Category Archives: Theories

So it turns out I’m black!

With the Bruce Jenner transsexual story headlining there is much discussion about gender versus sex.

Many feminists and many transsexuals believe that there is a distinct difference between gender and sex. They believe that gender is nothing more than a social construct, while sex is something that you are born into.

This got me thinking, if your physical form does not matter in regards to the way that you are treated by society, what does?

What criteria do transsexuals need to meet in order to be considered a transsexual?

As I pondered this question, I happened upon an interesting thought.

If the physical form of a transsexual does not define their gender, what other things in the physical realm do not define a person’s identity?

What about race? Is race different from ethnicity?

For example, though my skin color is white, perhaps I feel black on the inside so what does that make me? Am I now a black American?

According to the logic exhibited by transsexuals and their supporters… it does?

And so I leave you with this…

Are we really willing to go down this road. Where things of an objective of nature are up to interpretation by each and every individual. Does this not seem problematic to you?

Ponder that my cracka!

What his he truly?

I hate with a fiery passion all that is pop culture.

Not because it is unimportant… but because it should be.

Any mature adult will tell you that discussions about the economy, taxes, and foreign policy are truly some of the most important discussions we could be having.

Why? Because these things directly affect the livelihood of the American public.

And for the record, despite any anecdotal evidence you might have to the contrary….

When a grown ass adult talks about the importance of these discussions in regards to the American public’s livelihood, they are most certainly talking about the livelihood of their offspring.

Yes children, your parents do actually care about you.

But I digress…

Pop culture irritates the hell out of me because it is something that I wish I didn’t have to pay attention too. Growing up a poser punk rocker from HB I couldn’t tell you the first thing about the new Eminem album, or what Snooki named her kid.

In time however, as someone who fancies himself politically aware, I have learned to adapt.

Even though the young have literally no skin in the game, they still have a say in the direction the country is to move.

Indoctrination in the school system and destruction of the family structure aside, the young are at an extreme disadvantage when it comes to the fundamental truths of life.

Many people believe that this is the fault of technology. These people believe that since our youths are constantly connected to the world wide web they are consistently exposed to an unrelenting stream of hedonistic, fallacious nonsense.

youts

I contend that this is the fault of the previous generation. It would not matter how much hedonistic fallacious nonsense our children were exposed to if their parents had just engrained some shred of conviction into their developing brains… but unfortunately for both their offspring and the future of our nation they haven’t…

And so I am forced to discuss topics which I find to be distasteful and uninteresting…

So… Without further adieu

Bruce Jenner….

He was all over the TV yesterday.

Why? Because he slapped on a pair of fake tits, changed his name and is now the hero of our generation… at least until next month when someone else takes pride in something that is far from accomplishment.

Bruce Jenner is now a woman… or at least he is posing as one.

He even made the cover of Vanity Fair Magazine accompanied by the headline “Call me Caitlyn.”

Within hours of the cover being published, his new twitter account had 1.1 million followers (Getting all of this straight from the link above)

This showcases the importance of such an event. The kids are all about it.

Importance established… Let’s think for a second

Yesterday afternoon on twitter I happened upon a tweet by a young lady who I assume to be local based on her twitter following.

This tweet caught my eye as it reminded me of an interview I listened to last week over at louderwithcrowder.com featuring Milow Yiannopoulos (known as @Nero on twitter) who is currently in the process of writing a book about “Gamer Gate.”

You see this misguided young lady’s tweet suggests that every person is born with a true identity. It is a narrative commonly found amongst those on the left who feel the need to justify what is clearly a mental illness… Transsexualism.

The idea is that even though you were born biologically a girl, your true identity (which they claim you are also born with) could be male (and vice versa.)

I thought this was very telling as the young lady who tweeted this also belongs to the “feminist” movement here in the local area.

Now this may not mean a whole hell of a lot to anyone who does not keep up on these cultural issues, however to those that do… Well, they should already see where I am going with this.

While listening to the afore mentioned interview last week I was intrigued by one bit of dialogue between Steven Crowder (the host) and Milo (the guest) on the topic of transsexualism.

Milo is a gay man, and as such one could only assume that he might have some insights into the LGBT community. So Steven asked him an interesting question regarding his position on transsexualism.

Milo proceeded to tell Steven that he had previously considered all those who claim to be “transexual” to be mentally ill. He then explained however that his opinion is slowly changing. Not because he has found new validity in the lack of scientific knowledge used to back transsexualism, but because he has found a very telling hole in the narrative of those who belong to the feminist/LGBT crowd.

