The Apolitical Conservative
On my last page I went into great detail about the movement by women to repeal the 19th amendment that gave women the right to vote. The argument for giving them this right was that they should have the ability to decide what is in their best interest. Yet with their embrace of feminism and progressivism, what they have voted for has only harmed them. It's gotten so bad they can't even decide what a woman is anymore. For them, a woman is anyone who says she
is a woman.
I really went out on a limb with that page, and made some rather tenuous analysis to explain why some women would want to repeal their right to vote, so I was expecting considerable push back. Yet it didn't materialize. I got the typical flamethrower emails that insulted my integrity (to put mildly), but no constructive criticism; nothing that would give me pause to rethink anything.
Eventually I did get some encouragement from women who agreed with what I wrote, but usually these comments run along the lines of thanking me for saying what they felt, which doesn't give me any real sense of how effective my writings are, and more importantly, doesn't help me figure out a better way to express those ideas. Yet one of those replies was the exception. She really took me to task with how I dropped the ball in not presenting something rather obvious that should have been included. So much so that it warranted an edit to the page to include this point. And as much as I wanted to do it right away, I was holding out on what I could include from of those who would disagree, but those counterpoints weren't forthcoming. So rather than wait, I reached out to four different women that I knew who leaned towards the progressive political perspective. To my astonishment, they all claimed to be apolitical, and just didn't follow politics well enough to have an opinion on the matter.
Needless to say, I was intrigued that they all used the same excuse. Two of them would have known each other, but the other two would not have known the other three. I even Googled apolitical
to see if it was trending, but no. Some might say that their failure to engage would mean I won the point, but I'm not writing this book to win anything. I don't win unless everyone wins, and as long as there are losers, I am losing as well.
This got me thinking about this word, apolitical. Webster defines it as having no interest or involvement in political affairs.
While I am sure that this may be their honest opinion on politics, if you view politics the way I do, it's actually an oxymoron. Just as to choose not to choose is still a choice, being apolitical is still your politics. And the more I dug into this, the more I realized it was I that was apolitical.
I know. If you are an avid reader of my web book, being apolitical is probably one of the last words you would use to describe me, so rather than modifying my previous page, I am going to create a new page where I will take a deep dive into the notion of apolitical politics following a lengthy exposition of the recent failures of progressive politics. I've received a lot of push back on other things I have written on other pages, so this will give me an opportunity to respond to them as well. This page will not only explain how this revelation about me being apolitical came about, it will also show why these women claiming to be apolitical only confirms what I have always thought about the Democrat party and progressivism in general.
But first, I must cover my glaring omission from the previous page. What I failed to do was to demonstrate how deep the impression was among women that giving them the vote has only accomplished harm to them. If this idea of regret can be easily written off as a fringe thought among women, it doesn't matter how strong my points were that it did indeed harm them. I wrote that page because of what I saw from women, not men, and the specific feedback I got was how important it is to correlate this regret to women voting to the progressive mindset about the opposition to abortion, which is the progressive failure to recognize that there are far more women than men that are pro-life.
Whenever the issue of abortion is brought up by progressives, they only see it as men trying to control the bodies of women, and completely ignore that there are more women than men that are pro-life. This doesn't fit with the progressive world view, so it must be ignored. They can't conceive a reason why women would knowingly limit their own ability to kill their unborn children. Yet the reason is glaringly obvious. First of all, when it comes to men and their attitudes of abortion, the majority of men who do intrude on the issue of abortion want the women who are pregnant with their children to kill them. They do not want to be held responsible for the consequences of their actions. Not only are women pressured by the men that got them pregnant to have an abortion, other women will openly mock them for choosing the life-limiting
option of keeping the child. Considering the hostility women see when they want to keep their child, there is nothing more bullshit than the concept of Pro-Choice,
and only by banning abortion will this shame and hostility come to an end. So yes, there are many more women than men that want to ban all abortion.
In fact, when a woman is looking for a man to be her husband and father of her children, she doesn't want someone who will see her pregnancy as her choice
and will support whatever decision she makes. No. Not even close. She wants a man that will fight for HIS children, because only that kind of man can be counted on to assume the responsibility she so desperately needs.
Progressives see the world so upside down. While I am sure there are some misogynists who only want to control women's bodies, the vast majority of men who are pro-life are the one's that truly respect women, because they are the ones that want to step forward and be responsible for the women in their lives. Progressives are incapable of seeing this, so their actions are in contradiction to what they claim they want. If you want everyone to stop trying to outlaw abortion, then stop pressuring women to get abortions. It is the constant drumbeat of children will ruin your life
that no sane person believes that keeps this debate alive. As I have stated several times in this web book, I don't believe there should be any laws against abortion, but I am far more concerned about how women are pressured to have abortions than I am with any of them, as Obama once put it, being punished
into keeping their child.
This progressive blindspot on reality is what keeps them from seeing how many women object to what women voting has done to them. While there may not be that many conservative women thinking that women's voting rights should be taken away, every single one of them knows which gender is more to blame for electing the monsters that have made a mess of this country. This issue only differs from abortion in that conservative women will keep voting, regardless of their opinion on the 19th Amendment, as someone needs to counteract what the progressive women are doing. Conservative women are most definitely not apolitical, as that definition is commonly understood.
