You Cannot Love Your Own People and Be Multicultural

Here’s a question to think about: globalface

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 multiculturalisma 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.

Democratic Affirmation as Quintessential Positive Reinforcement

Reinforcement has been a powerful tool for motivating people (especially children) to behave in specified ways. When aDemocracy reward is introduced to modify or manipulate behavior, that reinforcement is deemed positive. The concept of reward attached to the behavior solidifies that behavior as habitual. When something aversive or repulsive is introduced to modify or manipulate behavior, that reinforcement is deemed negative. The concept of something aversive or repulsive – and the removal of these – can strengthen behavior as well. Academic psychology distinguishes punishment from reinforcement, because punishment “weakens behavior” and doesn’t reinforce or strengthen the behavior. Obviously these can be muddled though. People do often think of punishment as a negative reinforcement, since punishment not only weakens the behavior but should simultaneously strengthen the contrary behavior. When a child curses and their parent puts soap in their mouth, the cursing behavior is meant to be weakened; however, a non-cursing behavior is supposedly being strengthened as well.

With the rise of Modern Liberalism (and so egalitarianism), the use and perception of reinforcement has changed. Reinforcement is emphasized more so in such a society because it implicitly supports all behavior as an equally valuable form of human expression. When a society values all behavior in such a way, exploiting and manipulating terms like “diverse” and “enriching” which heap implicit praise upon every behavior, all such behavior is subsequently positively reinforced. Simply put, when every behavior is seen as something good those behaviors should also be reinforced.  Each person see’s their different behavior as conducive and contributing to a “diversified” community, which thereby enhances that communities richness. Since reinforcement is meant to solidify a behavior, the emphasis upon and increase of reinforcement in egalitarian societies seems like a reasonable consequence of such a society.

Punishment of course is frowned upon in such a society (but not completely absent – behavior that threatens the autonomy of any self determining agent must be punished for the sake of preserving communal harmony, or the egalitarian state) . Otherwise, punishment suggests that some behavior ought to be weakened, which in turn suggests that some behavior is wrong (and so not conducive to the enrichment of diversified communities). Punishers are considered “Extremist”  because any communication of belief, whether by word or deed, that in any way suggests that there is anything superior to “communal harmony” becomes hostile and dangerous. Thus, the person administering punishment will weaken a behavior not in line with “The Truth” or “God” or “Right and Wrong” (words found in the “extremist” dictionary). Where objective standards exist, there are clear demarcations of behavior. Those behaviors are reinforced while the host of other behaviors not consistent with this standard are punished. Thus, many kinds of behavior are deemed not worthy kinds of behavior. But how can this be in an egalitarian society where all behavior is an equally valuable manifestation of human expression? It cannot be this way – all behavior must be reinforced (as long as it does not threaten the autonomy of other individual agents determining for themselves who they wish to be). The obvious emphasis on reinforcement today makes sense but also often reaches points of absurdity. We celebrate perversion, conflate and dilute mistakes, we cheer on choice for choices sake, and we give trophies to losers. What else can one conclude except that every possible decision, choice and consequence must be congratulated (and so reinforced) in some way?

Any democratic society is particularly susceptible to quick change because of the phenomena of what I call here “Democratic Affirmation”. A movement only need to exploit it some how to instantiate itself as the fundamental principle of that very society.  The phenomena of “Democratic Affirmation” is simply the group (any group) acceptance of your vocalized thoughts and opinions. This is important in democratic areas because individuals have an urge to share their feelings, thoughts and opinions, and their beliefs being consistent with their “God given right of free speech” and entitlement to “their own opinion”.  The very nature of a democratic society urges us to “voice our opinions”. But it is not only the sharing of those thoughts that matter; it’s the acceptance of those thoughts that matter as well, for in democratic societies truth often gets conflated with “majority acceptance”. While the acceptance of an idea or thought by a group does not actually make a thought true, in democratic societies it has a psychological effect on the carrier of beliefs and thoughts in such a way that one feels more confident and comfortable holding those thoughts and beliefs. It is not impossible to hold beliefs or thoughts that a majority of people reject, only tedious and irritating because of perpetual ridicule and ostracizing. People would much rather hold a belief that is “democratically affirmed” than a belief that is not. A “democratically affirmed” belief creates an ease of life; a more peaceable living. That is perhaps a negative quality of democratic societies – the truth alone is often not enough; others must accept it too in order for us to feel comfortable espousing those truths our self.

