How to Cure Your Liberalism (Special Edition II)

Welp, it’s official. Bob can marry Joe, Joe can marry Nancy, Nancy can marry Olivia, and Olivia can marry Bob (not at the same time though… yet).

Personally, I support gay rights and gay marriage. I think adults should be able to do whatever they want with other consenting adults. And since I can’t think of a single decent reason to be opposed to gay marriage, best wishes to all of the adults who got a little freer this week.

As social media becomes a rainbow extravaganza in celebration of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling, here are a few things I’ve been thinking about:

9 People Decided What Marriage is for 300 Million People across 50 States

Isn’t that weird? Given the 5-4 decision, if just one of those Emperor Palpatine looking old folks “nay”-ed for gay instead of “yay”-ed for it, thirteen states would still prohibit LGBT folks from tying the knot.

Not that it’s realistic or anything, but can you imagine if they ruled 5-4 in favor of, say, banning the consumption of meat? Or nixing the 13th amendment? Or making Khmer our official language? Again, I’m just conjecturing here. But we certainly witnessed a pretty impressive (if not absolutely terrifying) display of power.

We Let the Government Tell Us Whom We Can Marry

Isn’t that weird? We’re adults. And if we want to make religious declarations of love or enter contracts combining our estates, shouldn’t we be able to do it without anyone’s permission?

I guess it’s nice to have the government involved in our personal lives a little bit. With NAMBLA around, absolute personal liberty is pretty much ruined for all of us.

Not Many People are Citing the 10th Amendment

Isn’t that weird? I mean it’s one of the best laws we have. It’s the type of law that prevents us from being a despotic, dystopic, socialist corpse factory. If you’re not familiar with the 10th Amendment, have a looksee:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

It doesn’t get any clearer than that. If something is not addressed in the constitution, the states handle it. If it’s not addressed by your state, it’s up to you.

As I’ve said (and will probably have to say again in this post), I support gay marriage and I’m happy that it’s legal. But the Supreme Court (which also took it upon itself to rework Obamacare last week) has absolutely no business passing laws for the entire country. So while I’ll make sure to down a celebratory cosmopolitan for my gay friends, gay students, and gay family members at some point this week, I’ll have to toast another chunk of the constitution goodbye in the process.

Marriage is a Good Thing

Though it’s essentially sacrilege to broach with people and news outlets on the left, the greatest contemporary threat to American prosperity is illegitimacy. Currently, one out of four children under the age of 18 in America is being raised without a father. Single motherhood (while not always a problem or the mother’s fault) is a common symptom of families on welfare and in correctional facilities.

With gay marriage legalized, one would hope that an increasing number of orphans and would-be-aborted babies will have a much better shot at being raised by two loving parents. While I personally think one man and one woman are ideal when it comes to raising a child, I would much rather see a child in a married, monogamous, homosexual home than one with an unwed parent(s), particularly a teen mom.

Despite what I would assume to be a spectacular moment for kids who haven’t a place to call home, some homosexuals are trying to use science to generate GMO babies, and outsourcing uteri in third-world countries. Isn’t that weird?

The White House was Lit up like a Rainbow

            Isn’t that weird? In the midst of half the country losing their minds over the “offensive” Confederate flag being displayed at the South Carolina statehouse, the most prominent building of the entire federal government glowed with the colors of another special interest group’s flag. The message is pretty clear: if you offend the gays or anyone else on the left, there is a serious moral issue at hand. But if you offend Christians and traditionalists, they need to get over it

Any government official who did not object to the rainbow lighting of the White House should be pointed and laughed at when calling for the Confederate flag’s removal. It’s a gross display of hypocrisy.

Gay Couples are going to make a Fortune from Christian Businesses

Isn’t that weird? In a highly underpublicized story, a lesbian couple successfully sued a bakery in Oregon for $135,000 after the bakery politely refused to participate in a ceremony that they felt violated their religious beliefs.

While the bakery owners (and parents of five children) have been able to gather just about all of the money needed to pay the ransom via crowdfunding and donations, the ruling will likely inspire more and more gays to cry discrimination on their way to a nice payday.

