This page serves as an introduction to the brand of content one should expect from this blog, and the ultimate purpose I aim to serve. This content should neither be considered exclusively “Conservative” nor “Christian” despite often congruent concepts, themes, or ideological assertions. I hold no unwavering allegiance with any institution beyond the truth.
Identity
It’s important for you to understand who I am, how I identify, and what motivates my thoughts, beliefs, and choices. I…am no one, and nothing. I am superior to no one in no way. I am not professionally exceptional, quite the opposite. I am not exempt from correction or error, and yet I often avoid error by focusing on objectivity. I am willing to correct error when faced with it, engaging in a constant internal cycle of critical reflection and analysis.
My identity is not predicated upon ultimately meaningless demographics. I am not adequately represented by isolating my gender. I am not adequately represented by isolating my skin tone. I am not adequately represented by isolating my sexual orientation. I am not adequately represented by someone else’s perception of my ideological or spiritual affiliations. My identity is driven by content, while I think of others in exactly the same respect.
I have overcome various levels of adversity, whether it be enduring psychological abuse, being told by a close family member that I was worthless and would never amount to anything, victimized by the inappropriate conduct of a family member, dealing with various forms of depression and anxiety leading to suicidal thoughts in my early 20s, or enduring the relentless antagonism as a white male conservative Christian in a toxic and intolerant society.
As a “white” American, I have been personally “profiled” in regard to my skin color. I was told if I didn’t vote for the liberal candidate, in diametric opposition to my ideological sensibilities and morality, that I was a “racist”. I was forced to apologize for my “white privilege” in a college course on “cultural diversity” as an in-class assignment. My mother was denied a position with the fire department in fulfillment of “affirmative action” mandates despite ranking 2 out of 100 in physical and cognitive assessments. My wife was called a “white b***h” by complete strangers she otherwise had no interaction with. Taking my children to school one morning, approaching a red light on an offramp at 50 miles an hour, upon stopping at the traffic light I was motioned to lower my driver side window by the gentleman who was riding my bumper moments prior, shouting at me “nice brake work white boy”. Of course, none of that constitutes as “racism” because liberal definitions of racism fail to include all races.
I value intellectually driven values over emotionally driven ones. I build an ideological case based on the objective observation of all available evidence versus rhetorical tunnel vision, selective evidence collection, and preferred conclusions, intending to emulate a courtroom jury more than the prosecution or defense. I don’t determine truth and reality because truth and reality do that for themselves. Ignoring truth doesn’t change reality. If you believe you are a bird, you will get a rude awaking trying to fly from a tall building. The truth isn’t offensive or threatening, its a mechanism of protection and prosperity when one decides to recognize it.
I support the open, unhindered, vigorous discourse of all ideological persuasions, theoretically advancing credible intellectual constructs while exposing compromised ones. People I don’t agree with should be free to say what they believe, and I will shut them down where applicable with logic, reason, and common sense rather than force, suppression, and school yard antagonism. But even debate has limitations in a climate where belief and not truth is the motivating vehicle for a significant segment of the culture, imposing un-negotiable yet often contradictory declarations. I reject the aggressively enforced conformity mandates and bullying tactics occupying the socio-political tool belt of a power hungry, self-obsessed coward lacking sound intellectual foundations to lean on.
I believe that science is a tool, not a religion. The institution of humans called “science” is not inexplicably immune to error, bias, operational misperceptions, or financial and political corruption unlike any other humanly governed institution. Making observations, asking questions, and challenging preconceived constructs is the very foundation and spirit of scientific inquiry, while this activity is commonly discouraged in the name of preserving and protecting “science”. I believe that “trusting experts” should reasonably exist on a variable scale of conditional trust focused on content versus the cult like characteristics of blind faith and blind conformity prioritizing educational status, projected power, and political alignment over substance and results.
I believe in the maximization of freedoms while wisely incorporating reasonable boundaries, maintaining a just and consistent application of standards to the highest measure possible. I stand for the flag and kneel for the cross, motivated by what those symbols intend to represent. I believe in using democracy and patriotism as tools of unity to promote optimal equality, rather than blaming the hammer when the carpenter makes a mistake and antagonize those who continue to use one. I believe that social standards of any variety should be applied evenly or not at all, including but not limited to the involvement of demographics.
