Why Don’t We See Any Young Politicians?

I have been interested in politics for a long time. I believe it springs from my love of history and how politics plays a direct role in shaping the future. Recently, like a lot of people, I have become more involved in politics. I write this blog, I went to my first presidential campaign rally, went to my first political rally, went to my first protest, and joined a political party.

I have noticed that a lot of politicians tend to be older. Donald Trump is 71, Hillary Clinton is 70, Bernie Sanders is 76, John McCain is 81, Joe Biden is 75. The average age in the House is 57 years old and the Senate is 61 years old according to Congressional Research Service.

While this is not a bad thing in itself it does raise a question in my mind. Why are all our elected officials so old?

Retire Already

I firmly believe that the best person for the job should get the job regardless of age. Yet I personally hope that when I am 70, provided I make it that far, that I am doing something that I like in a home that I love with my wife, the love of my life. I expect I will be reading lots of books and writing none stop.

I do not understand why politicians just keep running for office when they should be enjoying a life of accomplishment. It could be a desire for power, love of the job, the feeling of wanting to help people, or just a fear that no one else can do what is right but them. Each politician will have a different reason I am sure.

Yet at some point you need to realize that enough is enough and you need to take some time for yourself. Step away and live a good life with your family and friends and have faith that the country will still run without you there. It has made it this for before you and will, hopefully, continue far into the future without you.

Established

I think it has something to do with being more established in the world the older you get. When you are young you are struggling to pay rent or mortgage and afford food. You are still trying to find your place in the world while trying to not die doing it.

You have gained respect in the community and wisdom that comes from experience. It is also less of a risk if you have an established place to fall back on if you do not succeed in gaining office.

There are some benefits to having older people as political leaders, but a balance is needed. Some things you need young and fresh eyes to understand.

Technology

Most the people in politics did not grow up with a computer in the home. They did not grow with the internet, they did not live in a world where everyone has a cell phone, and social media was not part of the fabric of everyday life.

Not having these technologies puts these older politicians at a disadvantage when trying to deal with the problems presented by these technologies. Internet culture is misunderstood and called racist or bigoted. It is almost as if they suffer from e-phobia, fear of internet culture.

It is true that the world is changing all the time. It is not the same as it was in 1900 as it was in the 1950, just as the 1950’s are not the same as the 1990’s. Much the same way the 1990’s are very different then things are today.

Youth in Politics

This is my blog so of course you are going to get my opinion, but I think that we need younger people to run for office. It is not that older people are incapable of doing a good job, but they need to be balanced out with younger people who have fresh eyes and fresh ideas.

I wish I had a better solution available and I know the comments are going to be, “If that is what you think needs to happen than be the change you want to see in the world.” It is something that I have thought about to be sure, but I personally I do not feel I am established enough to provide the credentials for public office.

I have ideals and a set of moral guidelines such as always erring on the side of liberty, smaller government, and personal responsibility. I do believe that young people, especially young men are crying out for someone to tell them they can stand on their own and can take personal responsibility for not only their lives but the world around them.

We are fed a constant diet of rights, right to healthcare, right to welfare, right to bathrooms, nothing but rights. Yet no one talks about how if you take personal responsibility for yourself that you can make things better for yourself and for those around you. That you can be the hero who reduces the suffering in the world by willingly facing problems, picking up the burden and carrying it forward as opposed to the person who is nothing but an endless source of resentment and hatred.

Yet that is my opinion, so take it for what it is worth.

Words as Violence

Words are not violence and it is dangerous to fail to address this point of propaganda. The Far Left, Regressive Left, Illiberal Left, Ctrl Left or Activist Left (whatever you want to call them) argue as if the idea that words are violence is fact.

Never agree or apologize when someone is making this statement or arguing from this perspective. To give here would cede linguistic ground and provide a path to erode the first amendment right to free speech.

People can use words offensively, crudely, and can say hateful things but with a few minor exceptions (such as direct credible threats) they are not violence.

