LGBTQ Islam

 

            Why is it that we see the LGBTQ community and Islam together? Places where Islam is most prevalent have actual laws on the books that sentence homosexuals to death. You would think that if the LGBTQ activists truly cared about the rights of LGBTQ people they would be protesting these countries non-stop. So we can eliminate the idea that they care about the rights of all LGBTQ people. In fact even in the West some LGBTQ activists kicked out Jewish LGBTQ people from taking part in a Pride Parade. Why? Because they had a rainbow Pride flag with the Star of David on it. The reason, the symbol made some people uncomfortable.

            So if the LGBTQ activist can look past laws discriminating and applying capital punishment for being gay and exclude members of the LGBTQ community who are Jewish then they cannot claim they are fighting for the rights of all LGBTQ people. So it begs the question, what is the goal of an LGBTQ activist then? Well if they are siding with Islam it would make sense why they would not allow Jewish LGBTQ people to participate in a Pride Parade with a Star of David Pride flag.

            Other LGBTQ activists gave into pressure from minority groups such as Black Lives Matter and changed their rainbow Pride flag so that it included Black and Brown stripes. The new stripes also were at the top of the flag as if the alteration of the flag was not a clear enough signal. So if LGBTQ activists do not protest laws that say they should be killed and do not stand up against minority groups telling them what to do, who do they oppose? White, straight, cis, Christian men specifically, Republicans or anyone to the right of them including Liberals and Libertarians, America, and Western culture generally.

            One of the reasons an LGBTQ activist would have to supporting Islam and minority groups is that they see themselves as having more privilege than those other groups. After all white, gay, cis, men are only one step away from white, straight, cis men. So to promote the idea of ally-ship they must be subordinate to those who are more oppressed. This, roughly speaking, is the idea of intersectionality. Another reason the LGBTQ activist would side with Islam is that they both hate Western culture and society. The old adage the enemy of my enemy is my friend would be in play here. They both want to see it torn down, though I would be willing to bet they both have different ideas of what they will replace it with.

            The marriage between the LGBTQ community and Islam is a strange matter. You would be hard pressed to find two systems that are more fundamentally opposed to each other and yet they work together for a common goal. But I am curious, why do you think the LGBTQ community and the Islamic community work together?

Western Guilt

            In universities and schools across the Western world kids are taught that people should be ashamed of their culture. They often point to things such as slavery, colonization, and wars as sources of guilt. The terrible thing about this push toward guilt about Western civilization is that the things that are being put up as what you should feel guilty about are true. Yes Western societies owned slaves and took part in colonization. The native people were treated brutally and horrible wars were fought.

            Yet what often gets left out of the equation are the positive things that Western society has done. For example, over 100 years ago people in America lived on less than $1 a day in today’s dollars. Yet in the span of just over 100 years Western society has helped lift more people around the world out of poverty. In America a car used to be a luxury item, now almost everyone has at least one. A more recent example of this is the DVD player. When they first hit the market a DVD player would have cost over $300. Today you can get a cheap one for around $30 and it will work better than the first ones that sold for the higher price.

            It is not only the standard of living that has been raise, but the advances in medicine have had a huge benefit for the world. Small Pox has been irradiated, Polio has been destroyed, and the advancement in AIDS drugs mean that people who contract the virus are still able to live full lives. Advancements in technology allow us to transplant organs from one person to another, let us talk with people from all over the world in an instant and travel in terms of hours instead of days. Western societies abolished slavery, extended suffrage to all adult citizens, and put the individual above the state.

            Yes Western society has somethings to be ashamed of, things we should never forget. But that does not mean people today need to be ashamed of the West. You should be proud to be part of a long standing and successful tradition. A tradition that has worked so well that people risk their lives to get here and take part in. So be proud to be an American, be proud to be part of the Western tradition, and be proud to be an individual.

The Ills of Multiculturalism

            Multiculturalism is defined as “relating to or constituting several cultural or ethnic groups within a society.” This means that you have several cultures in one area. Yet the problem with multiculturalism is what do you do when two cultures do not mesh? What do you do when one culture values free speech and another culture says people who speak badly about a religious figure should be put to death? In a multicultural society both cultural groups will be looking to the law for justice. Of course the law cannot provide fair justice without trampling on someone’s culture. A society must favor one culture above another or find a compromise that will not meet the standards of either culture.