Most of us know enough gay people to conclude that being gay doesn’t make you less reasonable than anyone else, and that this example of petty theft and bullying is not the norm. But just as there are bad Christians, bad teachers, bad cops, and bad Spaniards, there are also bad homosexuals. And you can bet your ass they will not sit idly by and let a $100k jackpot and a government-enabled opportunity to destroy a family business they disagree with slip through their fingertips.

Gays need to Stand up for the First Amendment

Isn’t that weird? As sure as you can bet that homosexuals have cited the First Amendment as justification for the freedom to express themselves over the years, you can double-down on the second clause of the amendment above all others to be casually ignored by many of those same people.

While atheists like myself have been highlighting the relevance of the Bill of Rights’ first ten words (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion) to preserve the separation of church and state, we as Americans (particularly gays and atheists) have the monumental responsibility of making sure the First Amendment’s ensuing six words (or prohibiting the free exercise thereof) ring as loudly as any gay pride parade.

Our freedom from religion and our religious compatriots’ freedom of religion are joined at the hip. If one falls, the other will surely follow. And then we’re fucked.

Gay Rights Activists are going to have to Find Jobs

Isn’t that weird? The big battle is over. What else is there to fight for? The whole of the county is either completely accepting of homosexuality, politely/grumbly unsupportive, or from a different culture (which is totally non-PC to criticize). So what is there left to do? Greeters at Walmart? With their stereotypical attention paid to detail, that would be a win for all of us.

38 Beachgoers were Massacred by Islamic Terrorists at a Resort in Tunisia

Isn’t that… typical. There were also deadly attacks in France and Kuwait. The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for all three acts of being little bitches, and I’ve never been closer to abandoning pacifism in my entire life.

Warm wishes to the survivors and families of the victims. I wish we could turn back time for you.

If you were born in America, and don’t feel luckier than a four-leafed rabbit’s foot to have been, you better start using that brain of yours (or at least Google).

How to Cure Your Liberalism (Special Edition II)

How to Cure Your Liberalism (Special Edition I)

There’s no way to start this post without sharing my feelings about the nine churchgoers who were slaughtered because of their pigmentation in South Carolina earlier this week:

In the 24-hour “breaking news” world we currently reside, we seem to have become somewhat desensitized to violence and tragedy. Horrible acts, spun farce by the media or not, don’t seem to get to us as much as they should. Death, destruction, and mayhem are shoved down our throats every time we go online or turn on the TV, and it’s rarely as surprising as it ought to be.

That being said, when I first read about last week’s murders, I lost it. I didn’t wail or shout towards the heavens, but I had to put everything on hold, pace around my apartment for a while, and let a few tears go. I am not a man of faith. I do not believe in God, nor do I care much for Christianity. But religious or not, I empathize deeply with people who are interested in figuring out what to do with their lives and comprehending the true essence of morality, and seek out places of solace in which to do so. Whether you are looking for those answers in the Bible, in a laboratory, or in the mirror, I’m right there with you. The thought of being faced with intentional harm or execution in a setting as well-intended as a church rattles me to my core, and I deeply regret the fact that it can actually happen.

My heart goes out to the victims, and to the survivors and their families. I hope that life had been kind to those who were lost, and that those whom they are survived by find closure and happiness soon.

Moving Past Race

I don’t know about the term “hate-crime” or how useful it is. I operate under the premise that race is a myth that accounts for nothing apart from physical characteristics, so giving a special distinction to events that occur because of race (or some other dumb difference that divides us) seems counter-productive to me. Murder is murder, assault is assault, theft is theft, and crime is crime, plain and simple.

Regardless of what I think about acknowledging hate-crimes, there is absolutely no question that nine innocent people are dead for no reason other than their skin color. How anyone could do such a thing is beyond reason for the reasonable, and beyond rationalization for the rational. It’s an ugly reminder of the idiocy an immoral mind can conjure up.

It was also an act of terror. In the same way that Islamic terrorists want “infidels” and the Western World to be afraid for their ways of life, and use violent force to impose their beliefs, this murder was committed to stir up fear of whites within blacks, and to push for a racist uprising. I guess there may still be more to the story than we currently know, but it’s been pretty transparent thus far. Using or threatening violence to instill fear is terrorism irrespective of the ideology behind it.

One point many left-leaning individuals and publications have been propagating is that while violent criminals who are black are called thugs, and Muslims who kill are called terrorists, white men who are guilty of mass murders are called mentally ill. It’s certainly an easy tendency to notice. But we have to think about these things before rushing to judgement, and declaring a state of racist emergency.