In my estimation, “democratic affirmation” is quintessential positive reinforcement in democratic societies. When people nod their heads, say “Yes, that’s absolutely right”; when they agree with us, and when they praise our thoughts as wise, or when they applaud our remarks, or scream “Amen”, all this serves as reinforcement of our ideas. When truth gets wrapped up in “majority approval”, the affirmation of our thoughts becomes powerful. It is simply a truism – we want others to hear and affirm our thoughts as valuable and true. The danger here is that a democratic society is left particularly susceptible for any movement to exploit this phenomena for its own advantage. A movement would only need to normalize it’s crowning principle (Egalitarianism in this instance), which will in turn normalize and familiarize the effects of that principle (effects like homosexuality, transgender, multiculturalism, white privilege, etc. in this case). Normalization engenders the unquestionable quality of the effects. That is, just as an example, homosexuality is completely fine and normal without question (because egalitarianism is presupposed as the groundwork of all else, unquestioned, simply accepted). Any contrary thought stands outside this and thereby becomes unfamiliar, strange, unfavorable – “abnormal” . “How can people think like this?” you will often see of hear when a person dares to suggest an opposing view point. These remarks are usually made dogmatically and unconsciously due to the conditioning of reinforcement, particularly “democratic affirmation”. There is an absence of real understanding here; however, powerful reactionary behavior is initiated when people hear or see remarks that oppose the solidified norm (again, here egalitarianism). One only needs to scroll through social media comments on political matters to witness the profoundly uncritical remarks but unconscious reactionary behavior of liberal people today.

What has happened? With egalitarianism as a normalized principle of society, “democratic affirmation” shifts to accommodate it. In public spheres, we celebrate and affirm the thoughts and beliefs of others which also happen to be consistent with egalitarianism. The affirmation serves as a reinforcement of mental behavior. People’s thinking and intellectual life become solidified once affirmed and thereby creates the illusion that their beliefs are true (since truth is often wrapped up in majority acceptance in democratic societies). The psychological effect of this makes the belief holder confident and sure in their beliefs. Challenging this person makes no sense, because their conditioning makes it impossible – to them, questioning their beliefs (which have been affirmed) already discredits you. You’re wrong before you even get to make an argument.  “Democratic affirmation” validates those thoughts consistent with what’s deemed normal. The opposite of “democratic affirmation” should be obvious and clearly an equal form of reinforcement.

The struggle to challenge Liberalism is far more complex and dense than many Conservatives imagine. Groups of people everywhere are affirming or rejecting thoughts as good or true based primarily on the normalization of egalitarianism. People are affirming one another’s thoughts and beliefs as true, or they are rejecting them as false. As people are repeatedly rejected they are reinforced towards a continued behavior, as they are affirmed they are reinforced towards a continued behavior. Rejection reinforces us to remain silent, even if we disagree. This way we don’t invite any unwelcome confrontation. Affirmation reinforces us to confidently speak up and out about those things we have been affirmed in speaking. In effect, every day common people are doing the “ground work” and advancing Liberalism. Therefore, challenging Liberalism head on only means failure. The only people who will affirm you are the small minority of people who have already been rejected by the majority of people influenced by the egalitarian principle of our society. If we wish to save our society from the damaging effects of Liberalism, we must find away to inform and utilize “Democratic Affirmation” again.

From Diversity to Tribalism

To me, there is an irony about progressive agendas like multiculturalism. The purpose of multiculturalism is a more “enriched” community; a more diversified society that fulfills the entirety of each human person. With racial violence on the rise, with more and more polarization between various groups of people, diversity seems to be driving people away from the “enrichment” and “fulfillment” it promised. As more people are blended, and as more difference is conflated, various groups seem to descend into tribal-like mentalities ( a strong urge to unite with one’s social group). Instead of harmony, we’re seeing more group segregation once again, likely because of some sinking suspicion or intuition that personal qualities are being effaced and ignored by these movements. An instinct that may be suppressed by PC malarkey may also be biting back in a more dangerous way than ever. People seem more suspicious of difference than welcoming of it anymore. If it can be shown that diversity movements, like multiculturalism for example, whose intention is to unite, leads to segregation then this would be an irony for the history books. But Liberal logic will no doubt demand more diversification as a solution to this problem.