I define violence in this blog post in the most common use of the word meaning, “behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.”

The Monopoly on Violence

The theory of the Monopoly on Violence is that the state, through a process of legitimation, is the only entity that can claim legitimated use of physical force. It is a more complex theory and you can find more in Thomas Hobbes’ book Leviathan and more recently Max Weber’s essay Politics as a Vocation, but for now this quick definition will do.

If the state has a monopoly on violence, they are the ones who can regulate its use, or rather state officials are the ones who will control its use. If we accept the idea that words are violence than we are being asked to accept that the state has a monopoly on the use of them.

This is a round-a-bout way of saying that the state should be able to control what people say. This idea was presented briefly in a talk between Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt (here). To make the claim that words are violence is to say that some ideas are violence. Part of how we think about things is that we talk about them, but if we are not allowed to do that then we lose the natural right to our own ideas formed by interaction with other people through speech.

Words are NOT violence.

The Self-Defense Justification

If we again accept that words are violence than we also have to assume that you are allowed to defend yourself from this violence up to and including the use of force.

This would mean that you have the legal and moral justification for hurting someone with force who is saying something you do not like. This is where the Punch A Nazi meme comes from and how groups like Antifa justify their use of force.

Hate speech would be considered violence and could be met with violence. The biggest flaw in this sort of thinking is that each individual has a different idea of what hate is. Some people believe saying there are biological differences between men and women are hateful, even if it is backed up by biology and human experience.

This line of thinking just allows people to use force against those they do not like or agree with all while giving them the ability to live with themselves.

Words are NOT violence.

When you are on social media or having conversations in the world listen to what other people are saying. If they try to start from a position of words can cause harm or something of that sort you should immediately reject their position. That is not to say words cannot be dangerous, they certainly can be, but they are dangerous like a car or gun is dangerous, but words and speaking them is never violence.

If you consider words violence then you must allow the state, and by proxy state officials, to hold the monopoly on the use of words. You must also allow for the use of force against people speaking words that are considered violence. I know I have said this a few times, but I feel that it cannot be said enough.

Words are NOT violence.

Guilt by Association: Suppression of Freedom of Thought on University Campus

On November 1^st Lindsey Shepherd, a teaching assistant in Communications Studies at Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario Canada, showed a five minute video clip from TVO’s “The Agenda”. The episode featured a debate between two University of Toronto professors, Jordan Peterson and Nicholas Matte.

The debate was about the use of gendered pronouns, in particular for Professor Peterson the force behind the use of compelled speech that underlies the pronoun question (See the full video of the TVO debate here). After alleged claims of an undisclosed number of student complaints Shepherd was called to a meeting.

The Meeting

In this meeting were Supervising Professor Nathan Rambukkana, Associate Professor Herbert Pimlott, and Manager of Gendered Violence Prevention and Support Adria Joel along with Lindsay Shepherd. In the meeting Shepherd was accused of being “Transphobic” and “Creating a toxic climate.”

Professor Rambukkana stated in the interview that by playing this debate as she did that “This is like neutrally playing a speech by Hitler or a Milo Yiannopoulos speech from Gamergate.” When Shepherd asked to know the number of complaints or who is making the complaint Rambukkana said both were protected by confidentiality.

At one point Lindsey said “In a University all perspectives are valid.” To which Professor Rambukkana replied “That is not necessarily true, Lindsey.” Begging the question, who gets to determine which perspectives are valid and which are not.

Rambukkana also stated that “Laurier is being blanketed with white supremacist posters. There is another debate in society which is, whether or not North America should be a set of white nationalist states and that it should be ethnically cleansed of other people.” The claim about the posters could not be verified at this time. As for the claim of ethnically cleansing people from North America being a debate going on in society is outright ludicrous. Outside of a small fringe movement of the Alt-Right no one is debating this.