Why are Michael Brown, the three teenagers who murdered Chris Lane, and the Baltimore rioters called thugs? The thoughtless answer is to say it’s because they are black. But skin color is not the only thing they have in common. These criminals also seemed to be enamored with an urban or gangster lifestyle. And while rap music itself is not to blame, violence and thuggery are ever-present in rap music, the culture it promotes (genuinely or not), and the personal lives and histories of many rappers and the communities they come from. And those rappers are very influential for impressionable young men whom social justice warriors and many civil rights activists treat like children.

Michael Brown held up gang-signs in many of his photos, and robbed a convenience store for drug paraphernalia before his tragic confrontation with a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. How is it unfair to call him a thug? It’s wrong to see a few photos and proclaim you know someone, but common sense makes at least some of Brown’s tendencies (long-term or short-term) pretty clear. In 2013, James Edwards, Chauncey Luna, and Michael Jones lawlessly killed Chris Lane, a 22-year old, Australian baseball player who was out for a jog, and claimed they did it out of boredom. Photos of them that can be seen online exemplify hip-hop culture with wads of cash, gang signs, and guns. They also said some pretty revealing things on social media. Again, genuine or not, they at least portrayed themselves as thugs. The Baltimore rioters, many of whom were high school kids from fatherless homes and communities, acted and dressed like an anarchic mob, and committed burglary and property damage. While I personally see these young people as being heartbreakingly victimized by a bad culture and the welfare state, it takes dishonesty to dissociate them from acting like thugs. These people are not called thugs because of their skin color. They are called thugs because of their character, and the culture they personify.

And if you need proof that light-skinned people who engage in thuggish behavior are not misrepresented, check out this portrayal of Aaron Hernandez.

When it comes to acts of violence similar to the one in Charleston (such as Columbine, Aurora, and Sandy Hook), it’s very easy to see that the suspects are practically always white, and it’s true that the word thug does not come to mind. If you end your though process there, you can conclude that white murderers are not called thugs. I refuse to stop thinking.

Unfortunately (not in reality, but for the sake of analyzing the situation), we don’t have an example of a black perpetrator involved in a similar crime (although no one is talking about this past weekend’s next worst story). We do, however, have cases of black serial killers, namely the Washington D.C. sniper. The D.C. sniper and his accomplice were two black men who killed ten people over 23 days in October, 2002. They did not portray themselves as gangsters, and were not referred to as thugs. We accurately know them as psychotic murderers. While their skin tones matched Michael Brown’s, their culture did not. Circumstances trump race.

So, what about Islamic terror vs. white terror? As I explained in “How to Cure Your Liberalism (Part 1)”, white is a race, and race is myth, so white is a myth. Islamic extremism, on the under hand, is a religious movement that anyone can participate in. Boko Haram members are African, the Taliban seems to be mostly Middle Eastern (which is technically Asian), and ISIS members are sometimes Australian. In other words, religion and terrorism are independent of race (which doesn’t exist, remember?).

But to say that whites are never called terrorists because they are white is absurd. Who are the two most famous terrorists in American history? Osama Bin Laden and Timothy McVeigh. One orchestrated a plot to kill and terrorize Americans based on his religious and/or political beliefs, the other wickedly bombed a government building to make a statement. Both were done with intent, were rooted in ideology, and sought to trigger widespread panic. The shooting in South Carolina meets the same criteria.

The movie theater shooting in Aurora, the Columbine massacre, and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting do not fit the same description. The murderers in these instances were psychotic. The Columbine killers had no ideological reasons behind their scheme. They were full of hatred and sadness, and did what they did for the thrill and the fame. The Aurora shooter was a disturbed recluse and his motives are still unknown with the trial still in progress. Psychiatrists have deemed that shooter to be mentally ill, but there are still no concrete answers or evidence proving an ideology inspired his actions. The 2012 shooting spree at Sandy Hook Elementary School also lacks a clear motive. Twenty children, six staff members, the killer, and his mother were killed for an unknown reason. To refer to these acts as thuggery or terrorism would require jumping to a conclusion based on emotions and a desperate, irrational desire for equality across the board. Like the murders of the D.C. sniper, these were evil deeds of the individually insane. We are not being racist in our terminology.