Getting back on topic for this page, since I wasn't making any headway in understanding the objections to the points I was making, I decided I would try having a discussion with one of the women who claimed to be apolitical. I thought I was being respectful. I thought I made it clear that I wanted to learn and not lecture, but I clearly failed when she objected to my queries by stating that I was exerting my extravert privilege
on her. This had her desired effect as whenever anyone tells another to check their privilege, it shut me down, as I didn't know where to go from there.
Many times I have had my immutable characteristics used as a slur to imply I have privilege. In the past I have been told I have white privilege or male privilege, and I have even been accused of having straight privilege, but extravert privilege? That was a new one.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not your typical conservative, white male who denies his privilege. As I have stated here and more emphatically here, I do indeed recognize that these immutable characteristics that should have no bearing on my value, are indeed valued by others, but only recently. When I was young man, I didn't see any advantage. All I saw was a dog-eat-dog world that I had to claw at in order to make anything of a life for myself. It wasn't until later when affirmative action became a thing, which later morphed into the colossus nightmare of DEI that I saw these characteristics as a privilege. And it wasn't because I hadn't noticed them until social justice
came to town and took them away. Sure, in the bullshit, performative world that we are supposed to pretend exists I was being denied things because of my race and gender in what was called Restorative Justice
(put any qualifier on justice just turns it into vengeance without the courage to say so). But in the real world, the world that actually gets things done, I became way more in demand. The entitled mentality that creeped into women and POCs made them toxic. Now more than ever I am needed to clean up disasters that were caused by people who never should have been pushed into STEM fields in the first place. And the reason is very simple and easy to comprehend. Unlike all the other protected classes of people, I can be held accountable for my failures without the obvious repercussions that follow those protected classes.
Since I am easier to fire, I am easier to hire.
So being told to check my privilege is nothing new. I recognize it for what it means, which is that the accuser expects me to stay in my lane,
and shut up, but this was different. Unlike the basis for the other privileges, this one was hard fought to acquire. Growing up as a tall, lanky, awkward kid, I was mercilessly picked on. I remember spending most of my junior high school years hiding in the bushes during lunch in order to avoid other kids bullying me. I was horribly introverted, and stammered like a fool in any attempt to talk to girls.
Things started to change when I took 8th grade choir. Instead of sticking out like a sore thumb, I could hide in anonymity with 50 other kids, yet at the same time, I was able to project and perform for an audience in a way I couldn't do otherwise. And the next year, when I moved to another city, I decided to pursue high school drama in order to further develop what I felt growing in me. It scared the daylights out of me, but I knew this is what I needed to do to break out of my shell. In many ways, I'm still that shy kid I once was, but now I am empowered by the knowledge that I overcame a great adversity to be the man I am today. So if you want to accuse me of extravert privilege, go right ahead. Unlike the other privileges that are meaningless to me, this one I'll wear proudly.
I will still shut up if so accused. Not because that is what is expected of me, but because the accuser has made it clear that he or she is no longer open for any discussion, so why bother to continue.
Traditionally, accusations of privilege, and its cousin sentiment Cultural Appropriation, were hurled about to get people to stay in their lane
and enforce the Hierarchy of Victimhood, but in order for these accusations to work, the basis of it required that it be on a person's immutable characteristics, because the true point of what they are accusing is that they are benefiting from something unearned.
Before going any further on this point, I want to emphatically state how disgusting and destructive to any society it is to shame people for benefiting from something they have not earned. The entire point of human existence is that our descendants should benefit from what we have accomplished. I personally feel that part of the reason our population is crashing is our lack of responsibility to the next generation or even creating one. Furthermore, is there anything more indicative of the progressive mindset that instead of helping those that aren't benefiting from some privilege, they should then attack, tear-down and/or shame those that are?
That all said, considering how important it is that there be no defense against these accusations of privilege and appropriation, how is it that things that aren't immutable got included. Naturally it has to do with the fact that if you have a negative characteristic that isn't immutable, it is so much easier to say that it is immutable so you can deny that you can change it. This of course leads you to believe that those that aren't inflicted with it must be benefitting from something they haven't earned, but it goes deeper than that. The best way to understand this is to look at the flip side of shaming people for their immutable characteristics, which is where people have decided to be proud of their immutable characteristics, and it all began back in the late 60s with Black Pride.
Taking pride in your race is nothing new, and probably goes back millennia or more as races first began to mingle. In all cases, racial pride has never benefitted anyone. Just like all progressive ideas, it's not about what it portrays itself to be for, but instead it is about tearing others down rather than lifting yourself up. Yet there was something different about Black Pride, in that it was in response to a belief among this race that saw themselves as inferior. There was no basis for this belief, but it is understandable that if you are feeling shame for your race that you need to start feeling pride instead, but this is wrong. For the same reason that you shouldn't be ashamed of your race, you also shouldn't feel pride in it either.
Most conservatives point to President Johnson's Great Society initiatives as the genesis for the downfall of the black race in this country. Up until then, blacks were making great strides in improving their lives, but the welfare policies of the Democrats utterly destroyed the black family, and it is the family that is the best method of developing and passing on any generational advantages (privileges). When the government takes the place of the father, the government has no incentive to offer any benefits beyond what the citizens need to survive (and vote), as they need them dependent on government. And while I would concur that this was the mechanism of the downfall, it was Black Pride that provided the motivation among the blacks. After all, there are more whites on welfare than blacks, but the devastation to them is not as great.