Adria Joel at one point makes the claim that showing the video is “Gendered based violence, transphobia, in that policy [gendered and sexual violence policy], causing harm to trans students by framing their identity as invalid or their pronouns as invalid… potentially invalid, which is under the Ontario human rights code is a protected thing, also something that Laurier holds as a value.”

Lindsey replied “Okay so by proxy me showing a YouTube video I am Transphobic and I caused harm/violence, so be it, I cannot do anything to control that.”

Prof Rambukkana chimed in “Okay so that’s not something you have an issue with, the fact that that happened, like are you sorry that…?

Both Joel and Rambukkana believe that showing a video that was aired on television in Canada is a form of violence and harm. They are working from the foundation that words are harmful and a form of violence against people, particularly Trans-people in this case.

Associate professor Herbert Pimlott said “Nazi’s actually used issues around the free speech idea in the 1920’s Wiemar Germany, which is what they are using now.” He is attempting to equate freedom of speech with Nazi’s. Understandable from someone who believes that words are violence, but foundationally incorrect.

The Apology

Unbeknownst to the other members of the meeting Shepherd was recording the whole conversation (full version here and abridged version here). She released this recording to the press.

On November 21^st the media coverage forced Wilfrid Laurier University and Professor Rambukkana to issues public apologizes to Lindsey Shepherd (President and Vice-Chancellor Deborah MacLatchy apology letter here and Rambukkana apology letter here).

The letter from the University apologizes for “the WAY the meeting was conducted” not that the meeting was conducted at all. In the next line MacLatchy tries to play the victim card claiming that the “staff and students involved in this situation have been targeted with extreme vitriol.” No evidence has been provided to substantiate these claims.

The apologies were only issued because of the media coverage and public outrage over this incident.

The Legal Framework

The Canadian Parliament passed Bill C-16 earlier this year which added gender expression and gender identity to the human rights code. Professor Peterson argued that this law and its surrounding legislation would produce a system that compels individuals by force to use words other people want them to use. Essentially compelled speech backed by force of law.

He also argued that refusal to do so would be a crime in Ontario. The action taken by University of Toronto a few days after his videos were released on YouTube vindicated him. This action by Wilfrid Laurier University also vindicates Peterson’s concerns about the passage of this bill.

The Wilfrid Laurier University Gendered and Sexual Violence Policy and Procedures defines Gendered Violence as, an act or actions that reinforce gender inequalities resulting in physical, sexual, emotional, economic or mental harm. This violence includes sexism, gender discrimination, gender harassment, biphobia, transphobia, homophobia and heterosexism, intimate partner violence, and forms of Sexual Violence. This violence can take place on any communication platform (e.g., graffiti, online environments, and through the use of phones).

The inclusion of emotional and/or mental harm in this definition allows it to be applied to anyone claiming to have experienced these actions. No objective proof can be obtained and no clear definition can be given to what emotional or mental harm entails. Under this definition I could claim the rainbow flag causes me emotional and mental harm because it discriminates against my cis identity and would fall under gender discrimination.

Of course this claim is as crazy as it sounds, but the Policy continues to get worse. In a section titled Policy the first paragraph 8.00 states Laurier condemns Gendered and Sexual Violence of any kind. Laurier recognizes that Gendered and Sexual Violence impacts people of all genders but it does not impact everyone equally; therefore, responses, prevention efforts, and supports will take into consideration the complexities of violence as experienced by people with Intersecting Identities.

This means that they will consider those with Intersecting Identities above those without. Clearly a form of discrimination and one based on sexism, racism, etc. Do not take my word for it, they define Intersection Identities in section 3.03 as Intersecting Identity/Intersectionality: an understanding that people and their experiences of Gendered and Sexual Violence are shaped by their connection to different social locations (e.g., race, ethnicity, Indigeneity, gender, class, sexual identity, geography, age, disability/ability, migration status, religion).

To take into consideration Intersecting Identities means the university will use those Identities in determination of the outcome. This means that the above mentioned identities will have to be weighted differently for each identity with the result that some identities will be weighed or considered more than others.