Staying Focused

There was another major happening involving race in the days before the shooting in South Carolina, and we should not forget about it. A woman in a high-ranking position for the NAACP was caught lying about her race. And while obviously non-violent, her actions are just as racist and divisive as of those of the shooter in South Carolina.

Rachel Dolezal lived her life in a way that was dictated by her perception of race. She has been teaching children and anyone else willing to listen that race is something to be celebrated, protected, and dealt with, instead of forgotten with the theory of a flat Earth. She is a shyster on all counts, and hopefully she can get some psychological help and apologize to the people she’s been lying to.

Predicting the Fallout

Here is a list of people who will be most negatively affected by the shooting:

  • The Victims and Their Loved Ones: for losing life and family, two of the most valuable commodities in existence
  • People Who are Perceived to be Black: for having to fear random racial violence
  • People Who are not Perceived to be Black: for being socially, politically, emotionally, and intellectually isolated from many people who identify as black
  • Leftists and Collectivists: for seeing their rights teeter even closer to toppling over before understanding how precious they are (I was once in this group)
  • Religious People: for being reminded that even in the world’s epicenter of religious freedom, there are people sick enough to open fire in a place of worship
  • Responsible Gun Owners: for, perhaps, moving closer to kissing their Second Amendment rights goodbye
  • People Who May Need to Defend Themselves: for, perhaps, getting ready to kiss an effective method of self-defense goodbye

Here is a list of people who benefit the most from the shooting (I’m not even close to saying they are happy about it or would ever desire for something like this to happen. But in the end, there’s no denying it’s advantageous for them in certain ways.):

  • Rachel Dolezal: for having the media’s focus shift from her acts of racism to a far more sensational one that’s also friendlier to the liberal media’s narrative
  • Leftists: for having another reason to expand the scope of government, and destroy individual liberties (right to bear arms, freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, freedom of speech, etc.)
  • Hillary Clinton (politically): for having an easy to engineer narrative about gun control and racism which she can dishonestly promise to end
  • People Working in the Civil Rights Industry: for enhanced relevance and the financial opportunities that follow
  • The Government: for getting people to request its services without even making an effort to do so
  • The Media: for seeing their ratings go through the roof
  • Islamic Terrorism Apologists: for being able to subjectively say, “See, it’s not an Islamic thing!”
  • Racists: for having another reactionary reason to divide and classify us, and anecdotal (but persuasive) proof that we are a racist nation at our core
  • Assault Weapons Ban Opposition: for having a well-known example that proves banning assault weapons won’t prevent mass shootings

What Should We Do?

Some people are calling for an honest and open dialogue about race. Others want guns taken away. Some want the confederate flag to be banned. The truth is, we have to take the Winston Churchill approach: Keep calm, and carry on.

The only honest and open dialogue about race is figuring out who’s willing to rise above it, and who is going to let it control their minds and their lives. If you talk about race, you’re talking about nonsense. We are all humans. We need to progress past the idea that we are not, and leave everyone else to catch up later.

Personally, I fear guns, and would like to live the rest of my life without seeing another one. But we can’t give our guns away. We have the right to bear arms to prevent a tyrannical government from exceeding its constitutional authority. If we lose the guns, we lose our freedom, and then we’re back to needing a bloody revolution (albeit an impossible one since the government’s stockpile of weapons and ammunition will remain).

And, for arguments sake, from a logistical standpoint, the people who would surrender their guns first would be law-abiding citizens: the people we actually want to be armed. Criminals and the black market will not follow new gun laws (you know, because they’re outlaws), and we’ll be at their mercy until the government is forced to turn the Land of the Free into an absolute police state (good times).

As for the confederate flag, just shut up. It’s a piece of cloth. Focus your energy elsewhere.

We have to remain objective, and control our emotions. We have to be responsible for ourselves, and spread the word that hard work and good decision making will eventually improve your quality of life and your state of mind. We have to promote the immeasurable value of human life. We can’t let our superficial traits hinder our individual potential, or continue to divide us. The world is an imperfect place, and “safety” is a false-concept. Stay vigilant, take care, believe in yourself, and be good.