            Multiculturalism only breeds tribalism. We see that today with all the advocacy groups. You have the tribe of Black Lives Matter, the tribe of illegal immigrants, the tribe of LGBTQ, and even the tribe of the Alt-Right. This tribalism promotes the tribe above everything else and will come into conflict with other tribes. You can see this in instances where Black Lives Matter shut down Gay Pride Parades or force the Rainbow Flag to add black and brown on it. It is Black Lives Matter asserting its dominance over another tribe. This is exactly what the Alt-Right is advocating for when they say they want a white ethno state. You can also be sure that if the tribe is what matters most that you, the individual, do not matter at all. This sort of collectivism goes against the very individualist spirit of the America and Western Culture.

            Instead of focusing on multiculturalism we should be focusing on multiracial monoculturalism. It is the culture of the United States and the West that brought people here from all over the globe. It is the culture of the United States and the West that has built the strongest and freest nations on the planet. It is to be part of America and Western culture that people risk their life to come here. People of all races and religions are welcome here as long as they want to be part of America and Western culture. To hold to the values of America and the West, where you are responsible for yourself and have the freedom to pursue your dreams. Where you can argue with your neighbor about politics but you are the first to show up when tragedy hits. Where you value each person as an individual and not as their collective group identity. Once you get down to it, no one is just one identity. No one is just black or gay or Christian. Instead an individual can be all those things and so much more.

            Multiculturalism is not a strength of the country, instead it causes battles between culture groups. Yet if we all hold to the culture of the American Dream of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness regardless of race or background, we can continue to make America the greatest country on earth. So be proud to be an American and part of Western Culture. It is not perfect but it is a hell of a lot better than any other culture in human history.

The Portland Soda Party

            Portland Oregon, the same city that called for a rally for free speech to be cancelled, is at it again. This time they are following in the footsteps of larger cities like New York and Oakland and attempting to place a tax on soda and sugary drinks. According to Oregonlive the tax would be 1.5 cents/ounce. This tax along with the deposit increase recently passed would mean that consumers would pay an additional $2.76 for a twelve pack of soda.

            The goal of this tax, as stated by the advocates pushing it, is to promote the health of those living in Multnomah County by stopping consumption of sugary drinks. Over consumption of sugary drinks can lead to diabetes and obesity and this tax seeks to curb the increase in those maladies. According to Oregonlive, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg provided $60,000 to get the initiative started. In cities where this sort of tax has been introduced they have seen a 20% decrease in soda consumption.

            Yet what they do not report is the loss of jobs and damages to small businesses. Distributors will be laid off or fired, small businesses will take a hit to already dwindling profit margins, and consumers will be forced to pay the tax to get what they want or go without. Soda is not a necessary item but it is something that people want. We already have taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, and lottery games and now they are coming for your soda.

Yes those things are unhealthy for you, but why should we allow the government to use its authority to tax us as a way to tell us what we can and cannot consume? The responsibility of that choice falls on the individual not the state. Another argument for the tax is the claim that people who get diabetes from over consumption of soda and can’t afford the medical care is a burden on the state. That just seems like an argument against state funded healthcare to me. Ultimately it comes down to choice, do we the people have the choice in how we want to live our lives, or do advocacy groups and government officials get to make those choices for us? Does the free market get to decide the price of what is sold or does the government? In 1773 the Sons of Liberty dumped a shipment of tea into the harbor over a tax dispute. Will you stand by and allow this blatant reach into your pocket and attempt to control your actions, or could we see a Portland Soda Party? Only time will tell.

Activist Tyranny

            We all have seen protesters on Television and online outraged about something. They stand around with their signs, chant the same unimaginative slogans and generally annoy everyone. If it ended there that would be tolerable, but it keeps going. Politicians watch that and think, the people are upset and it is my job to help them. They then go and try to pass legislation to match the desire of these protesters.

            The old adage the squeaky wheel gets the grease is the best way to explain this series of events. A politician is in the business of getting elected. The best way to do this is to try and help the people (or at least appear to be helping the people). Especially if it means votes and looking good to the public. A politician cannot help someone he does not know needs help. So when the activist screams ‘I need help’ the politician is drawn to that like a moth to the flame. If you have a politician who is a bit more grounded then they won’t run so fast. In this case the activist just calls them a bigot or racist, which will cost politicians votes if they are seen in that light.

            The activist on the other hand has a world view and they want to correct problems that do not line up with their world view. An example is the push for equity rather than equality. If the community is 2% Asian than every organization needs to be made of up 2% Asians. If it isn’t then it is racist and needs to be dealt with. The activist stands up and boldly shouts that they are representing an oppressed group that is being treated unfairly, regardless of the fact that the group does or does not want them to speak for them. The activist gets what they want by being the loudest, most provocative and annoying voice. This allows them to gain the attention of those in power as well as drown out any opposing voices. They use sympathy to push their motives and if that does not work they attempt to use guilt and shame.