Under this policy a gay white man would have less consideration than a Bi Trans Black Woman. The foundation under this sort of policy or definition is that all people of any Identity group are exactly the same unless they have Intersectionality with another Identity group.

The problem with Intersectionality is that we have already figured this out in Western Culture. If you follow Intersectionality to its logical conclusion you end up with individuality due to the fact that you can break each individual person down into a near infinite number of Identities throughout time.

Beware

These sort of policies are not exclusive to Canadian Universities. In fact they are not exclusive to Canada or Universities. Large corporations like Google and Apple have diversity officers and departments, News organizations, such as the BBC, have hiring quotes based on race (see article here), and legislation is being passed at all levels of Government.

Hate Speech laws have sent people in the UK to jail for a tweet or Facebook Post (see article here). These sort of laws, policies and regulations are permeating our culture and they are limiting liberty far more than anything else.

In this case Lindsey Shepherd was able to stand up to the bullies of academia and come on out top, but the underlying policies wait just under the surface ready to drag off into the night those who dare to think differently.

Red Pill Poetry: No One Will Expect the Progressive Inquisition

I dare to blaspheme against the church of Social Justice

A Cult of Diversity that worships at the Alter of Power

Congregating in the street they call and answer, their hymns repeated

“No Trump, No KKK, No Fascist USA”

Slurs hang on people like the plague

Spread by association with one of the infected

Adherents are told to listen and believe, logic rejected

Windows shatter, cars in flames, businesses destroyed, people in red hats blamed

Words whispered in dark corners, Fascism, Alt-Right, Nazi, Hitler

Words are violence, justification found

Self-defense they claim while beating a man on the ground

Journalist, activist lines are blurred, fact check true

Misleading headlines an attempt to get you to view

Professors replace priests, administrators replace inquisitors that no one will expect

Say our words, they say, to do so is to respect

Refuse and you’ll get the social media rack, your life pull through your belly coiled for all to see

A new religion is born, the tenets of diversity,

Tolerance, and compassion taken to the extreme

I dare to blaspheme against the doctrine of Social Justice

An iron fist wrapped in a black mask of anonymity

I am branded with words of the heretic

Racist, Homophobe, Sexist, Xenophobe, Bigot, Islamophobe, KKK, Transphobe, Nazi

Those are slurs not arguments

The iron fist of Social Justice will prove brittle against the steel of logic tempered by truth

Logic a shield against a raised fist, truth a sword against lies

The Culture War rages, the Progressive inquisition is underway

Will you remain willfully blind and hope it passes you by

Or will make the choice to face danger willingly, to pick up your responsibility

And bare it?

The Normalization of Bigotry

The letter above is from the City Club of Portland and is signed by the President of the Board of Governors for that organization, Lisa Watson. In this letter she is rejecting research done by volunteers for City Club at the expense of volunteer time and energy simply because of their skin color.

“As part of the Board of Governors’ standard review of the research process, it came to our attention that every member of the committee was white. While we have no doubt that the committee members entered into this research project in good faith and with all best intentions, it’s clear that an all-white committee makes our research vulnerable to significant and substantive racial bias.”

What Lisa Watson is saying is that they are rejecting this study because it might be compromised by racial bias. Yet the criteria for making that assertion is based on racial bias. That a group of white people cannot do something effectively because they are white. You can read the full article and letter here.

Dear White People

This is not the only article that attacks white people. The New York Times published an article titled Can My Children Be Friends With White People? In this article the author, Ekow N. Yankah a professor at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshive University says that white people cannot be trusted and he will teach his children to mistrust white people.

Mistrusting a group of people based on skin color is racist. Teaching children to mistrust people of a certain skin color is racist. As a professor he is not only teaching his own children not to trust white people but teaching other people’s children that white people are not to be trusted.