And what else but pride can explain how the party of slavery, Jim Crow and the KKK would garner over 97% of the black vote? To say that Democrats have over-promised and under-delivered for the black community doesn't nearly describe the devastation that has occurred since they got that share of the vote. The Democrats went from the party of actual slavery to the party of virtual slavery all because of pride. As the saying goes No chain binds as tight as the ones you put on yourself.
If you followed the links above on my previous comments on this topic of privilege, you would know that the main reason I am privileged to be white is that no one I respect is calling for me to be loyal to my race. I am free to act in my best interest, but this is not so for blacks. Self-appointed black leaders are constantly calling for blacks to be loyal to their race, which has resulted in black culture becoming the equivalent of thug culture. And it has to. There are few things in this world I can comment on as being without exception, and one of them is that all calls for racial loyalty are evil, and as I have stated many times here, you cannot accomplish good with evil. So this loyalty to their race has turned what was once a beautiful goal in MLK's I Have a Dream speech, to a race that is far more concerned about the color of their skin than they are with the content of their character; thus black culture became thug culture.
And why? Pride. There is a reason it is not only one of the seven deadly sins, it is considered the first, because, in my opinion, it is the doorway to the other six. It is one thing to be proud of your accomplishments. I even expressed pride earlier in overcoming my introvert nature, but because I know it to be a sin, this acts as a bulwark against its damaging effects. Yet it's another thing to be proud of your immutable characteristics. That makes it being proud for pride's sake alone. It's irrational, which only makes you irrational when you succumb to it.
But if you really want to see how pride destroys a community, look at the gender non-conforming community once known as the gay community, and now referred to by an alphabet salad that no one can pin down. When I was a young man, my first exposure to this community was in the Navy. Even in the days before Don't ask; Don't tell
it was everywhere, and no one had a problem with it. At the time, I had two observations. One, they just wanted to be seen as normal, and two, being gay was undoubtedly immutable. In no way did I see them as choosing to be gay. But not any more, at least not very many on both counts, and all because of pride.
Before going further, if you want to write me off as a homophobe, I would advise against it. My preferred vlog that I try to catch every day is Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report. A normal, non-proud homosexual, married to another man and has adopted two boys. He would never consider taking his kids to something as disgusting as a Pride Parade.
He categorically rejects pride and everything associated with it. So if you are thinking that my views are homophobic, you will have to accuse this gay guy as well.
So not only has the irrational thinking of pride led to the degenerative pathologies among this community who in no way wants to be seen as normal
any more, it draws the concept of homosexuality being immutable into question. Never forget that there has never been found a gay gene. Everything about any gender-nonconforming traits cannot be proved in any scientific way. There are absolutely no facts, and the ones I have seen presented by those that are desperate to prove them as immutable are laughable.
Back when I had no question about seeing homosexuality as an immutable condition, I did so based on the question that many would ask, which was Who would choose this?
In this day and age when so many people are scrambling to place themselves as high as they can on the hierarchy of victimhood, I have no faith in anyone's claim of their gender/sexuality. If you want me to even consider the validity of your claim (as if you should care what I think), you must first reject pride and all it's trappings, such as the ever evolving rainbow flag. All I see when someone is wearing or presenting one of the many evolutions of that flag is someone who is proud of their pride, which makes them screwed.
So due to pride, the black community has been devastated, because it turns what should be gratitude for the welfare state into an entitlement, and anything you believe you are entitled to you will fight like crazy to acquire or keep. It has also turned the gender non-conforming group from wanting to be seen as normal into anything but that. Instead of bringing us together, they want everyone else to change to accept them. In other words, they don't have a problem, everyone else does, so changing their behavior to conform to society is seen as a betrayal. This makes public displays of depravity essential, and so their spiral of destruction is sealed.
The most obvious example of the need to divide rather than unite is what happened with pronouns since pride became a thing. Pronouns used to serve the purpose of simplifying speech so that the same noun doesn't have to be repeated over and over again. Nothing more. What must be important to point out is that they have no meaning on their own. You can't use them if you haven't made it clear who you are referring to. What progressives have done is greatly complicate something that was meant to simplify, and they did so by turning them into something that defines individuals. So much so, I saw this incredible freak declare that his pronouns were not preferred, but MANDATORY! Of course his pronouns weren't his
but I couldn't remember what they were, which is not a bug of this movement. It's a feature. Keeping you unsure about how to address anyone is the desired state that progressives want to impose.
So how did we arrive at this progressive utopia where personal judgement must be rejected and only speak what we have been commanded to do so? Like all things progressive, it started out innocent enough. Some time ago, if you were to ask a transexual what would be their greatest desire, he or she would say that it was to be able to pass as the gender they saw themselves. So naturally it would be very disheartening for someone else to use the pronouns of what they really are. 9 times out of 10, this would be an honest mistake. The transexual just wasn't feminine or masculine enough. But sometimes the person using the undesired pronouns did so out of meanness. For this small fraction of people, an entire culture of retribution had to be instituted. Honest mistake or not, anyone using the wrong pronouns had to be accused of speaking hatred.