            These activist know what they are doing. They are smart and wield lots of power. You may think they are so stupid standing around chanting and waving signs, but they have a reason. It is the same reason most of us do anything, because it works. The starkest example of this activist tyranny you can see is the case of Evergreen College in Olympia Washington. The activist students hold all the power, so much so that they order the president of the college to not move his hands around when he talks because it is an oppressive gesture. Instead of telling them to kick rocks he complies with the order. They even tell him when he can and cannot use the bathroom along with sending someone to take him to the bathroom and back when he is allowed to go. This is why you will see politicians telling people to flood inboxes and call members of the opposite party. They want them to think that everyone wants what they want.

            The best way to combat the activist tyrant is not to become an activist tyrant ourselves but instead expose them for the totalitarian they are. Record what they are doing, mock them and make them laughable, and learn to speak and write your ideas clearly and articulately from a place of knowledge and authority. Become a civilized monster, one capable of terrible things but purposefully restrained. If this is done, you’ll be able to go into their darkness and drag them out into the light of truth without being turned into a tyrant yourself.

Canada: Death by 1000 Cuts

            Canada, our friendly neighbor to the north. American’s and Canadians have shared a long history together. We have had some bitter fights and have worked together on some amazing projects. Yet Canada seems to be losing her way. Bill C-16 has passed in Canada. This bill makes misgendering someone a crime with the full weight of the law behind it. They also introduced a bill targeting Islamaphobia that could eventually work its way into law.

            Bill C-16 adds gender expression and gender identity as protected classes under the law. That seems innocuous enough. Yet when you look at the laws already in place you find a more sinister intent behind this law. First, gender expression and gender identity are subjective, meaning it is up to each person to define it and it can be changed at will. This not only undercuts the I was born this way argument for Transgender people, but puts the weight of the law behind a whim. Secondly, putting this bill under the purview of the Human Rights Commission, it allows someone to be taken before a Social Justice Tribunal. These Tribunals are able to fine you as they see fit and refusal to pay could lead to jail time or seizure of property.

            Anti-Islamaphobia motion is another piece of legislation that sounds innocent, but is full of malice intentions. It would increase protection for those of Islamic faith without extending those same protections to other religions. For example, it would be okay to say Jesus was a liar or Moses was murderer but if you criticize Mohammad that is Islamaphobia. Under the guise of preventing racism, they seek to create a protected class that you are unable to criticize. Not only does this limit speech, but it smacks of the creation of an aristocracy.

            Those that support these laws say things like, “the law will not be used in that way” and that may be true while they are administering the law. Yet what they do not realize is that they will not live forever and someone more malevolent and willing will come along and do with these laws, all the while claiming moral righteousness and legal precedent, what they want in order to gain power. Sadly Canada does not have a strong protection on the Freedom of Speech as America does in the 1^st amendment. Instead they are burdened with Social Justice Tribunals, Hate Speech Laws, and a Progressive Prime Minister who cares more about being the poster boy for Social Justice then for protecting the rights and principles of the Canadian people.

The Rise of Collectivism

            If you pay attention to the news and the wider world you will have noticed in the West a growing divide among the people. You see black clad people running through the street leaving a path of destruction and battered bodies in their wake. You can also see people calling for an ethno state. These would be the philosophies of the Progressive Left and the Alt-Right, though you’ll get people from both of those camps firing those labels at anyone in the center. At the core of these philosophies are the same ideas just carried out in different ways but to much the same outcome.

            At the bottom of both of these schools of thought is collectivism. They both put people into groups based on some immutable characteristic and subscribe attributes to those people. They then place one group of people either at the top or the bottom and attack everyone else as being evil. This is why you hear people being called a ‘race traitor’ or ‘uncle tom’ or ‘cuck’ when they step out of the norm for their ascribed group. There is a great irony when these collectivist groups, who claim to be protecting and standing for these marginalized people, end up marginalizing these people the most when they start to think a different way.

            This is one of the underlying problems with the collectivist way of thinking. It is based on these ridged narrow ideas that are destroyed if the tinniest dissent is allowed. That is why those who dissent need to be weeded or purged along with anyone else who they may have talked to or shared the dissent with. Opposite to that is the liberal (classical liberal) idea of the individual. The classical liberal point of view not only withstands dissent, it values it.