I couldn’t care less about a person’s skin color or racial characteristics which have zero bearing on their character, content, contribution, or personal worth as a human being defined both Biblically and politically within the founding documents of the United States. I will not be bullied into mindlessly placating so-called “anti-racist” measures which conversely rely on racially charged characterizations devoid of objective intellectual merit, perpetuating a brand of unapologetic racism built upon weaponizing skin color as a political strategy and villainizing anyone with the courage to speak against it. Ironically, its the “woke” sector opposing the “dream” of Martin Luther King who desired a future for humanity devoid of arbitrary racial divisions and unequal treatment.
While I strive to love people, that doesn’t imply unconditional support for what they believe and what they do. Sometimes loving people means having uncomfortable conversations. I believe in the Christian, Biblical God, not because of “blind faith” and not because I want to. I believe in God because He has given me no objective choice. In the same manor I believe in a chair when it supports my weight, I believe in a God that supports me emotionally, answers my prayers, teaches me things I am incapable of teaching myself, and tells me things accurately before I know them to be true. I rely on God. Just as I can’t sit in a chair that doesn’t exist, I can’t rely on a God who isn’t there.
This is the essence of who I am and the intellectually driven, socio-political framework I endorse.
In search of truth
If you choose to venture ever-so further down the rabbit hole, and you expect to receive something constructive from this experience, it is imperative to leave personal feelings at the door. This site serves as an exploration of objective truth as an absolute concept, rejecting an unwavering adherence to personal perception, subjective ideologies, or emotionally driven demands. The truth exists in spite of how we feel, not because of it. It is not only important to address what we believe, but more importantly WHY we believe it. The ultimate goal…is to challenge how people think rather than dictate what they should or shouldn’t, and to challenge people to challenge their own ideas. It’s impossible to change someone’s mind…only they can do that for themselves.
Segments of modern society have developed extremely self-focused mentalities and frameworks that ultimately fail to positively serve self or targeted communities through activist initiatives. Satisfying internal emotional conditions and corresponding belief patterns have taken precedent over acknowledging reality, helping people, fixing problems, or achieving self appointed goals. Personal identity constructs, including social or political affiliations, are allocated unconditional devotion at the expense of case by case objective considerations. Objective certainties are selectively exchanged for subjective ambiguity treated as indisputable fact, under the erratically instituted “my truth versus your truth” standard of operation.
Take for example the wave of irrational “anti-racist” extremists promoting anti-white initiatives oriented toward social revenge over social justice. Apparently, the remedy for racial exclusion is racial inclusion, which requires including and excluding people as a result of their demographics versus there character and qualifications. Apparently, the remedy for racial division…is dividing everything by race. Treating people as equals regardless of physical characteristics is attributed to right wing extremism despite reflecting the framework famously established by Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream speech”. This egregious misrepresentation only exists to facilitate Democrat party control over and manipulation of “black” populations through extreme psychological warfare measures, satisfying magnified feelings over facts.
The problem is, “fighting” “racism” doesn’t require targeting real instances of racism, and in many cases incubates far greater prevalence and severity of racially disproportionate treatment and outcomes. This has ironically resulted in a consistent flow of “black” disenfranchisement within an incoherently operating democratic party of false generosity, intellectually indefensible positions, and gratuitous levels of politically motivated manipulation.
For instance, fighting against voter ID legislation under false and insulting pretenses of black voter suppression is prioritized, while adopting soft on crime policies in favor of “black” criminals often at the expense of “black” victims despite an outpouring of opposition, continuously mires predominantly black inner cities in a criminal culture of drugs and violence. The party that says “Black lives matter” endorses an institution founded for the primary purpose of eliminating the “negro population”. How does endangering and eliminating black lives prove that they “matter”, and how do these activities rectify conditions of inequality? These behaviors and beliefs are an afront to critical thinking processes, perpetuating undesirable conditions versus alleviating them.
Institutional programing of a politically compromised nature, conditions impressionable, unsuspecting victims to mindlessly follow beliefs and feelings at the expense of comprehensive evidence collection and logic. Valuable skills such as critical thinking, objective observation, and logical deduction are conveniently neglected, discouraged, and antagonized. Elitist voice pieces demand unconditional intellectual submission, encouraging the blind trust of selectively endorsed “experts” or representatives, mirroring stereotypical religious institutions despite often evoking “science” in the most unscientific ways possible. Failure to conform results in free speech restrictions, coordinated suppressions, and aggressive antagonism frequently escalating into acts of violence.