He does give a pass to white people who go and protest and do what he likes, essentially saying that the only white people you can be friends with are the ones who will do what you want.

Almost one year ago on December 25^th 2016 George Ciccariello-Maher an Associate Professor at Drexel University tweeted out saying “All I want for Christmas is White Genocide.” He followed that tweet up with a clarifying tweet saying “To clarify: when the whites were massacred during the Haitian Revolution, that was a good thing indeed.”

He tried to play it off as a joke aimed at criticizing and mocking the alt-right idea of white genocide. Yet if you turned the statement around and replaced white with any other skin color that would get you fired on the spot. Ciccariello-Maher was placed on administrative leave on October 11^th 2017 after blaming the Las Vegas Shooting that left 59 people dead on a system that favors white males.

Sally Boynton Brown, the Chairwoman of the Idaho Democratic Party, said in a speech while running for Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair that “My job is to shut other white people down when they want to interrupt. My job is to shut other white people down when they say, ‘Oh, no, I’m not prejudiced; I’m a Democrat; I’m accepting. My job is to make sure [white people] ‘get’ that they have privilege.” (Read the article here or watch the video here)

Sally Boynton Brown said this among cheers. She also said “I am from Idaho, we are so white” as if being white were something bad to be. That white people need to be ‘schooled’ so that we can move forward as a country.

This is someone who holds a political office in the Democratic Party. Someone who was seen as enough of a leader that she thought she had a chance to win the DNC chair position.

There are several articles like this. Sargon of Akkad a well known YouTuber made a video that does a great job of explaining this narrative here.

Every Narrative Needs a Villain

News media, universities and the political left are trying to build up white people are a sort of monolith. That is because the far left and the Democrat Party focuses on the rights of groups as opposed to the rights of individuals. (See my previous post on that here).

They need people to fit into groups so they can then claim to be fighting for those groups. To fight for a group you must be fighting against something. You cannot fight against the government because there are virtually zero laws that discriminate based on race or gender. Also you do not want to fight the government if you are running for office because you will be the government if you get elected.

Instead you make the government the answer, with you as the elected official of course, and you point to something else as the problem. The ‘problem’ a lot of media outlets and universities are pointing to is white people.

To be fair there have been some horrible white people and there still are horrible white people. Yet to pretend that this is exclusive to white people is to deny context, reality and history.

Exclusionary Tactics

The term People of Color (POC), which is often used in the media and by Progressives is a term designed, consciously or unconsciously, to exclude white people. Think about the term, who is a person of color? Anyone who is not white of course. So when a Progressive says there is racism against People of Color what they are really saying is that white people are racist.

To the Progressive white people cannot be part of the group, they can only be allies. Being an ally means doing everything that the Progressives say is right without question, you can see that in this video here. It also means that you can help the group but you can never truly be part of the group.

By redefining racism and using terms like POC and ally the Progressives are actively creating fault lines among people in order to divide them into groups to get them on their side. At times this turns against them and you get groups like the Alt-Right, who believe in a lot of the same ideas as the Progressive left, just on the white people side.

Why?

The activists, journalists, media pundits, university professors, and anyone else with a Progressive bent to them will tell you they are doing this to help POC, to destroy systemic racism that is at the foundation of Western Civilization or some other flowery way of saying they are helping people.

That is what they will say they are doing, and it might even be what they believe they are doing, but I am reminded of a quote from the bible Matthew 7:20 “Therefore by their fruits you will know them.”

So what kind of fruit is being produced by this Progressive tree? Has it fed the hungry, made suffering less for humanity or has it caused people to turn out in the street and destroy things? The fruits I have seen produced are riots in the street, people being attacked for defending freedom of speech, and division being created along any sort of identity lines that people associate with. POC versus white, LGBTQ versus straight, rich versus the poor, men versus women, Republican versus Democrat, and the list of this sort of fruit goes on and on.