            The Progressive Left has been pushing identity politics for a long time so it is easy to see why the Alt-right is pushing for the same thing. The Alt-right are trying to fight fire with fire and that is an understandable reaction, though not the best reaction. You don’t fight collectivism with your own brand of collectivism. Instead you fight collectivism with individualism. If you think the collectivist idea of oppression through you eventually get to individualism. It may very well be true that black people are oppressed one way and white people are oppressed another. Yet not all people are oppressed in the same way. A homeless white man suffers more oppression then Barak Obama’s daughters. You see this in the ever expanding acronym of the LGBTQ community. Eventually you will have to create a group for each individual at which point you have reached individualism.

            Both of these collectivist ideas must be rejected. In the end they are just groups of people vying for power in an attempt to impose their world view onto everyone else. The only way to stop them is to not start collective groups of our own but instead individually support individualist ideas. Like the Death Star a collective is very powerful but very ridged, it can focus a lot of power at one point, but cannot stand against several individuals who dare to disagree.

Free Speech: The Power of the People

            “It doesn't. Hate speech is excluded from protection. Don’t just say you love the Constitution … read it.” Chris Cuomo replied to someone on Twitter who said hate speech is protected under the 1^st amendment. Howard Dean, a former governor, said “Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.” These are just two examples of people trying to limit free speech. If you do a google search you can find plenty of articles condemning free speech as hate speech as well as many articles opposing that point of view.

            It seems counterproductive to oppose free speech in the name of protecting the oppressed and marginalized. Yet at protests and on college campuses you hear the argument that hate speech is the problem and that people need to be protected from it. They claim that free speech is being used as a mask to cover for Nazi’s and white supremacists to organize and hurt people. To the people opposing free speech as hate speech, words are violence. In their mind because words are violence it justifies the use of actual violence. That line of reasoning allows people to hit someone who is kneeling on the ground with their arms spread open over the head with a bike lock.

            Yet historically it is this protection of free speech that has been the greatest weapon to the oppressed and marginalized. Abolitionist and civil rights activists could have been arrested for hate speech if the government had the power to regulate speech. This is why we do not allow the government, borrowing from the 1^st amendment, to make law respecting or abridging the freedom of speech. Freedom of Speech is a power granted to everyone, it is something we are born with. With it the poorest person has power to stand up to the richest most powerful person. The individual has the power to stand up to the mob.

            A rich and powerful person has other means to get what they want yet a poor person may only have their voice. With their voice they can show the world that they are being oppressed, they can ask for help and can share their perspectives on the world. If you remove or limit freedom of speech you are not going to be rid of racist or white supremacists, you are not going to hurt the well off. Instead you’ll just end up hurting the oppressed and marginalized people who need their voice. If someone says we need to protect these people from free speech they might as well be saying that these people need to stay as children or as slaves. Instead we need to allow people to say what they believe, even if we don’t like it, because only in this way can we find the best way to move through the world.

Who Caused the Climate of Hate?

            In 2011 the Occupy Wall Street Movement started. This movement says in it’s about section on their website that it “[A]ims to fight back against the richest 1% of people that are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future.” (http://occupywallst.org/about/). This movement cloaks itself in the idea that they are standing up for the marginalized against the 1%. Yet they do not talk about starting services to help low income people work through the complex financial systems they say are oppressing them. Instead they focus on the wealthy as the root of the problem. It would seem that they do not care about helping those in need but rather destroying those they see as the oppressors. They don’t want to help the poor but instead hurt the rich.

            In 2013 Black Lives Matter started gaining momentum. This movement says in it’s about section on their website that “BlackLivesMatter is a call to action and a response to the virulent anti-Black racism that permeates our society.” (http://blacklivesmatter.com/about/) This movement cloaks itself in the idea that they are standing up for “black folks” against racism. Yet you do not see Black Lives Matter raising money to help schools in local black communities or to combat crime in those communities. Instead, under the Social Justice definition of racism (power + privilege), they want to fight against the racists. They don’t want to help black people but instead they want to hurt white people or anyone else they see as racist.

            These two movements show the division that has been present in our country before Donald Trump ran for the Presidency. You can also find incidence’s similar to these at Mizzou University, Yale University, and Claremont McKenna College. All of these events, protests and movements were before Donald Trump took office and about people ‘standing up’ for victims/ marginalized people. Yet none of these groups used the support they gained and large number of people to make a change for those ‘victims’. Instead they focused on removing those people they had a problem with from positions of power.

            So when news anchors and politicians go on television and say, “well Donald Trump caused all this division” or “Trump is at least in part responsible for this climate of hate” I have to call BS. He may have added to the climate with remarks like “Knock the crap out of them, I’ll pay your legal fees” refering to a protestor that may have been ready to throw tomatoes at the then candidate Trump as a form of protest. This climate was already being pushed in Universities since the 50s and expressed through activism in groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter. You can see Antifa is just a reincarnation of the Weather Underground.