How to Cure Your Liberalism (Special Edition I)

How to Cure Your Liberalism (Part 2)

Notice the Irrationality of Egalitarianism


adjective egal·i·tar·i·an i-ˌga-lə-ˈter-ē-ən

: aiming for equal wealth, status, etc., for all people

If you don’t think about it, equality is a great idea. I mean come on, right? That word has a ring to it!

During my days as a liberal, I took many things for granted, and left many stones unturned. I thought I thought deeply and rationally, but I didn’t think hard enough (I’m only 27 now, so gimme a break here). The concept of equality just seemed right to me, and I never really questioned it.

Before you continue reading, take a minute or two to try and answer this simple question: Why is equality good?

I’ve never heard or come up with a good answer, which leads me to believe there may not be one.

Here’s what I don’t mean: we should have unequal rights. That’s ridiculous. Blind justice is obviously the best philosophy when it comes to governing a society. The color of your skin, the beliefs in your head, the endeavors of your life, the activities in your bedroom, and the contents of your underwear should have ZERO influence on what laws you must follow or what you may choose to do with your future.

You know what else shouldn’t matter? Your account balance. I used to subscribe to the popular notion that the rich should be taxed to the gills, and the poor should be nearly, if not completely, tax free. Whoops! Not only does that fly in the face of actual fairness (same rules and regulations for all), but it makes for a comically grotesque society. I’ll use my experiences in managing a classroom as an analogy:

As a teacher, I have to pass judgement on my students in the form of grades. The students who take care of their responsibilities, act like mature adults, put effort into their work, produce stellar test and project results, and go above and beyond my clearly laid out standards are rewarded with the best scores. Not only do they get good grades, but they naturally incur my respect in the form of extra responsibilities like relaying messages to their peers and leading class discussions. I’m also more inclined to go out of my way to help these students with favors like letters of recommendation because, well, I recommend them.

The students who fail to achieve what my top scorers do get lower scores, and are less often asked to take leadership roles. In fact, the additional opportunities they tend encounter are make-up assignments and extra credit work (in other words, more crap to deal with). These opportunities are offered solely to prevent them from failing (well, from receiving low scores as the Thai education system I teach in juices grades and has a no fail policy), not to assist them in catching up to their more successful peers.

This system mimics life to a T. If you work hard, impress others, and do what you have to do, you’re likely to wind up in a favorable situation. If you don’t, the odds go way down. Has any rational person ever objected to a teacher running a classroom in this manner? If you can think of somebody, please notice the word rational as part of the criteria I’m looking for.

Now, for comedy’s sake, let’s suppose a teacher adopted an egalitarian style of authority over a class…

Two days before high school graduation, Leopold ashamedly shuffled into his teacher’s office and timidly squeaked, “Teacher?”

“Yes, Leopold,” his teacher replied.

“Teacher, I only have a 64 average. There’s no way I’ll be able to get into a good college with scores this low.” Leopold pouted at the floor.

“Oh, Leopold! I’m so sorry! Whatever can I do?” the teacher concernedly replied.

“Well, Gilbert has a 94 average.”

“A 94?!?! That cretin! That selfish, greedy monster!” the teacher grumbled.

Leopold rested his hand gently on the infuriated teacher’s shoulder. “Wait, teacher!” he said, “If you give me 15 of Gilbert’s points, we’ll have equality! And I’ll be able to get into a good school!”

The teacher’s face swelled with delight. “Oh, Leopold! How clever you are! I’ll find that bully to make sure he pitches in his fair share at once!”

The teacher led Leopold down the hall and into the library where Gilbert was quietly reviewing his chemistry notes. The teacher slammed Gilbert’s book shut and shouted, “Gilbert! Leopold and I have had enough of your point-hoarding and outright lack of concern for others! We demand your surrender of 15 points to be awarded to young Leopold, so we can have equality!”

Stunned and confused, Gilbert replied, “But teacher, I worked really hard for my points!”

“Stop your whining, fiend!” the teacher scolded, an index finger just a few inches from Gilbert’s face.

“But teacher,” Gilbert pleaded, “Leopold never does his work! He spends all his free time watching television. And he’s very disruptive in class.”

“Racist!” Leopold protested.

The teacher inhaled a powerful gasp that pulled several books from the shelves onto the library floor.

“What!?” Gilbert cried, perplexed.

“Gilbert! I will not tolerate racism in my classroom!” the teacher sternly proclaimed.