The roots of this Progressive tree is Post Modernism growing in the soil of Neo-Marxism. Post Modernism boils everything down to power, if someone is more successful it is because they have more power, while Marxism boils everything down to oppressor versus oppressed. In this ideology if you are doing better than someone else, it is not because you are more competent but rather that you have more power and are using that power to oppress others.

Combine this with the idea of group’s rights and group identity and taking the data that on average white people are doing well, you will find the justification for the hatred of white people. Terms are developed and words redefined to separate white people from others. This is done so that people can manipulate others into doing what they want so they can possess power to make the world a better place.

I just wonder how many bodies they will need to stack up in their attempt this time.

Activism and the False Mask of Compassion

This year we have seen a lot of protest. These protests do not spring out of the ground like some would have you believe. Instead they are organized by activists with an agenda. Some activists are well meaning but many use this good nature as a shield for their hate.

False Claims of Representation

This is a slight of hand that does not get challenged. An activist will claim they are representing a group of people, usually by saying I am standing up for the rights of this group of people.
The second way this happens is when a member of a group of people claims they are speaking for the group. For example, I am bald so if I say ‘as a bald man’ I am subtly claiming to speak as a representative for all bald men.

Always challenge activists on this claim, just because you say you are speaking for a group of people does not mean they all agree with you. A lot of the ‘communities’ these activists are claiming to speak for are in fact not communities at all. Instead they are people the activist has grouped together based on one characteristic or another.

You should remind these activists that these groups they are claiming to speak for (People of Color, LGBTQ, etc) do not all think alike. They are not all the same and believing that they are is racist (sexist etc). Unless a group of them got together and voted to have you speak for them, then you cannot legitimately claim to speak for them.

Even if a group did you can only claim to speak for that group of people that voted for you, not the whole category of people represented by that group. It is up to each individual to speak for themselves, which is why freedom of speech is so important.

Hiding Hate Behind Compassion

If you watch people you can tell a lot about what they are really up to. An activist that organizes a food drive for needy families, probably really has compassion for the poor. An activist who Occupies Wall Street, probably cares less about the poor and instead just hates the rich.

Marxism and Communism attract these hate activists in large numbers. That is due to the deep down underlying hatred imbedded in the Marxist doctrine. It sounds great when someone hands you a set of beliefs that say all that hate, nihilism and frustration you are feeling, it is right and you are justified in violently overthrowing those who are doing better than you.

The activist will use compassion as a justification for their hatred of a certain group of people. One of the best examples of this is the 3rd wave feminist ideas of ‘toxic masculinity’ and ‘male privilege.’ Neither one of these concepts promotes women, instead it seeks to tear down men.

I suggest everyone try to examine their motivations behind their own actions. If you find you are doing something just to spite a group or person you do not agree with, perhaps you should find a more productive use of your time. Activists lack this introspection, blinded by both their anger/hate and their misguided belief that they are caring accepting people. If you do not think that compassion can be used as a weapon just watch a momma bear with her cubs.

Virtue Signaling is Not Actual Virtue

Today we see politicians, celebrities, universities professors and activists virtue signaling nonstop. Virtue signaling is “the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one’s good character or the moral correctness of one’s position on a particular issue.”
It seems they seek to demonstrate their good nature as opposed to actually do the hard work of being good. Virtue signaling is more about the appearance and recognition gained as opposed to actually being virtuous.

You can see this in the cases coming out in Hollywood and against male feminists. People publicly signalling they are champions of women all while using that perception as a method to lure women into abusive situations. They hide their nefarious motives behind the mask of compassion.

Compassion can be a good thing when it motivates you to help someone in need. Yet all too often activists claim compassion to justify their anger and hate against people they perceive as evil. They make those whom they are claiming to feel compassion for as victims and those they hate as oppressors to justify any actions they take. Preferring to appear virtuous instead of doing the consistent hard work of being virtuous. Appearance matters more than substance to those who virtue signal. The hate activist dons the false mask of virtue, wholly believing the lies they are telling themselves and the world.