            This division is part of a Post-Modernist Neo-Marxist philosophy that has substituted the working class for identity politics. This is an attempt to bring about the Marxist revolution and the destruction of Western culture built on the Enlightenment Liberal principles of free market capitalism, reason, logic and individual responsibility. This philosophy with its latent nihilistic and violent tendencies has taken root in the Democratic Party under the guise of equality, Social Justice and multiculturalism. The division and hate pre-dates Trump’s rise to the Presidency. Yet the Democrat Party (along with the mainstream media) blames Trump and the Republicans for this division. The Democrats are dividing people into groups and when Trump doesn’t do what they want they stir up the groups and say “see Trump is causing division”.

            These people know what they are doing. They are not stupid. As Jung said, “people don't have ideas, ideas have people” and these people are in the grip of the ideas of the Post-Modern Neo-Marxist to the point of religious fervor. We must stick to our ideas of the importance of the individual, free market capitalism, reason, logic and personal responsibility. For it is in these ideas the West has found freedom, prosperity and strength and will do so again.

GOP Shooter and the Possible Reasons

With each of these shooting we all stop and think, why did they do that? More often than not we are quick to blame whatever side to shooter claimed to be on. We blame them for ‘violent and polarizing rhetoric’ and ‘dog whistles’ which are all just thinly vailed calls for this sort of thing. One side will quickly jump on gun control and the other will say, if only one of the victims had a gun they could have stopped it sooner. Shortly after the political battle will start again and not much will be done. Instead why don’t we look at the deeper problem?

            Nihilism is defined as “the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. Extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence.” So if you have no moral principles and life is meaningless then what does it matter if you kill a few people? It does not happen right away but in stages. First you think that life is meaningless. Next you move to the idea that if life is meaningless then anything you do has no point to it. This can have a freeing effect because it tells you that there is no meaning in life and so you don’t need to worry about your responsibilities. Life is full of suffering and if you have no responsibilities or meaning then what is the point of suffering? This can cause resentment to foster. With this resentment growing you notice that not everyone is suffering as you are. This just causes more resentment, only directed to the world. Eventually you reach the conclusion that life is suffering without meaning and you start to plot your revenge. What is the best way to take revenge on life, why not take out a bunch of innocent people and to cap it all of take yourself out as well just to prove how meaningless everything is.

            This resentment has become a staple in our society today. You see it when college students at an Ivy League university who have their tuition being paid for by their parents marching in protest about how they are being oppressed. You see it when someone tweets from their iPhone while enjoying a pastry at Starbucks about how capitalism is evil. You see it when an illegal immigrant single mother of four is on welfare, WIC, housing assistance and a number of other social programs calls out for more government assistance. They are not mad because they don’t have enough, they are mad because someone else has more. This is the fatal flaw in socialism as well. They are not trying to help the poor, they are just mad at the rich.

            Another problem is fanaticism. Meaning “a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause.” Fanaticism is the opposite of Nihilism. They embrace morals in an extreme way. This ridged structure allows you to feel secure in the chaos of the world. Yet when you see other people doing better in the world who do not share your moral code, you start to get upset. It calls into question everything you stand for. Instead of looking at your code you start to resent those people who do not follow it. This resentment builds because you do not understand how someone, who is immoral, is allowed to succeed where you, who is doing everything right, is not doing as well. It eventually gets to the point where you think that if the universe isn’t going to bring justice onto these immoral people then I will have to. Usually the fanatic will claim a call from God or the universe or whatever higher belief they hold acting through them. You see this in a lot of terror attacks that take place.

            In both of these examples it is resentment that causes people to do harm to others. It goes back to the story of Cain and Abel. Cain, the older brother, resents Abel because God favors Abel’s sacrifices over Cain’s. Cain, instead of thinking to himself, I should make different sacrifices (even though God tells him that) starts to resent his brother Abel. His resentment grows so much that he eventually kills his brother. This resentment narrative is the older brother of the victim narrative. It moves from my life is terrible to your life is better and that is why my life is terrible. These are dark paths these people are walking down and we will never truly know their mind, but I hope this helps make a little more sense out of the world.

The Hydra of Socialism

For the first half of the 20^th century Socialism was seen by many intellectuals as the wave of the future. It was to be the system of government and economics that would create a better world for everyone. Slowly this dream started to die. Intellectuals refused to let it go and often turned a blind eye to the truth, claiming that it was just propaganda spread by capitalists to disparage socialism. Yet when the truth of the atrocities of socialism were put on full display in front of the world they could deny it no longer.