“But Teacher…”

“Why do you hate poor students, Gilbert?” the teacher steamrolled. “Why do you want everyone to suffer for your own personal gains?”

“Teacher,” Gilbert began, taking a deep breath, a look of skeptical sensibility upon his brow, “if Leopold wanted to get a higher score, he should have worked harder and made better decisions.”

“Ow! My feelings!” Leopold screeched.

The second gasp produced by the teacher was of such tremendous force that a pigeon flying past the library was caught in its vortex, and was sucked through the window, and into the teacher’s throat. The teacher fell to the floor red of face and choking for air. Gilbert leapt to the teacher’s aide, and confidently began CPR, a skill he had learned to administer at an afterschool workshop the year before (Leopold was smoking pot and playing video games that day). After clearing his teacher’s breathing passage, he coaxed the pigeon back to life (a trick he had read about in The Complete Bird Owner’s Handbook while riding a train into the city for a seminar in entrepreneurship), and returned the critter outside. The pigeon tipped his cap to the boy and thanked him before flying off.

“How dare you!” the teacher resumed.

“But Teacher!” pleaded Gilbert.

“I’ve had enough of your self-interested ways! It’s time you paid your fair share! And I’m through asking!” The teacher revealed a pistol and pointed it at Gilbert’s forehead. “Hand over your points this instant.”

“Teacher, wait a minute!” Leopold interjected. “We can do this the democratic way, can’t we? Let’s have a vote!”

The teacher’s face lit up with delight once more. “Leopold, you clever, clever boy! A vote it is. I vote in favor of equality!”

“Me too!” Leopold loudly concurred with a grin.

“Well, that settles it!” the teacher concluded, and raised the pistol once more. “Gilbert, your points. Now.”

Egalitarian/socialist/communist/feminist/leftist policies (exaggerated or not) would be silly and ridiculous in a classroom. Why then do we consider them a viable means of running a nation? Instead of rewarding the hardest-working, most dedicated members of society, these approaches to governing penalize those who do well in the form of heavy taxes. Concurrently, those who choose not to work hard or to prioritize trivial things above their survival and chance at wealth are compensated with welfare and public establishments. The figurative valedictorian owes, and the class clown collects.

Who winds up getting hurt the most by these systems in real life? Well, it’s not the superrich. They’ll manage even with exponential tax rates, and will have a nice, big, fat government to get in bed with. It’s obviously not the dregs of society. They get free food, water, shelter, and spending money in exchange for irresponsibility and immorality. And the children of those people are heartbreakingly born into a cyclical hell of dependence that is nearly impossible to break free from. They are forced to accept whatever the authorities decide to give them, and have no control over their lives (you know, like infants).

The people who are hurt the most are the genuinely needy and the working class. Those of us who are unfortunately born with severe handicaps (Down’s syndrome, blindness, conjoined twins) or suffer great tragedies (combat injuries, cancer, become orphaned) are less likely to receive charitable assistance in a welfare state since those who would have enough wealth to donate are already obligated (at gunpoint) to pay what some members of society have arbitrarily deemed “a fair share”. People who become reliant on society at no fault of their own share the welfare pot with those who choose dependency.

Also negatively affected are middle class folks who may have elected to balance their desire for financial security with other undertakings offered by life like education, travel, having children, or helping people in need. Or maybe they just missed a few breaks and failed to become particularly well-off. Instead of being able to continue what they, as individuals, deem to be a reasonable lifestyle, they are stripped of comfort and liberty, and must instead worry about how big of a bite the leftist government will take out of their asses.

In the end, leftist systems punish success and reward failure. They undermine the potential for charity and sharing, and hinder any practical safety nets for those who are legitimately unable to help themselves. Additionally, collectivist societies are completely dependent upon the threat of violence; few people would pay their taxes if being thrown in jail or taken down by police were not possible consequences for disobedience. Bad means, and bad ends.

Capitalism is the complete opposite, and it’s the best system (or, maybe, non-system) there is. In a capitalist world, those who work the hardest and make the best decisions generally reap the most benefits. If they’ve yet to acquire whatever it is they desire, they are free to work harder (which is not to be taken for granted) to get ahead. And while people are free to choose not to work, and are endowed with the individual liberties required to make detrimental choices in life if they want to, there is, righteously, no free meal ticket to be presented to them at the expense of others when the chickens come home to roost.