On the other hand, there are those who want to challenge faulty ideas through passionate yet rational debate. There are those who want to ask questions, reflecting the basis of true scientific discovery rather than blindly except contentious conclusions served by ideologically compromised institutions. There are those who don’t have to rely on name calling, race shaming, or erroneous accusations of “phobic” behavior (which defies a proper understanding of a clinical phobia). These are the people we despise in the name of rejecting hatred, because they simply refuse to conform.
On a societal scale, we are cultivating an aversion to correction or accountability for privileged populations. Cognitively indefensible concepts become inexplicitly unnegotiable. Progress becomes more about changing the demographics of afflicted populations while often promoting ultimately meaningless remedies akin to serving cough drops to a lung cancer patient, ethically elevating superficial actions offering little or no sustainable and substantial improvement while mandating unconditional conformity alternatively punishable by social ridicule and cancelation.
Drawing parallels between society and our judicial system, when the defense has no voice, and the jury has been socially programmed, not even a mountain of doubt is perceived or observed, let alone a shadow of it. Truth becomes ambiguous. Truth becomes negotiable. Truth becomes a talking point. Truth becomes neglected. Truth becomes “controversial”. Ironically, in one breathe you will defend a “my truth vs your truth” approach, and in the next breath aggressively assert how wrong I am. Modern mainstream philosophy is unintelligible.
Perceiving the truth requires humility, humbleness, and objective flexibility. It requires removing self from the equation to instead follow independently discernable constructs at the expense of accommodating personal sensibilities. While objective truth is absolute, acknowledging it is a choice. The only “truths” that have any universal value are those that exist beyond the individual and in spite of them. Evidence is not your enemy, and feelings do not replace facts.
Standards of Practice
In the modern political climate, standards of behavior, treatment, accountability, and social etiquette are often applied in a unilateral direction favoring left-wing agents and an incoherently assembled collection of protected interests. Applicable dictionary definitions are so unpredictably fluid and explicitly contradicted that firmly established concepts such as love, hate, tolerance, racism, or woman, have lost all functional meaning.
While my intension is not to “offend” anyone, this is an inevitable condition based on what people find offensive. Some people seem to pursue points of offense as an aspect of their identity. Holding a door for someone in a good faith attempt at kindness and consideration can apparently be perceived by some as an offensive projection of patriarchal superiority, despite any actual evidence, elevating the projection of subjective ideologies and irrational antagonism over logical deductions or simple benefit of the doubt. I am supposed to be really worried about offending you…but it doesn’t go both ways? Isn’t that a characteristic of “supremacy”??…
Why is it, so many asserted social concepts only go one way? Social and political oppression for example is asserted as a binary concept congruent with skin color…despite a limitless supply of examples in direct opposition to this claim. Were European immigrants, socially pressured into abandoning their ethnic heritage based on “Melting Pot” ideology, victims of cultural oppression? And yet, being racist toward a “white” person doesn’t count because whites don’t have ethnicity, don’t have culture, and are alternatively the harbingers of racism…all of which are hopelessly ignorant and racist ideologies. Did the British not oppress American colonists? Is it logical to assert subjective constructs and social dynamics in such a binary manner with no consideration for alternative viewpoints and additional variables? In one instance, we take an open ended social concept like oppression and place a litany of subjective restrictions or qualifiers upon its usage…while in another instance recontextualizing a simple, biologically sound gender designation to appease political demands by normalizing conditions historically experienced by less than a percent of the population.
Ironically, the ambassadors of tolerance have a subversive label for every protected brand of intolerable offensive, indiscriminately lumped together despite situational context. Therefore, I will be labeled “transphobic” if I value biology and logical talking points over emotional outbursts and political agenda, which defies the conventional definition of an actual phobia, offering no differentiation with overt acts of hate and physical violence. And yet, Christians are afforded no comparable protections under unacceptable acts of “Jehovahphobia”. You can remove Christian culture, ban the public expression of Christian beliefs, depict Christianity in an exclusively negative light, and say essentially any divisive thing you want about Christians. If you did the same thing to Muslims it would be considered an act of “phobia”. So what is the standard, and how is it fairly and objectively applied? If the declaration of only two genders is categorized as a “hate crime” directed at populations identifying themselves beyond biological categories, then in the interest of consistent, equitable standards, public expressions of Atheism must also be outlawed as intolerant attacks targeting the roughly 70% of Americans who adopt a religious affiliation as an aspect of their identity.