Socialism was created as a counter to liberalism and free markets. It held the theory that liberal free market capitalism (liberal meaning classical liberal or libertarianism of the US today) with its focus on the individual and their focus on their own interests would create a world that would be good for the few at the top and terrible for those at the bottom. This situation would eventually lead the proletariat rising up and overthrowing those at the top. They would then usher in socialism as the next evolutionary step. This theory also fell apart as the capitalist free market west saw vast improvements for everyone. In the 1950’s is when the socialist dream shattered.

Yet this shattering did not mean the end for socialism. Instead with its head cut off, like the hydra, several new heads sprouted in its place. Each head sought out a new criticism of capitalism and liberalism.

One path is seen in the environmental movement. They hold the theory that capitalism will eventually strip the environment bare to make a profit. From their perspective humans, with their intelligence and ingenuity, are more powerful than the plants and animals in nature. Since humans are more powerful they must be oppressing nature. You could argue that humans are just trying to survive in the world where nature can kill you without warning with something as large as an earthquake or something as small as a disease. The environmentalist would say a tornado is caused by climate change, the earthquake is caused by fracking and you are sick because of all the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) and pesticides. In short humans are oppressing nature so it is natural for nature to fight back and they are siding with nature.

Feminism has also been taken over by socialism. Men are in positions of power and so they are oppressing women. Minorities are being oppressed by white people, LGBTQ people by straight people, children by parents, the rest of the world by the west, small businesses by big businesses, and the list goes on and on. Here is an outline of the socialist line of reasoning as laid out by Dr. Jordan Peterson Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto:

1. Identify an area of human activity
2. Note a distribution of success
3. Identify winners and losers
4. Claim that the losers are losing only because they are oppressed by the winners.
5. Claim allegiance with the losers
6. Feel secure in your comprehensive explanation of the world
7. Revel in your moral superiority
8. Target your resentment towards your newly discovered enemies
9. Repeat. Forever. Everywhere.

The socialist idea of proletariat verses the bourgeoisie lost thanks to free market capitalism and classical liberalism. Socialism evolved into the current state of identity politics we see today. These ideas have taken hold because it is easy to play the identity politics game. It takes little effort while allowing you to feel morally and intellectually superior. This socialist hydra is real and very dangerous. In the hydra myth, the hydra’s blood is poisonous, it has multiple mortal heads and one immortal head. Hercules the hero of the story defeats the hydra with the use of fire to cauterize each head as he severs it.

This story should give you hope. While the hydra of socialism is dangerous, full of venom and a terrifying monster it can be defeated. You won’t be able to defeat socialism with force, just like Hercules could not defeat the hydra with his strength alone. That just causes it to spread farther. Instead you must use the fire and light of truth and reason to burn the different heads of socialism. It is in this way the individual hero can stand against the multiplying collective monster.

Note: These ideas are drawn from lectures by Dr Jordan Peterson and the book Explaining Post Modernism by Stephen R. C. Hicks as well as influences from F.A. Hayek, Milton Freedman, and Thomas Sowell among others.

 

NoFact #4 Chipping Away Racism

Chipping Away Racism

By Cod Eben Son

Social media has exploded with outrage yesterday over an incident at Dindu Market. Shop owner Ian Ocent is being accused of racism, bigotry, and white supremacy after allegedly taking money from minorities. NoFact reporter Trudy Bender tried to reach alt-right store owner Ian Ocent but he declined to comment, only stating that we were fake news. Trudy was able to talk to a number of people who said that he did take money from them. Guy Offastreet, a person of color affected by this incident had this to say:

Trudy: Did he take your money?

Guy: Yes.

Trudy: That is so awful, why did he do that?

Guy: I wanted a bag of Cheetos.

Trudy: He took your money simply because you wanted to feed yourself, I am shocked, and it is hard to believe such bigotry exists in our city.

Some random person on Facebook sums up the incident very clearly stating: “Welcome to President Cheetos America. I for one want to say this man is a hero, valiantly devouring Cheetos in defiance against a racist President and his emboldened supporters. Each orange puff he eats is another crushing blow against oppression.”

A group called No Reason Necessary has organized a protest for later this afternoon around 2pm or whenever they get out of bed. No Reason Necessary released a statement that they were going to smash not only Dindu Market but the face of any Nazi and white supremacist they see. NoFact expects it to be a peaceful riot.

Post-Modernism and the War on Free Speech

NOTE: This is a very brief (and stumbling) overview of my understanding of Post Modernism. For a more in depth look at Post Modernism I would recommend reading Stephen R.C. Hicks book Explaining Post Modernism. I would also recommend checking out lectures and talks given by Dr. Jordan Peterson, Professor of Psychology, which can be found for free on YouTube.