Of course, now that pronouns are going to be enforced as expressions of our identity, the simple masculine and feminine versions just won't do. It's safe to say most people have some insecurity about their gender. No one meets their ideal perception of it. For masculine women and feminine men, having to pick the pronouns that they identify with became very problematic. Hence the ever expanding lists of pronouns in order to meet the varied permutations of everyone's identity. Keep in mind that up until using the wrong pronouns became hate speech, there was no one that had any issue with anyone using what they thought were the appropriate pronouns for the person they were referring to. What used to be a problem limited to a handful of assholes that wouldn't respect a transexual's preferred identity anyway, morphed into a large swath of people who now believe they are aggrieved victims if their chosen pronouns are not used. Again, this is not a bug, it's a feature. Progressives gain power as the number of aggrieved victims increase.
So if you were to ask me what my pronouns are, I would say I don't have any. I am not defined by the words used by other people. Only I define myself, and I am not a victim.
This is where pride gets you. Now that Cancel Culture, or as progressives prefer, Consequence Culture is in play, whether someone is actually passing or not becomes irrelevant. Not only is it impossible for it to matter, because no one is allowed to speak their mind, we now have attention whores like Dylan Mulvaney that may claim to want to be seen as a woman, but they actually want to be seen as a transexual, which is something very different. As I heard someone else describe, many transexuals do nothing more than put on woman-face and behave as an extreme caricature of a woman. One guy I saw on YouTube likes to dress as a woman, but is totally presenting male energy. He then sets up his phone to record himself being served at a restaurant, and when the inevitable happens where the waiter uses male pronouns, this guys swoons as if mortally wounded, but will eventually lash out with It's Ma'am, not Sir!
As you have surely noticed, I used male pronouns when referring to the transexuals in the previous paragraph. You may believe that I am being disrespectful, and you would be correct. In order for me to respect you, you must respect me, and considering you as a woman takes more than your say so, which is what happens anytime anyone offers their pronouns. If you are a man who wants to live respectfully as a woman, I will respect that as well. I have no problem using female pronouns with transexuals like Caitlyn Jenner or Blair White. But respect must be mutual, and cannot be compelled. So don't bother on insisting I use your pronouns, I will use the pronouns I believe are warranted based on my own judgement, so not only do I reject the plethora of pronouns that have cropped up, I refuse to use plural pronouns in a singular context. Your confusion about your gender is not a problem that requires my participation.
As a side note, isn't amazing how progressives solve problems. There used to be an actual medical condition called gender dysphoria, but not anymore, at least not according to our so-called medical community. And how they solved the problem reminds me of a joke I learned about Microsoft back when I was earning my BSIT. It was a great way to describe their shady business practices, and it goes:
Question: How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
Answer: None. They just make the standard dark!
So why solve anyone's problems when you can just say that everyone else is the one with the problem.
If you really want to see the progressive devastation that was accomplished by pandering to everyone's perceived identity, just take a look at our schools. No nation on this planet spends more money and resources, per capita, on their children's education than we do. It's not even close. And when I say resources, I'm talking about things like the square area of land dedicated to our schools. We easily spend twice as much as any other nation. Yet no nation produces children as ignorant, overweight, physically weak and emotionally fragile as we do. Also, not even close. Some might argue that some third world countries have more ignorant children, but I would counter that these countries have better prepared their children to deal with the world they are living in than we do. As for the other three critiques I mentioned, there is no debating those. Our kids are fat, weak and desperately crave safe spaces.
Of the four critiques, I see the first three as just side effects of the fourth. I don't believe progressives want our children to be ignorant, overweight and incapable of physical activity, but they definitely want them dependent on the government, which is what they seek when they make them emotionally fragile. I'm not accusing the left of some diabolical plan to destroy our kids. I'm quite certain they believe they are doing the exact opposite. What I noticed even back when I was in high school was that everyone involved in our education didn't believe that a high school education was good enough to make it in life, so why put in the effort to make us self-sufficient? And it has only gone downhill from then. Progressives know that everyone needs the protection and care of government, so why teach them to be able to overcome adversity on their own? Our children are taught from as young as possible that when they encounter anything that could be described as oppression, they should, in so many words, pitch a fit until the adversity is eliminated by others.
Put simply, if you believe in socialism, which is that elites should decide what is in everyone's best interest, why would you waste any effort teaching children to be responsible for their lives when that will only diminish the power you believe you need.
I wish that what I was describing what progressives were doing to our kids was more from neglect than intent, but I can't, and I think that describing where I was being very naive on my Patriarchy page would be a good way to explain it.
The first one was on my comments about female genital mutilation where I state Say what you will about Muslims cutting up their daughters, our society now sterilizes prepubescent boys with hormone "therapy" all because they are confused about what gender they are. In other words, gender is meaningless unless you think you are the wrong one.
Wow! I have never received the kind of blowback I got on that one than on any other thing I have written. One was latterly all caps HOW DARE YOU COMPARE GENDER AFFERMING HEALTHCARE TO THIS ACT OF BARBARITY!!!
Easy, to be honest. Muslims do what they do to prevent their daughters from having orgasms. Give a kid puberty blockers, and that kid will never know an orgasm either, aaaaaaand will be sterilized. To a society that believes this planet is overpopulated, I'm sure that last one is no real concern to consider, but speaking as a person with four children and two grandchildren, nothing horrifies me more than the thought that I wouldn't have them in my life, which is what happens to any child when their parent(s) has gender affirming health care administered on them.