Some Remarks on the Terms “Moderate” and “Extremism”

Can the term “Moderate” as an epithet for religions and people only be appreciated and sincerely employed by those who have been influenced – and perhaps support – modern Liberalism? I think for the most part the answer to this is “Yes”.Muslim

Part of the reason why I think this is because of what the term “moderate” does to a belief-holding-person . By practicing your beliefs, especially your religious beliefs,  in a personalized way (that is,  in a way that does not extend beyond your self to another in any way that might suggest a universal or absolute nature to your belief), you eliminate the possibility of tension, or more properly “excluding others”. If you must talk about your beliefs, communication of those beliefs must be spoken about through subjective qualifications (as in, “For me, Jesus really demonstrates how we ought to live our lives.” or “I personally feel my Muslim faith has made me a stronger individual.”). Any communication that immediately divides (like “Jesus said ‘The only way to God is through Him’.”) is unacceptable.  So, your beliefs must not be practiced in a way that would cause another person psychological discomfort,  i.e doubt, which would imply a falsity on behalf of that person’s belief, or exclusion, which would in some way suggest that a belief is outside the truth. A belief or person is “moderate” if they practice or adhere to said belief in a way that considers other people’s feelings, especially the feelings and attachment to religious belief, above all else when practicing those beliefs. Inclusion and consideration are how a belief-holding-person tweaks their beliefs in order to live harmoniously with others in the community.  As a consequence, “moderate” people must (at least implicitly) deny any special relation to “the Truth”. Otherwise,  so it would seem,  there may be an exclusive nature to their beliefs (which would not be in line with the true spirit of epistemological “moderation”). The belief-holding-person, then, is  (consciously or not) under the impression that their beliefs are valuable if and only if they are conducive to “communal harmony” (i.e. “inclusion”, “acceptance”, and “toleration”).

But also notice how the term “moderate” functions in a moral way. When the term “moderate” qualifies a specific religion or religious person, like Christianity or Islam (especially Islam), there is a nuanced praise behind the description. On the contrary, anything that does not fit the standard of “moderate” is quickly characterized as “extremist”. Both are quite similar to virtue and vice. Describing someone as a “moderate” is almost like saying someone is “courageous”, “honest”, “just”, etc. It carries the connotation a virtue carries with it. So too does “extremist” in respect to a vice, like dishonesty or cowardice. There really seems to be a societal expectation, particularly of religious beliefs, to be “moderate”. Where words function to implicate value, people will naturally be moved by them (this is what makes the Liberal a master of linguistic manipulation). For example, nobody wants to be a “homophobe”. What then must you do? Accept that homosexuality is no more “right” than your heterosexual orientation. Nobody wants to be an “extremist” either – it’s bad. In order to fix this character flaw,  you become a “moderate”.

Since the term “moderate” implicates value (“Moderate” suggests something virtuous or noble, while “extremist” suggests something disordered and even wicked), it has a conditioning effect on people who are subjected to it ceaselessly.  A “moderate” comes to mean any believing person that practices his beliefs in a way that does not disrespect or disrupt “communal harmony” – that is, his beliefs do not cause doubt or fear in others, they do not exclude, they do not marginalize, they are not intolerant but accepting. The belief holding person learns to value “communal harmony” above all and so “communal harmony” becomes the standard by which anything is valuable, including beliefs – even of the religious kind. So, even religious belief becomes something secondary. But modern Liberalism’s aim is ultimate egalitarianism or “communal harmony”. “Extremists” have no place in such a community. It is common to equate “extremist” with a member of some terrorist regime; however, this is narrow thinking. There is a reason why terrorists are categorized by the Liberal as “extremist”; they’re characterized as extremist because the beliefs that compel them to such rage and destruction hinges on the assumption that they are right (and everyone else is wrong). THAT is the essence of their “extremism”. While their behavior is obviously deplorable to anyone, including Liberals, it is the Liberal which interprets their behavior through this assumption that their violent crimes emerge from the notion that truth is exclusive in some way. Christians who suggest that all those outside the salvation of Christ are going to perish, which is just as exclusivist, are just as easily seen as “extremists”. A person who says there is a right way to live and anything that is not consistent with it will also be just as “extremist”. It’s not what is done or said so much that makes a person an “extremist” by modern Liberalisms standards (although the crimes by those called “extremists” are terrible nonetheless); it’s what these actions and words are grounded in that Liberalism wishes to uproot and that’s the idea that a belief – any belief – can be objectively true or universally applicable. This is not conducive to egalitarianism (or “communal harmony”), however “moderates” are conducive to such an end!

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.