From Stephen Hicks book Explaining Post Modernism

“Heidegger offered to his followers the following conclusions, all of which are accepted by the mainstream of Post-Modernism with slight modifications:

1)  Conflict and contradiction are the deepest truths of reality;

 2) Reason is subjective and impotent to reach truths about reality;

3)  Reason’s elements – words and concepts – are obstacles that must be un-crusted, subjected to Destruktion, or otherwise unmaked;

4) Logical contradiction is neither a sign of failure nor of anything particularly significant at all;

5) Feelings, especially morbid feelings of anxiety and dread, are a deeper guide than reason;

6) The entire Western tradition of philosophy – whether Platonic, Aristotelian, Lockean, or Cartesian – based as it is on the law of non-contradiction and the subject/object distinction, is the enemy to be overcome.”

For those who are new to Post Modernism, it is the philosophy that is currently being taught in universities. It started as a counter to the enlightenment philosophy that gave us science and reason. It is safe to say that they are anti-science and anti-reason and believe that feelings are a better way to view the world then through reason, as seen in point five. This means that they will use science and reason as long as it supports their feelings, because post-modernists believe that feelings are a better way to understand truth. You can see in point six that the Western tradition of reason and science is the “enemy to be overcome.” This blended with Marxism gives us the idea that everything is open to interpretation and the current interpretation is the one in power. Since it is in power it must be oppressing those who are not in power. This boils everything down to a power game with oppressors on one side and oppressed on the other.

Freedom of Speech, as well as words in general, is open to interpretation as well. So when you see protestors at a Free Speech rally calling the people inside Nazi’s and Fascists that is because they feel that those people are Nazi’s and Fascists. In the Post-Modernist perspective that feeling is the only thing that matters. So you could say, I’m not a Nazi, I hate Nazi’s and give evidence that you are not a Nazi and they still will not believe you. That is what happens when you use feelings to understand reality. They feel that you are a Nazi and so it is true.

The idea outlined in point three is what allows people to change the definition of words to suit their needs. If they feel racism = power + privilege then of course it must mean that. Arguing with them on this point is useless because logic and “reason [are] subjective and impotent to reach truths about reality.” In fact any attempt to argue with them about the truth is meaningless except as a way for your group to gain power over their group.

This outlook means that they do not believe in dialog. The root word of dialog is logic and so why would they believe in dialog since all logic is a power game used by people in power to oppress those who are not. This is why they try to stop people from speaking on college campuses. It is not because they are afraid of them, at least not wholly, but because they see their use of logic and reason as a tool for oppression. We get the word logic from the Greek word Logos, meaning word or reason. It is clear that words and speech are closely linked to logic, but if logic is a Western tool of oppression then words must be part of that oppression.

Since words are oppressive, freedom of speech must be oppressive because it gives freedom to those in power to use logic in order to oppress those not in power. This means it is very easy for a Post-Modernist to see free speech as hate speech. They can of course change the meaning of the words hate speech to suit whatever needs they want as long as they feel that they are being oppressed by what is being said.

This is what is being taught in our universities in the West. This idea that Western civilization is oppressive and that reason and logic are just tools of that oppression. This is what it means to be a Post-Modernist Neo-Marxist. It is easy to write these people off as stupid, but I will tell you, they are not stupid. They tell you what they are doing openly, you can read it on any Women Studies and Feminist websites along with Antifa websites. They want to tear down Western civilization (the patriarchy or Fascists). They are very well educated and they know exactly what they are doing.

The Illegitimacy Narrative

            If you go to Google and search for Trump Illegitimate President you’ll get several articles with headlines making the claim that he is an illegitimate President. Some cite the popular vote and other blame Russian hacking but in the end they all agree, Trump may be an illegitimate President. This got me thinking as to why they would do this.

            First, people are mad that Hilary lost the election and are willing to say anything about Trump just to vent their frustrations. If we all remember Donald Trump called Obama illegitimate because he claimed he was not born in the US. Bush was also called illegitimate because of the close vote in Florida and losing the popular vote. It would seem this is just par for the course when a new president is elected.

            Second, news outlets print these stories because people want to read them. Those on the left read them and confirm their bias while those on the right read them and respond. The media does not care as long as they are getting clicks and subscribers.

            Third, people actually believe it to be true. They have made that leap of faith despite the fact that no evidence has come forward to prove their theory correct. If evidence existed it would have been leaked by now and would be all over the press. Yet they have full faith that if they look hard enough and long enough that they can prove Trump is illegitimate and impeach him. Even if they do we will have Mike Pence as President and little will change (maybe less tweeting).