Not only have I read it in many places on line, I had a gay friend of mine tell me to my face that he is so grateful that he didn't come of age now, or his very liberal parents would have cut off his dick. His earliest memories were that of playing with dolls and wearing his older sister's dresses. He so wanted to be girl growing up. It wasn't until he matured that he realized that he was just gay. The fact that he can now enjoy having orgasms was only a matter of timing.
Another way I showed my naivety on my Patriarchy page was when I decided to demonstrate that sex was evil by pointing to the universal revulsion towards pedophiles. Turns out that sexualizing kids wasn't held as universally revolting as I thought. According to progressive teachers, you can't start early enough. And it all comes out of a need to prove that sexuality is immutable, when there is no need to do so. Children don't need to have their sexuality or gender affirmed, and you are confusing the living f*** out of them when you try.
I don't need to start this next point with I'm old enough to remember when...
because it couldn't have been more than a decade ago when the progressives were still insisting that there were no true differences between men and women, and all the differences we see are cultural. To now, there is such a profound and immutable difference that it is imperative that we mutilate the perfectly healthy genitalia of our children, and if we didn't, we are only promoting suicide.
I got a novel idea. How about we let kids be kids? Kids don't need to drink alcohol or indulge any other drug. They also don't need to have sex, and more importantly, they don't need to be indulged by telling them their gender dysphoria isn't. What these children need to be taught more than anything else, is that this world isn't here to pander to their immature and ill-informed desires, and that starts by insisting that they learn to overcome adversity. It matters not what they learn if they haven't the fortitude to make it happen. And guess what? We could probably do it for half the cost of making them ignorant, fat, weak and cowardly.
When I tried discussing the previous topic with someone, she countered with asking how old does someone need to be to have sex? A good question, but I think we need to establish whether someone can be too young, and more important, why. What with the prevalence of drag queen story hour and trans strippers dancing beneath signs that state It won't lick itself
in front of young children, I don't think that the presumption that kids shouldn't be exposed to sexual content is like it used to be.
It's important to point out that sex is very different for boys or girls, regardless of the overlapping desires, and they cannot be looked at the same. When I was a child, I was always playing with it. Even when I had no idea what I was supposed to do with it, it was still a major obsession of mine. And while I had never considered that a girl would want to play with it as well, I would have responded very eagerly if any expressed a desire. This is another reason, on top of those expressed on my Patriarchy page that it takes more than consent for sex to be right. Just because someone wants to, doesn't mean they should.
As I also discussed on my previous page, one of the differences that exist between men and women is that men enter adulthood almost completely worthless. They have to mature and develop a sense of responsibility to be attractive to women. This is actually a blessing. If a young man doesn't have to be a responsible adult to get sex, his growth will be stunted. This is neither good for society nor the man himself.
We men like say to ourselves when we see a female teacher busted for having sex with her male student I wish I had a teacher like that when I was growing up!
Yet, we actually dodged a bullet that we didn't. Just to be clear. The only men (not boys) who should be having sex, are those that have earned it. It must not be given to them, nor should they pay for it. Porn and prostitution are terrible for us, but nothing destroys a man like unearned sex. Look at any celebrity that has women who are throwing themselves at him, and I will show you a man more likely than not to be incapable of establishing a healthy and meaningful relationship with a woman.
As for girls, consent shouldn't even be considered. I really derided the concept of consent on my Patriarchy page, but I was just referring to women. For girls, consent is pure evil. They truly can't give it. Children in general are prone to do as they are told. You then couple that with a woman's predilection for submission, and I don't care how much she says she wants it, her desire can't be trusted. Particularly when you factor in that a common reaction to being molested is for girls to seek out sex because that is the only value they see in themselves. As a result, consent can never be properly given, because it can never be properly discerned.
Only in submission can a woman be treated right in sex. As I tried to describe on my Patriarchy page, submission requires maturity. It's more than just doing as you are told, which any child can do. Any proper dominant knows that the best and most satisfying submission is when a woman has options other than to submit to the man, but still does anyway. Any woman without options is a child or a slave, but more importantly, she is being raped, regardless of whether she realizes it or not. Another point I tried to make on my Patriarchy page, but I know I didn't do it well, is that it is the man that determines whether a woman is raped, not her. If you, as a man, have sex with an 11 year-old girl, you are raping her. I don't care how much she is expressing a desire for sex with you. In other words, in a world where men are held 100% accountable for their actions, no woman should have the burden to determine whether she was raped, and no girl can.
So the question isn't How old is old enough?
The question is whether someone is mature enough. Could that age be younger than 18? Sure. In this country? Not likely. It's going to be older, particularly if they went to college. Anyone who goes straight from high school to college is just putting off being responsible for their lives while going through the motions of accomplishing something. The very definition of a mature person is someone who is responsible for their actions, and I don't see anything of the sort when I look at college age kids. As I explained before, when it comes to sex, college is the focal point of Hookup Culture, which is nothing more than mutual masturbation. In all honesty, I'm giving it too much credit calling it that. At least with actual masturbation you are not risking STDs, and you're not pretending that what you are doing has any meaning.