If you want to change the world, then challenge mindsets instead of attempting to bully or indoctrinate them into unconditional conformity. Debate is a two-way street. Free speech is a two-way street. Fairly representing both sides of an argument is a two-way street. Democracy in its purest form is a two-way street. It’s no wonder that so many are not only no longer interested in these things…but are threatened by them.
I find it rather disturbing that the principle of open social discourse is construed as a product of right-wing fascism, while the liberal suppression or criminalization of outspoken opposition is impossibly “democratic” in nature. Openly fantasizing about your political opponent’s family being brutally murdered…perfectly acceptable…but reinforcing the scientific reality of two genders is subject to hypothetical criminal prosecution. Murder and threats of murder are logically illegal…but disagreeing with subjective identify constructs directly associated with negative metal health outcomes and frequent regrets of “transitioning” should not be.
For society to get back on course, standards of operation must travel in both directions. Liberal actors and their interests cannot be impossibly immune to the same standards or beliefs they assert feverishly. In this spirit, many left-wing mantras and positions are compromised by wild contradictions.
Feminism is for everyone…except when women don’t want to see penises in their locker rooms or compete against biological males with physiological advantages in their sports.
My body my choice…except regarding vaccine mandates.
We demand “reproductive freedoms” as if they are currently unattainable, while at the same time choosing freely to reproduce, subsequently denying humanity to the product of human reproduction.
Black lives matter…except when “blue cities” refuse to decisively address rampant criminal activity disproportionately and adversely effecting black lives, while actively antagonizing efforts to reduce and eliminate serious offenses, in many cases to protect “black” criminals at the expense of “black” victims.
Democracy is in jeopardy…except when the democrat presidential nominee bypasses democratic processes to get there, or when the sitting president is so cognitively incapacitated that non-elected political aids run the country.
Free speech is an essential right…except when the Democrat presidential administration colludes with social media companies for the purposes of suppressing conservative speech.
January 6th was an “insurrection”, but a mob of misguided miscreants physically impeding federal officers conducting federal operations in concordance with pre-established federal law is outrageously characterized as “peaceful protesting” despite meeting the objective definition of an insurrection. By “peaceful protesting” we mean activities including but not limited to felony level obstructions, spitting in an officer’s face, kicking out their tail light while in possession of a firearm, encouraging physical attacks on social media platforms, or leaving disturbing voicemail messages wishing death on an officer’s innocent loved ones.
Failing to vote for the black female candidate is a product of racism and misogyny…except during a democrat presidential primary when she is one of the first to be eliminated in favor of the old white guy in cognitive decline…or when Virginia democrats vote for the white candidate with a black candidate on the ballot.
No one is above the law…except when weaponizing the justice department against political adversaries, breaking established immigration laws, and refusing the reasonable application of criminal accountability at the expense of countless innocent victims. How do we even begin enforcing laws when police departments are defunded?
Cancel Dave Chapelle…no problem. Cancel Joe Rogan…no problem. Cancel JK Rowling…no problem. Cancel Gina Carrano…no problem. Murder Charlie Kirk…no problem. Cancel “ratings challenged” Jimmy Kimmel…free speech is in jeopardy.
You can’t be “tolerant” if offended and triggered by EVERYTHING. You don’t value “diversity” by aggressively and violently suppressing diversity of thought misaligned with your own. “Unity” isn’t promoted by leveraging points of division for political gains and demanding conformity.
Why should I follow asserted standards when those who preach them refuse to comply? At what point does wild contradiction inspire an intellectual awakening amongst the “woke” masses?
Under what systemically appointed authority can select parties arbitrarily bypass standards of treatment and accountability they themselves aggressively mandated and asserted to begin with? What purpose does the application of a standard serve when applied so inconsistently under erratic conditions? How can you expect people to “co-exist” when your own ideas don’t even do that? These incoherent conditions don’t create unity and tolerance, they create injustice and chaos.
We the people
This site is not designed as a cathartic liberal bashing exercise despite what it may seem like from a superficial analysis. “Liberals” are not exclusively wrong, although they get a lot of things wrong. “Conservatives” are not exclusively wrong despite what the media perpetuates. Conservatives are also not exclusively right and infallible despite what some commentators or influencers may contend. To generalize an entire population based on any criteria is foolish.
While I may personally identify as a Christian “conservative”, I am not bound to any designation. I go where the evidence takes me. Sometimes, that means disagreeing with other “conservatives” or other Christians. Objectively speaking, these categorizations exist on a scale. Some self-professed “Christians” and some self-professed conservatives hold some pretty indefensible beliefs. It shouldn’t be about generalized categorizations; it should be about content. Likewise, if you exclusively agree with mainstream liberalism, and force those beliefs onto others, should we conclude you are intolerant to diversity of thought?