You see feminists and other LGBT supporters who support things like “equality in the workplace” and  sexual identity, consistently claim that gender is nothing more than a social construct.

This helps them to promote behavior in females that is detrimental not only to their own well being, but society as a whole.

However…. If gender is nothing more than a social construct… how then can anyone be born with a “true identity?”

I continue to believe that transsexualism is a mental illness.

However, to those of you out there who disagree…

Take your pick.

Either transsexualism is a mental illness and gender is nothing more than a social construct…

Or gender is not a social construct and rather something you are born with, which supports the arguments of those who claim that transexuals are just seeking out their true identity.

You can’t have it both ways…

Thoughts: The conversation we should be having…

For a long time I have been a fan of Glenn Beck.

I grew up watching him on the TV long before The Blaze.

Even when The Blaze began, I remember the early days when he discussed policy and politics. He still does this today but the primary meat of his show has changed.

When he made the change I wasn’t ready to accept it.

I called him a fool and I diverted my eyes for a while out of anger. Anger because I felt abondoned by someone who shared my frustration with the freedom snatching left.

I have begun to watch him again purely out of depression. With all of the darkness in our world, his network offers a slightly more positive viewing experience. Something I need if I am to be happy as I am morally obligated.

However I still hadn’t accepted his message. The notion that we need to be having a conversation about culture and faith rather than one about politics and policy.

That is until Monday.

As I watched the riots take place on the streets of Baltimore I thought to myself “when did America become a third world country.” I chuckled a bit at the fact that the riots were a perfect illustration of why leftist policies fail.

But then I thought a little bit harder.

I realized that the riots were not a result of the policies, but that the policies were a result of the riots.

In other words, the behavior seen in the streets of Baltimore last night is behavior that I personally do not believe would be seen anywhere that true Americans are present.

What I am about to tell you is a bit simplistic, and I realize that. Many of these issues are far more complicated than just culture v.s. policy. However for the sake of our efforts, as conservatives with an outreach mentality, maybe it would be beneficial to take a look at the simplistic concept.

I had a conversation earlier today with a fellow conservative. He’s a good friend of mine, and had responded to my last post via email.

We began to debate a little. This is something that we do often. However, usually one of us is playing devils advocate. Rarely ever do we actually disagree.

He believes that it is leftist policy that is solely responsible for the behavior of those in Baltimore. I believe it’s something deeper (and no it’s not skin color so don’t go calling Uncle Al just yet.)

Halfway through our debate I realized that the entire reason we disagreed lie in the fact that we had a miss communication due to the verbiage that I used in my post.

The verbiage you ask?

The word Americanism.

You see I believe that Americanism can be summed up by one simple compound word.

“Judeo-Christian”

The behavior seen in Baltimore lacks any Judeo-Christian backing. It’s as if those people do not have any values beyond hedonistic natural instinct.

Interestingly enough, leftist policy lacks a Judeo-Christian value backing as well.

And though us Judeo-Christians like to give the masses the benefit of the doubt so often in saying that “they just don’t get it!” I believe they do.

It does not take a rocket scientist or any deep level of thinking to see that leftist policies are not only ineffective, they are immoral.

I contend that the liberal masses know this, and do not care.

During our debate, my friend posed to me a question. First, he laid out a scenario that he believes to be a somewhat accurate representation of what life is like in Baltimore. He asked me if I honestly believed that I wouldn’t act violently towards the Gov. if put in a situation like this.

Now I have not given you all of the details that my friend provided me within his premise. I have given you one though, and if you have keen enough eyes you will see it.

I believe this to be a false analogy. And that one detail I provided is exactly the reason why.

He then described some of the circumstances that lead the people in that area to the mindset that they posses.

Things like horrifyingly bureaucratic public schools.

And fatherhood being crushed by government dependent.

I do not deny that any of these things exist. And I do believe that there is a case to be made in regards to these things perpetuating the sickness that is present in places like Baltimore.

However they did not cause the sickness.

In other words bad schools do not create bad/indoctrinated children.

Bad parents do.

Government dependency does not produce fatherless children.

Premarital sex and poor spouse selections do.

No-fault divorces do not produce evil women that screw their men over.

Evil women create things like no-fault divorces.