If so far I have come off as accusing progressives of wanting to do harmful things to women, children and POCs, then I apologize. That's not my intent. Yet when you look at the decades of damage they have done without any course correction in what they are doing, you have to start considering that they do indeed mean to do harm. But I know its not true. I know they intended to do well, but there is a reason for the old saying The road to hell is paved with good intentions
exists. Yet few know why. When all that matters is intent, and results are irrelevant, only harm will result.
Let's start with the children. The intent is that children should be respected, which I agree. Where we disagree is what does that respect mean. Progressives believe that to respect children means to respect their identity, and I'm not talking about their gender... yet. This makes progressives big on participation trophies. For them, instilling self-esteem is paramount over anything else, not realizing that self-esteem must be earned and can't be handed out. When they try, and say things like what beautiful and wonderful children they are -- just as they are -- they are not providing any reason for them to progress or mature. They stunt their growth. Why should they try to be better people when they already are?
It used to be fully understood that in order to progress in any manner that wasn't performative, you had to build on the past, which means you must start by respecting the past. Do you see anything of the sort occurring in our schools? A key component of education in the schools controlled by progressives is to heap scorn on our country's past. While I understand that their intent is to clear the way to impose socialism, what they are also doing is keeping our kids from maturing.
This idea of respecting the identities of our kids also leads to the well-know concept of The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations.
The reason our schools do such a poor job of educating inner-city youth is simply because they don't expect better of them. For me, respecting children begins with expecting better of them. That's real respect, as it is the only kind where the children will mature.
For starters, the last thing our children need are safe spaces. We need to provide the opposite of that to challenge them. Only by overcoming adversity can self-esteem be built. And the most important adversity they need to overcome is that parents should not care whether their children understand and agree that what they need to learn is indeed what they need to learn. Only when they can demonstrate that they can be responsible for their lives can they be allowed to decide for themselves what they will be.
Of course, the saddest example of this is gender dysphoria, mainly because it is no longer considered a medical condition anymore. This is the natural progression for everything progressives have inflicted on our children. In the progressive mind, of course children know what gender they really are. One of the reasons I respect transexuals like Blair White is because she fights so hard on not transitioning children. Even though she always knew she was a girl, her devout Catholic family wouldn't let her live as one, and she is so grateful for it. Now, as an adult, she knows without any doubt that her transition was the right thing for her. No child who transitions will ever have that kind of confidence. Only by overcoming adversity can anyone develop confidence, so telling a child that he must deal with the gender that he is, rather than the one he believes he is, is the right way to respect that child.
Is there any other explanation why progressives can't define what a woman is? Children are having perfectly healthy genitalia mutilated. So in order for progressives to be able to sleep at night, children must be what biology can't confirm. All because they can't tell kids that they need to grow up before making permanent, life-altering choices.
And it is not just the children with gender dysphoria that are having problems with this, it's all the other children that now have sex thrown into their lives. You can't teach kids that a child's gender may not be what they appear to be without this getting into sex. The proof of that is the reaction to states like Florida outlawing sexually explicit materials from elementary school libraries. Sexualizing children that are not mature enough to approach sex as adults, is at best -- repeat, at best -- mutual masturbation. It then all goes down from there. Without maturity, sex becomes a tool for those that are mature to manipulate and abuse children.
Ironically, it's the children that have transitioned, either through puberty blockers, or direct genital mutilation that will never experience sexual gratification. They will forever be children in any sexual encounter. Sexualizing our children began long before gender transitioning was a thing, but it has put it on hyper-drive by it, and the destination is only devastation.
Do you know what our children need more than having their perceived gender affirmed? They need hugs. Young or old, boy or girl, we all require physical affection, and sexualizing our children is confusing them. It blurs the line between affection and sex, and for many (adults as well), they really don't know the difference. They inherently know they need affection, but because of the messages we adults send them, they end up seeking sex instead, which will leave them empty of what they really need, and may very well prevent them from ever maturing into the adults that are in full control of who they are.
Considering the push back I got from using pedophilia as proof that sex is evil, I guess I need to spell out the difference between sex and affection. Let's start by pointing out that in many cultures, men don't shake hands when they meet like we do in America; they hug each other instead. Here is an example where I agree with progressives in stating this is not good. Where I disagree is why. They would say American men are homophobes, which is the go-to accusation they have with anyone who disagrees with them. Why seek understanding when you can label your opponent a coward and just walk away?
Where progressives get this wrong is that American men see it as sex and nothing more. Whether it is gay or straight isn't the relevant part. Not only are men harmed when they don't seek out affection, they harm their children by not giving them the affection they need. Children need affection, and when they don't get it, they will seek out sex as a very poor substitute. But what else can be expected when a child tries to jump on an adults lap, but only to have the adult push them away. The adult does so, if not for avoiding their own misplaced sexual desires, then for the possible perception of anything inappropriate.
Yes, men have long had an issue with displaying affection, but mostly because it was perceived as unmanly. The pedophilia concern is only a recent development. As terrible as pedophilia is, the lack of affection children receive by adults who are avoiding any accusation of anything sexual with children, harms the children in such a way that they end up seeking sex anyway.