If you think about it, capitalism is basically forced altruism. How do you succeed in a free market world? You provide services and goods that improve the lives of others. You satisfy people, make them happy, and get paid for it. Those means and those ends sound a lot better than “equality” to me.

If I’m wrong here (in my overall points, not nitpick-able details), I’d like to know where I messed up. Feel free to comment on my Facebook page or in the comment section of my blogsite.

In my next post, I’ll talk about morals and values, and common sense (which doesn’t bode well for feminism). I hope you enjoyed reading!

How to Cure Your Liberalism (Part 2)

How to Cure Your Liberalism (Part 1)

If there’s one person in this world I can really relate to at the moment, it’s Bruce Jenner. While I’m not planning on getting breast implants or cutting my penis off, there is no hiding that I am transitioning.

I’ve been known by most of the people I’ve crossed paths with in life as a bleeding-heart liberal, and for good reason. I was all in on Obama, always stuck my neck out for “minorities” (whatever those are), despised the Second Amendment, held violent, hateful opinions about corporations, and felt the needs of “society” (whatever that is) outweighed those of individual men.

My, how things change.

When I voted for big government in 2008 and 2012, I felt I was choosing the lesser of two evils. And for this, I am sorry. I knowingly chose evil. There is no theory of relativity when it comes to right and wrong. You have to do what’s right, not what makes you feel less bad. From now on, this will remain a fundamental facet of my personal value system. I will never support evil again.

So, how did my transition begin? There were a few key moments. In November 2013, Obama apologized to Americans who were losing their healthcare plans after the enactment of Obamacare, a fate he had reassured the country would not come to fruition, oh, a handful of times. My politics were really shaken up while that was going down, and I learned, paraphrasing Milton Friedman, that politicians (even His Holiness Obama) have the ability to rise above campaign promises.

Around the same time, Barilla pasta was involved in a scandal after its chairman Guido Barilla said he wouldn’t feature a gay couple in his advertisements. He also made it clear that he has no problem with homosexuals, and supports gay marriage. Countless online liberal magazines blatantly misquoted him, and special interest groups were ready to burn him at the stake. I couldn’t believe it. The guy progressively proclaimed support for gay rights, and was admonished by those very people and their devotees.

My liberalism was also hindered by more than a few conversations with fellow democrats who asked me to go get McDonald’s or told me about things they purchased at Walmart. I remember thinking we’re supposed to be against those evil corporations, right? Didn’t we just finish talking about how immoral their advertising is, about how unethically they treat their employees? Whatever movement I had felt I was a part of just didn’t seem to exist in practice.

But I still had to rationalize my disenchantment with the left. I’ve always prided myself on being a thoughtful and considerate person, so I needed something more substantial than a lie from the White House, some misinterpreted comments, and a few friends who failed to walk-the-talk to justify abandoning liberal ideology. Talk radio turned out to be the medium that would help me shed my dead, worn-out, leftist skin.

When I moved to Thailand to start teaching English in 2011, the TV in my apartment only had a few channels in English (BBC, a soccer channel, and a cartoon station that sometimes played Looney Tunes). When Looney Tunes wasn’t on, my laptop served as a much better mode of entertainment, and YouTube has always been my favorite place online. I often watched Louis C.K. clips, and eventually happened upon this gem. Not only did this curry more favor from me for Mr. C.K., but it also turned me on to The Opie and Anthony Show. O&A somehow led me to Loveline with Adam Carolla, and an entire world of well-reasoned, objective, intelligent, and funny new voices turned my world upside down. Or, no pun intended, right-side up. It actually turns out that Andrew Breitbart and I share a similar experience.

This brings me to my first suggestion when it comes to purifying your brain of liberalism:

Start Listening to Smart People

Here’s a list of names: Dennis Prager, Adam Carolla, Anthony Cumia, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Ben Carson, Ayn Rand, Aristotle, Stefan Molyneux, and Daniel.

Aside from the last one (who is a personal friend), I highly recommend lectures, radio broadcasts, debates, and literature produced by these fine thinkers. I credit these folks, among others, for waking me up, and enlightening me to a world of true righteousness, as opposed to the world of “good intentions” that was ceaselessly striking out.