So while a case can be made in regards to the perpetuation of certain behaviors by government dependency and leftist policy, I wonder if this is the correct conversation to be having.

I find myself thinking that it is not.

Maybe GB is right. Maybe we don’t win this through elections or policy.

Maybe the the only way to win this is through evangelism (or things of that nature.)

I wrote last night about MLK’s intentions being made clear through his actions. I think that we can all agree, the action of those in Baltimore last night were made loud and clear.

Morality, and therefore Americanism were nowhere to be found.

Competitiveness and a Lack of Place to Express It

Growing up I never felt bad about the fact that I wasn’t good at traditional sports.

From a young age I was more interested in things that were scientific and things that I could build rather than things like games and sports.

I loved tools, and to this day have an unnatural fascination with cool tools. Items that were designed to solve a problem and did so effectively in the right hands.

All this to say I was a weird kid. A nerd.

I was never into traditional sports such as football and basketball. I played little league as a kid, but I found that I liked the idea of being on a baseball team more than I actually liked playing the game.

There was only one somewhat traditional “sport” I have ever truly had interest in. That is the study of Martial Arts.

I was introduced to Chinese/American karate at a young age, and while at the time I did not possess the patience required to master such a study, the early introduction was a great thing. Overtime as I matured and learned patience, I slowly, picked up practicing this sport, though inconsistently, with the people in my life who also enjoyed it.

Over time, though not well disciplined, I was decent enough to hold my own in sparring matches with those who were more well versed in the study.

It has always stuck with me, and through my years of dabbling, I have made an interesting yet somewhat unrelated discovery.

When I think back to the school yard in elementary school I can remember countless games of football taking place out on the field. I remember that I would always get upset when my friends decided to play these games because honestly I found them pointless. I was never any “good” at them. Later on I found out this had more to do with me not trying because I didn’t care, than my actual hand eye coordination.

None the less the games were played, and I can remember multiple occasions when I would miss a pass or something. As I recollect on these occasions I often find myself wondering why I missed those passes. Why didn’t I try harder? I am not a bad athlete believe it or not.

Every time I ask myself these things I remember far too quickly the answer: I didn’t care. The game meant nothing to me. I didn’t appreciate the skill and practice required to execute game play actions effectively.

So that answers that question. But then another question arises…

I can recall the silly, boyish school yard insults being tossed my way whenever I pathetically cost the team a point. That obviously didn’t bug me much. Boys are that way, and these were my best friends. If anybody was ever going to call me a loser or tell me I suck genitals it was going to be one of my friends. It’s a bonding thing.

However, as we grew older and the games got more and more intense, my friends became more and more competitive. It was a constant battle for the alpha male role of the group out there on the field. Which made any loss caused by my disinterest in the game all the more painful for my team mates.

In turn, insults grew darker and more mean spirited. As the words said aloud meant more to the speaker in these competitive years. They meant everything they said.

This still did not bother me though. And why was this you ask?

One word: Combat.

As we grew older and more competitive, the interest in football and kickball heightened amongst my friends. While my interest in martial arts increased. Still none of us were competing at any of these endeavors on any serious level, but our hearts were more into them.

So as my friends called me names and fought about who was really the best player I was unaffected. Because in my mind I knew that even with the small amount time I had put into martial arts, I was superior in that field.

I vaguely remember telling my father at this age that even though other boys may have been better at sports, it’s just a pointless skill. All disagreements at the root, stem from and will end in combat.

Now the background info on my interest into martial arts might make the point I am about to make a bit confusing, but stick with me. I am going to do my best to explain.

Because I interests were elsewhere, I had no skill in any of the sports that were played in the schoolyard during those years. My motive for ignoring sports is irrelevant. Because I did not have a competitive medium for expressing my masculinity like my friends did, my immediate response to any masculinity insult relative to the game was always a dark one. I took it to warfare every time.

These last 830 words may have a constructed a parallel far to confusing to follow. So let me break it down.

At the most basic level, the natural medium for expressing dominance or masculinity is warfare. We see it in the animal kingdom all the time. Males fight for the role of alpha male.

This is because most other animals are simple. Though we are animals, we are obviously distinguishable from the others, and so it makes sense that we are more complex.

We have a multitude of arenas in which we can express dominance or our competitive nature over another. (Such as sports)

But at the root of our being that natural, animalistic instinct to fight for alpha positions is still there.