And how are sex and affection different? With affection, it doesn't matter who you are being affectionate with. Young or old, male or female, you are just bonding. Nothing more. It's also on an equal level. There may be an adult / child dynamic, which may appear unequal, but it is not. All involved in the actions of affection are benefitting equally.
Sex is very different. The gender of the person you are having sex with matters. Even if you consider yourself bisexual, the gender of your partner still matters with how you approach that person. Even if you are non-binary, just as to choose not to choose is still a choice, gender matters or non-binary has no meaning. This is why you can't push gender on children without sexualizing them. You may be stunting the sexual development of the specific children you are inflicting with gender affirming care, but the remaining children that you have convinced that they may not be the gender they are, have to wonder why it matters so much. And if there is one message they receive from today's progressive dominated education system, it's that gender matters A LOT! By default, then so does sex.
Also, when it comes to sex, the relationship is always unequal, either directly in a Dom/sub context, or indirectly by trading off who is pleasuring who. They may simultaneously being experiencing pleasure, but that pleasure is very different. On the other hand, affection is always mutually experienced. What proves more than anything else that they are different, is that sex and affection are mutually exclusive. Sex will get your heart racing, while affection will calm it down. As such, lovers can experience affection after sex, but never during it.
Of course I'm going to blame feminists for the sexualization of our children. Progressives never intend to destroy us as they destroy us, so it is fitting that the movement that is supposedly about getting society to not see women as nothing more than sex objects would end up sexualize children. Don't get me wrong. I'm not blaming women. As I explained on my Patriarchy page, Feminism would be nothing more than a lesbian cult without men. It is men that are responsible in our Patriarchal society, so they are to blame. Either the simps who pander to women, or the monsters that prey on them, they both enable women to seek destructive lives, with the only difference being intent, which is something that will never be known. Whether they realize it (the monsters) or not (the simps), it is not in the best interest of these men to have women who do not see themselves as anything but victims.
Getting back to that intentions theme earlier, feminism started off with good intentions. Women were clearly not respected as they should. The mistake that was made was to believe that this was a problem for women to solve. It wasn't. Men created the problem, so only men can solve it. I believe that a lot of progress was being made but it wasn't happening fast enough. So they gave up on getting women respected as women, and started focusing on the things that men respected in men to gain the respect they sought. This is, of course, a fallacy to beat every fallacy created to think that respect for women was going to happen by emulating men, but that is the current state of progressivism, or 3rd wave feminism in particular.
I could spend an entire page on the list of devastation wrought upon women when they thought it was a good idea to emulate men, but I'm just going to focus on the two that have devastated children by sexualizing them. The first is the sexual aggression now seen by women. For almost the entire history of mankind, men were the sexual aggressors, and women were the ones that not only put the brakes on sex, they were the ones that were demanding more than just sexual satisfaction. Not anymore. While there have always been sluts in our culture, sexually aggressive women were never admired as they are now. Having both sides of a relationship seeking sex over anything meaningful has actually had the effect of trivializing sex. And this trivialization is what is sexualizing our children, and has them seeking sex instead of affection.
But the most devastating change that came from women seeking what men respect is the rejection of submission. Men being submissive is a shameful act, as it should be. We need men that are taking responsibility in their relationships. As a result, women seeking what men want wind up feeling ashamed of their natural submissive desires. This then leads them to equate submission to slavery, and it wasn't the other way around. They sought to justify their shame, and thus equate it to slavery. Women may have always complained about their overbearing husbands and fathers, but none of them saw themselves as slaves until they had a need to explain their shame. And like the previous examples I discussed on this page, being ashamed of something that you should not be ashamed of will only lead to terrible things. The word pride may not be used (I am woman, hear me roar!), but it is every bit as much the same without the name. As a result, rejecting the need for men is very common for women these days. There is even a TikTok trend where women are asked whether they would rather be alone in the woods with a bear or a man and choose the bear.
Before getting into how being ashamed of being submissive harms our children, I first want to address the erroneous premise that submission equals slavery. It is no different than how people view actual slavery. It is a common belief among progressives that white people gained an advantage by putting others into slavery, but the exact opposite occurred. As I explained before, the South had the natural resource advantage over the north in the Civil War, but because of slavery, they were economically crippled. Not only were they not advantaged by slavery, their need for it became so irrational, they had to start a war to protect it, even though it wasn't being threatened.
So yes, there are men that seek to use and abuse women, and none of them are advantaged by it. Just as the South never understood how they would be better off without slavery, these men will never understand what it means to have a true partner in life. I know that having someone in my life that I respect helps me see things I never would have without her. This is priceless. And as I consider men who don't foster the women in their lives to achieve their full potential as squandering an important asset, I would say the same about women who reject submission to men that respect them as equally short sighted. In both cases I would treat them the same. Not as someone to be scorned or punished. Just as people who are missing out on what a wonderful and fulfilling life could be.
Still, women rejecting submission has more of an effect than just them not achieving what they could if they did submit. If all they did was reject it because they haven't met a man worthy of her, there wouldn't be any shame involved. Yet because of the shame they feel associated with it, submission is rejected as a principle. This leads to scorn being directed to men who want her submission, and if she is successful at getting men to see that seeking her submission as evil, then men throw it in the pot with other things that should be seen as evil, like rape.