It is Okay to be White

I am not sorry for being a white cis-gendered male.

Stop trying to shame me for being born this way.

Calling me a racist based on my skin color

 Is racist,

Calling me sexist based on my genitals

Is sexist,

Calling me misogynist based on how I identify my gender

Is wrong.

These are assumptions that get made about straight white men all the time.

I am not ashamed to be white.

I am not ashamed being a male.

I am not ashamed for being straight.

I could care less about how you identify, who you sleep with, or the color of your skin

I know racism and sexism exist in people

Which is why I judge people based on the content of their character

Not the color of their skin

Not who they are attracted too

And not the gender they claim.

I am not sorry for my ‘privilege’

I am not sorry for how you feel

Because only you can control that

I am not sorry for slavery

Because I never took part in it nor have I ever supported it

I am not sorry there are more male doctors then female

Because women are smart, strong and able to choose the job they want and get it

I am not sorry I called you he or she

Because how am I supposed to know what you call yourself

I am not sorry for being your idea of evil based on my skin color, genitals and sexual orientation

Because I am not evil

I am just a person who disagrees with you

 

Authors Note: Never apologize to the Progressive Social Justice types. It will never work and will never be good enough. Also, because it needs to be said, I do not support white supremacy, any form of ethno nationalism, authoritarianism or any kind of racism or segregation.

November 4th Conclusion: Not with a Bang but a Whine

November 4^th was described as Antifa’s attempt to start a revolution. This was a bit hyperbolic and most people understood that a revolution or civil war was not going to happen. Due to past violent actions of Antifa and their supporters everyone was going to keep an eye on this protest, even if they did not expect much. This was a perfect response, doubtful but ready.

What actually took place on November 4^th was even weaker than expected. I attended the rally in Portland Oregon to see what they hype was about. Patriot Prayer, a local pro conservative group, showed up to watch and things got interesting.

Your Side!

I stood in the crowd listening to a speaker who introduced herself as a LGBTQ person of color through a black mask over her face. Her speech lasted about two minutes, consisting of her on the verge of tears upset about Trump being president and the plight of minorities.

She ended her speech by saying you should be proud of your identity. This kicked me hard in the funny bone and my mouth, always a bit faster than my brain, opened and out came the reply, “Even white identity?”

This got the attention of a nearby Antifa guy whose head whipped around so fast that I thought he had hurt his neck. He told me to “shut the f**k up with that shit.”

I was in too deep at that point so I doubled down and noticing he was white too, I called him brother. This just made him even angrier and he told me not to call him brother. I laughed to myself and said “Of course, brother.”

This was a tame interaction compared to a few of the ‘conversations’ that were had. I noticed that the Anti-Trump people kept using the phrase, your side. They would say, your side flies the confederate flag or your side chanted blood and soil in Charlottesville.

The Patriot Prayer group had denounced and even kicked out white supremacists from their rallies, doing everything they can to welcome anyone who is for freedom of speech and liberty.

The phrase, your side, is very telling. It would suggest that the Anti-Trump people have no interest in a conversation with anyone who is conservative or a Trump supporter. It lends itself to a view of the world that sees people only in groups. Groups based on skin color, sexual preference, or some other single aspect of a person.

So if a conservative did something somewhere that was immoral then all conservatives are to blame. The Anti-Trump people have a clear world view, either you believe their ideology with religious zeal or you are a bigot and not on their side.

Crowd Size

From the excitement around the protest and the amount of planning that went into it I expected a larger crowd. The videos online make it seem like large groups of people, yet I could not help but notice that my brother-in-law’s neighborhood parties have more people at them. I had more people at my wedding, about 150, then were at this protest that was supposed to kick start the revolution that ousted the Trump/Pence ‘Regime.’ There were even more people at Trumps inauguration.