I contend that when we have no medium to express the competitive urge…

No outlet to channel our savagery…

We revert to it. Just as I always did in the school yard.

I came to this realization today while reviewing a twitter debate (more of a discussion) with some hooligans from Orange County.

What was debated is irrelevant to my point. What is relevant is how vile, vicious and nasty these folks became when they could not defend their side.

One of them even went so far as to try and frame me for saying something racist while tagging Al Sharpton in the tweet.

The Sharpton Frame

These people did not possess the skill set required in order to have a civil, intelligent, logical debate with someone who disagrees with them. And at the first sign of opposition they attack.

My guess is that at least one of the people that I conversed with during this twitter fiasco was someone of at the very least moderate intelligence. However, because she did not posses the skills required in order to fully understand the holes in her retorts, she was literally stymied out by me for acting inappropriately which in fact, somewhat discredits her entire commentary.

It occurred to me that is not entirely their fault that they do not possess the knowledge required in order to debate like adults. They have never been taught. And most of those in the position to teach them, don’t possess the knowledge either.

Past generations have done a great disservice to America’s youth through public education and a lack of parenting. It has resulted in a generation of literal incompetency.

Schools and other supposed institutions of knowledge have not provided these kids with the skills set to compete intellectually with one another.

And as I stated above, it seems that when we humans do not have a platform to express and burn off our biological competitiveness we revert to the most natural, organic, animalistic thing we know.

Savagery and violence.

Get ready America, we are headed for a dark place.

Problems of Diversion

I would like to say that this is a disease exclusive to those of the left wing mindset, but unfortunately, that isn’t so.

More often than not people fall for “problems of diversion” (as I call them).

Problems of diversion are provided by conservatives and liberals alike. Some with malicious motives, while others with good intentions, spread their ignorance.

This is something I battle in the classroom daily. During my years as an underclassman I had many teachers that maliciously tried to lead students astray from the truth by subliminally implanting things in their heads.

These days, to my relief (though only a slight relief), it seems to be done more often out of ignorance rather than malice.

When a debate strikes up in the classroom that involves the teacher, it pretty much all looks the same to the kids. Often they will make comments to me throughout the day such as “You kicked his ass man, good job!” and “Way to not let him push you around dude! He was totally wrong!”

When they say these things, what they don’t understand is that I don’t always disagree with what the teacher is saying, in fact more and more these days I don’t disagree with what the teacher is saying, but rather how he is saying it.

A perfect example of this came out of my economics class the just the other day.

My econ teacher is a pretty conservative dude (excluding his feelings about the Koch brothers). He is a capitalist and while he would never admit to it, he hates liberalism and the mentality that it creates when fully implemented in our schools (as it has been).

However, sometimes I believe he says things out of “emotionally motivated premature response”

What the hell is that you ask? I’ll give you an example.

Just last week our class somehow go onto the topic of pharmaceuticals (there is a whole lot of discussion in his  class, that’s how you know he is good). During this discussion the outrageous price of drugs got brought up.

Naturally, everybody in the room starts to think this thought, whether they are willing to admit it or not – “Big, evil, capitalist pharmaceutical companies don’t care about my family”

This thought is a bad thing for prosperity…

So naturally I saw where this was going quick. Before the kids even knew that’s what they were thinking I had constructed a plan to reverse their mindset.

I asked out loud “Yes, drugs and healthcare in general is in fact outrageously expensive… but why?”

My teacher, (being a man whose mother, at some point in her life, was in fact at the mercy a cancer drug that he claimed cost upwards of 60k per shot) immediately spoke one word

“Greed”

Eerr! wrong answer son!

I told him he was one hundred percent incorrect. He responded “Oh yea RJ because I don’t know anything, right?”

This statement illustrated just how emotionally driven he was at the time that he spoke it. He later agreed with me, but out of pride, and embarrassment at his half thought out response, told me that I was only partially correct.

Basically I went on to explain that the reason that our drugs cost so much lies in government regulation, while greed (though a bad word for the motive) is irrelevant.

I could write a whole post on this itself, and I just might, but for the sake of time, I’ll move on…

As you can see, I don’t disagree with the fact that greed is there. I will even say that morally according to my God it MIGHT be a problem in some industries. However him saying that evil 5 letter word at that particular time was the worst possible thing he could have done for my cause… which just so happens to be his cause too…

I don’t blame him for this, we all make mistakes and struggle with our emotions affecting our actions. He steered kids in the wrong direction, towards death and misery, though ignorant to it at the time. And so I pointed out to him his non intentional “Problem of Diversion” and he at least half admitted that’s what it was.

