these words, one sees a pattern and that pattern is abuse. They function as a kind of punishment, and like all punishment there is a suggested wrong. Thus, these words are a means of redirecting the personality of an individual to see and behave differently. After bludgeoning people with these terms enough, these same people loose friends, loose jobs, loose any reputation they have and eventually the linguistic curriculum of the liberal is increasingly clear: be like this – the way we are – or be nothing at all. If they are not using terms like these, they are caricaturing your arguments, thoughts and beliefs. It is no surprise we have people like Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert who incessantly blur the line between caricature and real, genuine argumentative critique. The easiest thing to do is laugh with them and thereby separate yourself from Conservatives, for what your laughter implies is this: I am not one of them. Once again, laughter is used as a method to shame another. If someone is laughed at enough, they consider changing very fast…or they simply run and hide in silence.

Enter the young Conservative – or the Conservative of the most recent generation. The most bullied of people on the planet – but in the Liberal conquest of bullying and bullies, you will hear no support given to the persistent bullying endured by Conservative men and women – how is that for irony?

The young Conservative is silent and he remains so because he has been psychologically tortured by a movement that obsesses over the hate of others while ignoring their grand hatred for Conservative people. Is their no consistency to Liberals? But this is not entirely the Liberals fault. The young Conservative is ignorant too. The young Conservative is the kind of person that fights battles, not a war; in fact, I argue they are oblivious of any war going on. For this reason, you hear many young Conservatives arguing a particular issue. For example, abortion is one those issues. Many, many young Conservatives feel it is their appointed duty to defend the unborn life of children. Others devote much of their time to a traditional view of marriage and family. Still, others are concerned about religions that are not Christian. But beyond these very particular issues they don’t quite understand what it is they are fighting for, if anything at all.

Still, what they unite themselves to after repeated failure and loss in the face of opposition is their faith. But walking from mass to their home, locking their door and shutting the curtains, keeping away from “the world” will do nothing for their children nor their grand children’s generations. And if they keep the path of silence, clinging to “Leave my God and Jesus alone! Amen!” sort of attitudes, I suggest they refrain from reproduction; for, the sort of absence mindedness that breeds the kind of world you hide from will only get worse and to bring a child into that, when you are not willing to stand against it, is simply wrong. To remove yourself from the cultural fight, clinging to prayer and well wishes, means you do not find this nation or world worth living in and are merely biding your time until the “Lord calls you home” – life in such a culture is not worth living – and so giving a child life and existence within a culture you hate and despise, what you do not wish to defend, is imprudent behavior and arguably selfish on your part. I cannot imagine a happy life for that child.

But it’s understandable why young, Conservative people hide and keep silent. Too long have they been caricatured, made fun of, even called “insane” by a movement that is as vile as those things they claim to fight against. Here’s the problem: Many of them as Christians still believe in the unity and commonality of their religious tradition. So, being supported by this – by the hope and strength they get from it – they fight for things like pro-life issues, traditional views of marriage and family, and inter-religious issues. They can do this because their religious tradition supports and compels them to fight. There is nothing wrong with this; however, this does not prepare them to fight the “war”, only various kinds of “battles” (like abortion, or homosexuality, or religious issues). We must not forget that Christianity has an intimate union with Western Civilization, or the culture of European people. Much of Christianity informed the Western world, but much of the Western way of life was reconciled to Christianity (by men like Augustine and Aquinas). This cultural tradition and religious tradition are bound to one another, and disjointing them has only caused disastrous problems for the West. For this reason, Christians must remember a major support structure for their religion over many centuries has been and still is Western Culture. We must not forget that the philosophers and theologians brought a more rational attitude to the faith that allowed men to fight not only heretical problems but also cultural problems. Thus, our forefathers directed their attention to natural things and divine things. But the young Conservative Christian is content to deal with divine things alone and in so doing has broken away from tradition.

The problem we face is not one, two or even three issues – it is not abortion, homosexuality, or Islam for example – it is the functionality and identity of our nation. Is America to be a diverse nation – a nation with no common culture, that equalizes and validates every cultural standpoint as valuable and good along side one another, prohibiting a nation from having a particular identity with a group of people so that all feel equal? Or is America to be a nation with a common culture? A culture that is thought to be good, true, and pragmatic for all people. A nation that expects foreigners to assimilate and enjoy this culture and it’s benefits equally? Lastly, this would mean a nation has an intimate tie and relation to a particular people, for the European man helped usher America into life and thereby America is existentially and historically bound to them. Thus, a cultural majority of people whose very culture – their practices and understanding of reality – is directly linked to that nation’s identity; this culture would also be thought as dominant, true, and good. Fighting for this common culture and reinstalling this common culture would mean a unitary observance of things like the defense of unborn life, traditional views of marriage, and a prevailing view of the Christian faith. Of course, it would not mean each and every person was required to think like this or believe these things, but it would be the “American way” and there would be an expectation to assimilate into this way of life.

If the young Conservative feels in any way troubled by this, if they feel ashamed or embarrassed by this, then the workings of Liberalism and multiculturalism have had their desired result. You will go on fighting battles but you will go on ignoring the war that produces those battles – in more a literal sense, you will merely focus on aspects of the problem but never the problem itself. You will therefore fight endlessly to no end and to no avail. The only way to be genuinely and truly conservative is to defend and fight for the whole of something which has given you both an individual and national identity. Without this, you are nothing but a spiritualist. Your only identity is in Christ and while many of you find this satisfying, you must then accept that the world around you, which God has made us stewards over and commanded us to watch over, is not important to you in the least. It is not important that your children and their children will live here as well. You are nationalistically – and therefore culturally – nihilistic because you find no meaning or purpose beyond or outside your identity in Christ.

Young Conservatives must recognize the attack on their personalities – through language and caricature – and deal with these. More importantly, they must address the fundamental issue out of which ever other particular issue arises – like abortion and homosexuality – and focus their strengths and attentions there. The dismantling of Western culture – and the rise of multiculturalism and the idea of a diverse America – has elevated and birthed the problems we face today. Newer, more fresh problems will only continue to emerge if the real issue – and that is re-instilling a common culture and respect for Western Civilization – is not addressed.