This just made all the hyperbolic rhetoric sound pathetic and empty. Half the crowd seemed to be made up of Pro-Trump people, media, passersby, and curious onlookers. The other half was made up of Antifa, bitter self-righteous old women, pro-communist/anti-capitalist, and activists.

The March

After the speeches were done a march was to begin. I waited as the march headed toward the waterfront. After it got a block or so away I followed with a group of Trump supporters. Several times on the march I was asked by people on the street what was going on.

It turns out most people had no idea what was happening and once I explained it to them they seemed disinterested. It was starting to rain and was cold so people were heading into bars for a drink and a warm meal, or were just trying to get home.

The protesters who were marching used the same old chants as if repeating a religious mantra. Most people just politely waited for the protest to go by and went back to their life.

I left halfway through the march, life called and I had other things to do. The protest was small and the general public had no idea what was going on. The revolution never materialized and in the end you just had a tiny group of people who can only see the world in terms of groups. For that I am not angry with them but feel sad that they fail to see that everyone is an individual and each person has an individual story that is just as amazing as everyone else’s.

I hope one day these collectivist authoritarian ideas loosen their hold on these protesters, but until then we much keep a watch for their spread. Freedom and Liberty are fragile things and need to be protected for future generations.

Are you a Nazi?

The quick answer is no, you probably are not a Nazi. Yet if you find yourself being accused of being a Nazi all the time it is definitely worth a look. Not because you might find that you are a secret Nazi but because you’ll find ways to argue back against this over used slur.

Looking Inside

Even a quick look at yourself will show that you are in fact not a Nazi. You might be nationalist, but you are not socialist and are not collectivist.

A point I struggled with is that I have been called a Nazi or white nationalist so many time that I thought when anyone was called this then it must just be an unfounded slur. It was hard to identify those who were legitimately had Nationalist Socialist view and those who held true to individual liberty.

The problem forced me to look at my ideals and crystalize what they meant to me and how I acted them out in the world.

Separate the Wheat from the Chaff

Once you have taken a look at yourself it is easy to identify those people who could be considered Nazi’s and separate yourself from them. It is okay to say you do not support or do not like Nazi’s and white nationalist. You do not need to be fanatical about it, but you can clearly state that you do not support Nazi’s and you are not one yourself.

The activists will still want to call you Nazi, because they need you to be one. They need someone to appear to be an oppressive force for them to fight against. Some will change it slightly and ask you why Nazi’s were at an event you were at. The best answer is “I don’t know, I don’t like Nazi’s, why don’t you ask them?” Simple, true, to the point and immediately takes the bluster out of the activist.

The activists will still call you a Nazi but that is because they want you to be one. They are depending on you to be one so they can justify themselves.

Republicans and Conservatives are Not Nazi’s

Activists that claim that Republicans and Conservatives are Nazi’s are attempting to use the word Nazi to slander those they politically oppose. They want to make people in those movements seem so bad that the average person will have to vote for the side they like.

Personally I know I have had hesitation to say that I am a Republican when in a social setting. I think this is a horrible thing. I have heard people saying terrible things about Republicans to a large group of people to rounds of laughter. This sort of social pressure kept my mouth closed, enough though I wanted to say that I was a Republican.

Looking back, perhaps I could have changed a few minds if I had spoken up, but I just cemented the negative opinion in people’s mind. It is what is socially acceptable so it must be right they will think.

If you look in on yourself and find out what ideals you strive for you will be able to say honestly and proudly that you are a Republican or Conservative. You will realize and be able to separate yourself from extreme elements and if you act with patience you might even change a few minds.

Authors Note

I know I have not posted a blog post in over a week. Things at work got busy and I have been traveling for work. I also have come across the problem every writer comes across now and again, running out of ideas or writers block.

I also want to improve the level of my writing in the hope that more people will read, enjoy and share it. This will mean more time and effort on my part, but it is a labor of love. Feel free to comment and let me know how I am doing, subscribe if you enjoy my work and share if you think other people will be interested.

Thanks for checking me out and thanks for reading.