But there are others out there with a more insidious approach…

Let me start by explaining to those of you who don’t know, what modern day language arts classes are about. Literature class in public school, literally has nothing to do with art. It is there with the sole purpose of indoctrinating kids with a code of ethics defined by progressive, academia loving, liberal, teachers.

So in my English class this week we were assigned a group assignment entitled “People Problems”. This is an assignment that coincides with the book Frankenstein by Mary Shelley that we are currently reading.

The assignment was to as a group, come up with a general consensus as to how we define a “Person”

Luckily for me I was put in a group consisting of all boys, who also happened to all be Christians.

We decided all human beings are persons according to God, and human beings can currently be distinguished in biological terms.

The next part of the assignment was to read through a list of court cases provided by the teacher and to determine, based on our definition of a person, how the court case should be settled…

This is a picture of the front side of the handout for the assignment. The backside only contained additional stories, no more direction.

This is a picture of the front side of the handout for the assignment. The backside only contained additional stories, no more direction.

As you can see in part “c” we are “encouraged to revise your definition (of a person), Explain your revisions and why your revisions where necessary”

Now, if this doesn’t unsettle you, then you are a strange individual.

Case number one describes a situation in which a father decided to make the oh so difficult decision to pull the plug on his daughter who had been in a coma for three years after being in an automobile accident.

The family had to sell their house and a good deal of their other positions in order to pay the bills to keep their daughter/sister alive.

 

 

I don’t know the specifics of this case, but my teacher assured us all that it was in fact a real case and the first of it’s kind.

He maintains the opinion that legislators need to continue to redefine what a person is through “verbiage” in order to avoid problems like this.

This is a matter of right and wrong. There are no two ways around it. My teacher says that the legal definition of murder is “The pre thought-out taking of a persons life” and he assured me that he knew more on this topic because he went to law school. I am sure he is right, but for the record I have not checked on this.

I was called upon to present on this topic in class. I maintain that the question of whether someone is a person or not is completely invalid and does not matter. The state does not get to determine right from wrong (separation of church and state), only what is legal and what is not (based on our vote), therefore if murder is illegal, and pulling the plug is equivalent to murder, based on our definition of murder, then guess whose family is losing everything in order to pay for their daughter/sister.

He said I was sidestepping the issue, and belittled me by saying I just didn’t like to face reality and wanted to “skirt” the issue over and over and over again.

See the problem is we cannot define what a person is. The notion that legislators need to blur the line on what a person is for every unique case that arises is ludicrous and indeed EXTREMELY DANGEROUS

That kind of talk stinks of eugenics…

I maintained the opinion that either his definition of murder was incorrect, the situation could not be related to murder, or if in fact everything he said was true, that the family needed to pay, as we all do, in order to see the error in our ways of legislation.

I later found out from my father who is an LA County FireMAN that I was correct. The court currently does not look at such a situation as murder, due to various reasons.

My teacher lied, and he did it in order push his own agenda.

He either was so emotionally attached to the concept that he was teaching us that he couldn’t admit he was wrong (this happens to many literature teachers because in order to be happy they have to try and justify their own existence to themselves, when in reality they serve no purpose, excluding indoctrination, and are a waste of money in the school system), or he is a progressive who wishes to blur the line when it comes to the value of life (many examples he gave when he talked about defining a person were pathetic attempts to say that we are not really that different from other animals… I mean it was truly an embarrassingly, pathetic attempt when you consider how we humans have conquered not only the entire globe, but have survived also in F****** outer space!!!)

I call these cases “Problems of Diversion” because they are methods of taking your eyes off the root of the problem, and in turn aid those with selfish intentions in getting what they want.

We see this daily in matters such as that of gun control. Piers Morgan would say that Britain has fewer gun crimes every year than the United States and Britain has heavy gun control, so it must be the lack there of in the U.S. that causes so much gun violence.

When in reality  the problem really stems from immigration. In the U.S. we have ghetto gang bangers that take pop shots at folks like my dad on a daily basis. We also have a much larger population in general. We also have a lot of conflicting ideologies struggling to live side by side in one country.

But by presenting you with the argument stated above, he is able to divert the public from the root of the problem.

Problems of  Diversion

don’t fall for it…