They are far more well-read, experienced, and principled than I, so I highly recommend taking their advice before even listening to mine. I certainly don’t agree with every single word each of them says, but I have great for respect their honesty and fearlessness, as well as the world view they illustrate thanks to those qualities.

While studying, you may feel something before you understand their overall points and assertions. Because of this, make sure you follow my second suggestion:

Stop Getting Offended

I was sensitive as a young man. I think it has to do with being raised Jewish. I don’t consider myself Jewish now, but there’s no denying I had a bris, went to Hebrew school, and was bar mitzvahed. Being raised Jewish in and of itself did not lead me towards oversensitivity, but perhaps being a “minority” (yuck!) did.

Judaism is weird. It’s a religion, but many see it as an ethnicity. Hitler didn’t necessarily want to wipe out the Jewish religion, but, conversely, the Jewish “people”. When it comes to identity, I knew I wasn’t an authentic practicing Jew, but my heritage was something I just couldn’t shake. I was a Jew for life.

Out of my closest friends, only a handful shared my religious upbringing and supposed ethnicity. The majority of my friends were Roman-Catholics, with Irish, German, and Italian roots, the rest being a mixed bag. This made me feel like a bit of an outcast, and calling me a Jew was the easiest way to insult me (Louis C.K. once joked that “Jew” is the only word that is the proper term for a group of people as well as a slur depending on how much stank you put on it). Though I was fully aware that every person in my circle of friends was subject to nasty comments, the verbal barbs thrown at me honestly hurt. I didn’t know how to handle them.

Looking back, one of my greatest regrets is that no one told me that words don’t hurt. I was under the impression that being offended was on par with being in pain, and I really wish it hadn’t been so. Broken legs take months and rehab to heal; feelings can change in an instant. And that’s what we should be telling our kids, not this.

Listening to talk radio and stand-up comedy helped me overcome my sensitivities, and I eventually learned the importance of protecting speech (as well as how close a friend must feel to you to be comfortable hurling racial epithets your way). While it’s incredibly easy to protect popular speech (“treat homosexuals with respect”), it takes courage to defend the words the masses disagree with (“I don’t bake cakes for gay weddings”). I hope to live the rest of my life as a warrior for free speech, and to continue advancing past the phenomenon of being offended.

Now that we’re not getting offended anymore…

Realize that Cultures and Religions are Not Equal

            American culture is more civilized than Nepali culture. Christianity is more peaceful than Islam. The Germans are of greater intellect than Pakistanis. There is nothing racist or bigoted or xenophobic about any of those statements. This is because cultures and religions transcend the superficial traits we inherit (i.e.-pale skin or a cleft lip). It’s wrong to judge based on genetics because we don’t choose the way we will appear to others, and we don’t represent our physical features in our daily lives unless we choose to (like idiots). You can be American or Islamic whether you’re black, white, brown, pink, or blue. The way of life in Panama is observable and fair game for criticism. The same goes for Scientology, Democratic-Monarchies, and Estonian culture. Condemnation, as well as praise, are absolutely acceptable when it comes to behavior, policies, and ways of life.

But when it comes to race… well, race doesn’t exist. It was made up by racists and our isolated ancestors! I don’t blame our predecessors for recognizing race because their common sense may have followed this train of thought:

  • My skin is fair, his skin is dark
  • My eyes are narrow, his eyes are round
  • I am short, he is tall
  • I eat rice, he eats bread
  • I wear a Kimono, he hardly wears anything
  • We must be different

I’m sure people run through that mental hallway all the time. But thinking something doesn’t make it real. The Tooth Fairy is not real no matter how many children believe she is. Brown skin is nothing more than the proteins in our body responding to our genetic code. That’s it.

We all have dumb thoughts (Ben). The key is to recognize them, understand why they are dumb, then avoid thinking them again!

Unlike physical features, beliefs and practices are not inherent. They are chosen, and exercised via our individual volition.

I understand that many are born with the misfortune of emerging into a world without objective reasoning or decent morals. It’s a real shame. But by voicing our displeasure with barbaric and savage ways of life, we have a better chance of igniting a renaissance that provides liberty for future generations. Hurting people’s feelings sure isn’t nice, but allowing brutality to reign supreme is contemptible.

I hope you enjoyed reading. I’ll tear down egalitarianism in my next post.

How to Cure Your Liberalism (Part 1)