            This narrative that is continuously being pushed has produced an awful side effect. It has created the idea that Trump is illegitimately in power and due to his illegitimacy it is not only acceptable to revolt against him, but it is the correct and moral thing to do. It immediately places anyone who supports Trump into the camp of supporting illegitimate power. This is where the Nazi references start to fly. The media, in their desire for a story everyone will read (as well as their own naked bias revealed in this last election cycle, which they still deny) push this narrative forward. This is where Antifa comes with the line of ‘reasoning’ that Trump stole power (is illegitimate), which makes him the reincarnation of Hitler and his supporters are Nazi’s and Nazi’s espouse genocidal ideologies which means they want to kill minorities and so punching Trump supporters (who are Nazi’s remember) anywhere at any time is an act of self-defense.

The reasons for pushing this narrative vary as do the methods of reaching its conclusion. This illegitimacy narrative has one goal in mind, to remove Trump from the presidency, either through impeachment or revolt. We must remember the only way to defeat this narrative is with truth and ideas. The truth that the only thing pushing this narrative is the hate of President Trump and his supporters. Remember the words of Vladimir Lenin “A lie told often enough becomes the Truth.” and you will see why this narrative is being repeated and what those pushing it believe in. Yet compare it to George Washington when he said “Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light.” Use a shield to protect against violence but be sure to wield the sword of truth, for it is the strongest weapon one can use.

Hate Speech: The Tyranny of Moral Busybodies

            Yesterday day I heard a politician from my state (Jeff Merkley) call a free speech pro-Trump rally a hate rally. Needless to say my blood boiled at how clueless this man who represents my state truly is. Calling a rally for free speech a hate rally just lays bare the truth of his intentions. Yet he carried on with this statement, despite several claims by the organizer that he wanted a peaceful rally and publicly stated that white supremacists, Nazi’s and KKK were not welcome at the rally. As well as rejecting the man accused of murdering two men on the MAX train from his previous event. It would seem that this rally for free speech was anything but hateful. Yet Merkley still called it a hate rally while our other senator (Ron Wyden) from my state (Oregon) was on the news saying “You have to take hate speech off the table.”

            To hear both Senators from my state speak in such a way I thought I should look into what hate speech is. Dictionary.com defines hate speech as “speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.” Sounds reasonable, right? Who would want any of this to happen? Real life is not a simple dictionary definition. As seen from Senators Merkley and Wyden, what is considered hate speech can have a wider range of interpretations. If a pro-Trump free speech rally can be labelled as a hate rally, then what is to stop someone from labeling a feminist rally as a hate rally? They clearly stand against the patriarchy and talk about toxic masculinity. Is that not speech that attacks, threatens or insults someone based on gender? Will black lives matter be considered at hate group under this definition? With signs that say fuck white people and saying that all white people are racist, is that not speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a group based on color or ethnicity? The only thing that you’ll get out of hate speech is censorship from people in positions of power.

            Hate speech in its own right is a problem but when you combine it with the idea being pushed on college campuses of intersectionality that is when you have a recipe for disaster. Dictionary.com defines intersectionality as “the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage.” You often hear people while talking about intersectionality saying that everything is racist and everything is sexist you just have to look for it. It is from this same idea that we get the ‘logic’ that white males are privileged and everyone else is oppressed. So if you are white and female you are oppressed by white males, but if you are black and female you are doubly oppressed simply because of the color of your skin and the type of genitals you have.

            When you combine hate speech and intersectionality you have a system that says everything is racist/sexist/etc and falls under the category of hate speech and should be removed from the conversation. This is also why the Progressives want to change the definition of racism to Power + Privilege making it ‘impossible’ for people of color to be racist. To add it all up if white men have both power and privilege, then they are racist consciously or unconsciously and so everything they say or do it a form of hate speech since they are inherently racist. So white men need to shut up and let everyone else talk, which if you think about it, if white people (and white men in particular) are inherently racist, would it not be the moral thing to do to place them into camps so their racism won’t hurt anyone. In fact to completely eradicate racism you’d have to eradicate white men altogether, they are inherently racist after all and can never be changed. I don’t think it will go that far but the leap is not as far as it used to be (removes tin foil hat).

            These ideas put up by Ron Wyden and and Jeff Merkley remind me of a quote by C.S. Lewis, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” Do not be drawn in by the seemingly innocuous idea of hate speech, instead question everything and refuse to let those pushing this idea define and dictate the words you use.