This is not about us vs. them. Let’s abandon this incessant fixation of “right-wing” or “left-wing” classifications as much as possible, redirecting our focus to facts, logic, common sense, and good ideas over bad ideas. While political generalizations cannot be avoided in their entirety, our rhetoric should not be motivated by them. This is about right vs. wrong. This is about illuminating a closer approximation to the truth. This is about being interested in the truth versus promoting a preferred ideological narrative. This is about valuing a fair and objective assessment regarding all reasonable and available evidence over strong emotional reactions. This is about what we believe, but more importantly WHY we believe it.
Our issue isn’t the “liberally minded”, our issue pertains to faulty cognition, motivating factors, and intellectually compromised action. We need liberals, conservatives, and everyone else in between. We need alternative perspectives to be a healthy functioning society. Right has no definition without “wrong” to compliment it. How can you ever expect to identify what you have gotten wrong by extinguishing alternative thinking, which subsequently is an expression of superiority and exclusion? Are we valuing power and control over humility and humbleness?
Imagine the power we might possess collectively as a society…if we could only get over ourselves individually. Instead, we fight and antagonize would-be allies for a narcissistic brand of “unity” manifesting as aggressive conformity mandates. “My truth vs “your truth” really means my way or the highway. Diversity and inclusion are selectively preached while exclusion and division are achieved through weaponizing superficial differences, freely sacrificing collective power and progress for a series of emotionally driven lies, hallucinations, and fever dreams, satisfying a need for social revenge over social justice.
The irony of freedom is an individual’s ability to reject personal liberties in leu of excessive regulation and institutional control. Freewill is ironically democracy’s greatest adversary, inherently bestowing the freedom to reject democratic processes in favor of alternative systems. The supposed fight against “fascism” for example heavily incorporates textbook fascism. A cocktail of chaotic social disarray ensues when feelings take the wheel at the expense of facts and reality. In this condition, real “unity” is virtually impossible.
We will only achieve “unity” when we value truth over perspective, perception, and preference. But is unity even possible in this “my way or the highway”, “tolerant” cancelation, superior absolutism environment we currently live in? How did we go from “we the people” to “us versus them”? Because “we the people” allocates power to the people, whereas highlighting points of division, dividing the people while compromising their unified power, allocates power to an exclusive group of political elites. We are actively trading freedom for slavery…and some of us don’t even realize it…yet…
Dividing people, logically, leads to more division. How do we overcome this pervasive cultural misconception that glorifying meaningless differences, and antagonizing people as a result, somehow serves any constructive purpose beyond the appropriation and often the forfeiture of political power? Why not unify the people under sound principles, like those offered in the founding documents, attempting to improve the execution of these concepts rather than blindly and erroneously blaming them every time imperfect people misuse or ignore them?
Why not unify under Patriotism, and the principles that concept was built upon? Why not unify under our military, whose blood was shed for all Americans and the preservation of improved and continued freedoms, including the freedom to protest the very reason you have a right to protest in the first place.
Why are we exclusively focusing on one level of personal identification in our “inclusion” strategies? Instead of exclusively prioritizing representation based on race, LGBTQ, gender, and sometimes religion, why not focus our efforts on content and positive attributes? Why don’t we choose a month to celebrate inventors, law enforcement, truck drivers, military, scientists, activists, community organizers, or medical professionals, inevitably incorporating a diverse representation of each profession within those celebrations instead of glorifying and isolating meaningless physical attributes such as hair, skin color, or who you are attracted to?
Let’s celebrate people based on contributions to society, whether globally, nationally, or within specific communities. Let’s celebrate honesty, integrity, hard work, sobriety, and perseverance. How are these principles “represented”? Are we positively “representing” the things that conservatives value, or do liberally controlled institutions define representation conditionally just as they seem to conditionally apply every other promoted standard?
If we are to be a strong society, unified in common bonds of unalienable certainties, then it is time to build on a foundation of something solid, relatively unchanging, and uncompromised rather than the shifting sands of doubt, uncertainty, inconsistency, perception, emotional appeasement, political flavors of the month, and preference. Nothing needs to be reimagined or restructured. Instead, we must apply the countless tools of liberty and freedom already at our disposal, re-establishing a collective national identity built upon wisdom, reverence, civil discourse, interpersonal respect, and real justice.