I explained this before on my Patriarchy page that when men see sexual domination of women the same as rape, then it is rape that they will eventually want. In the context of this page, the same is true for pedophilia. Women's rejection of submission is turning men into pedophiles. I don't say this to blame women for the evil men do. I only say it because the best course of action to prevent men from becoming pedophiles, is to teach them the healthy nature it is to seek a woman's submission to them. Not only is there no shame in a woman submitting to a man (not all men), but there is nothing wrong with a man wanting to dominate a woman.
Again, as I have stated before. The patriarchy describes who is responsible, not who is in charge.
To recap, women rejecting what it means to be a woman and embracing the things that men respect creates sexually aggressive women, which sexualizes children by their example (creates a supply). And by rejecting submission, they are teaching men that they are evil for wanting a woman's submission, which then leads them to want other evil things like sex with children (creates a demand).
This push-pull dynamic is having a devastating effect on our children, and if all I wanted was to prevent the molestation of children, I would say we could just continue our current course and punish men harder and harder for it, but considering we already expect child molesters to be killed in prison (a de facto death penalty), I would still have to question the effectiveness of this response. Yet the real problem isn't the children that do get molested. It's the others that don't get the affection they need. Molested or not, our children are seeking sex like never before as a substitute for the affection they should be getting.
To be fair, the right has some blame for this problem as well. I often complain about the virtue signaling on the left that only intends to demonstrate a point, but accomplishes nothing, and more often than not, causes more harm. The right has their virtue signalers as well, with the most devastating being the hate and vitriol they heap on pedophiles. There is literally no limit to the violence they want to inflict on them, including death. Yet as a policy of protecting our children from molestation, I don't see its effectiveness. One thing is for damn sure is that it is doing a bang up job at getting men that aren't pedophiles from making any contact with children, which is neither good for them or the kids.
I'm accusing the right as well as the left in this problem, because there is not a single problem facing us that either side is blameless. If you want to make a positive difference in the world, you have to recognize what is wrong with the side that you support, or you will end up like the progressives, who are always harming those that they see as their allies, and advantaging those they consider to be their enemies. While I have covered on previous pages how America's enemies have benefited by the Biden/Harris administration, who benefited the most from progressive attacks was Donald Trump. He wasn't America's enemy, but clearly the progressives consider him to be their enemy. He's the second coming of Hitler after all!
Going into 2024, I was hoping that the Republican party would nominate someone other than Donald Trump. I was pulling for Ron DeSantis, or even Vivek Ramaswamy. I personally didn't have a problem with Trump. I just thought he came with too much baggage to be effective. With how Biden was crashing and burning, I thought anyone other than Trump was a shoe-in to get elected. But, such was not the case. My fellow Republicans wanted him, so, reluctantly, that was who I was going to have to support.
That is, I was reluctant until the Democrats convicted him on 34 of the most bogus and contrived crimes anyone has ever been convicted on. Only people who desperately needed him to be guilty of something -- anything -- would consider them legitimate. From that point on I thought How awesome it is going to be to vote for a convicted felon!
So my attitude change was not based on anything he was doing, but what the progressives were doing.
It then went to another level the day when someone soaked in the lie that Trump was Hitler took a shot at him. I was watching his rally in Butler PA because I heard he was going to announce his VP pick. When I saw him jerk and drop, I thought for sure I just witnessed his assassination live on TV. When he later stood up, with his blood streaked across his face, pumping his fist and shouting Fight! Fight! Fight!
I was stunned. Like many that I heard following this, I would now crawl over broken glass to vote for him!
Progressives don't get this aspect of overcoming adversity. Contrary to what many leftist pundit said following his victory, Trump didn't win this election in spite of everything progressives threw at him (2 impeachments, 4 indictments with one 34 count conviction and 2 assassination attempts). He won because of them. My opinion of Trump entering 2024 was low and getting lower. If you were to ask me why he was running for president, I would have said then it was out of pure arrogance. Surely he could see that there were several other people running who stood a better chance of getting elected, but by overcoming the adversity that progressives threw at him, I could see the true nature of him. I could see that his running for president was more than just an ego trip. More importantly, this change in how I felt was something he could not do on his own. It was the progressives that made it possible.
It's quite conceivable that he could have won without all the leftist lawfare, but the popular vote as well? Not a chance! By making a martyr out of him, they made it cool to publicly support him. Yet while progressives lost in a spectacular fashion, conservatism did not win, and I need to cover one more bit of nasty business before I can explain.
I would have liked to have moved on to the substance of the claims of apolitical thinking after that last section about how progressives have advantaged their enemies, but I need to cover one more thing that progressives do to harm their allies before I do, and that is due to the 18 minutes of horror recorded on Lanken Riley's smart watch before she had her head caved in with a rock by an illegal alien. Of all of the things I have recorded in my web book about how progressives give their constituents the shaft, her living nightmare must be remembered the most.
While I don't really know Laken's political beliefs, since she was a female college student, odds are, she would have voted for Kamala Harris, yet she wasn't afforded that opportunity because of the policies of the Biden/Harris administration. But why? How did the party that was (still?) led by Obama, who's nickname was Deporter-in-Chief, become the party that threw open our borders to all who would come? After all, illegal immigrants lower the wages of the poor and middle-class, which was the typical reason Democrats opposed illegal immigration.
I remember reading online a report back in 2017 that analyzed why Hillary Clinton lost the election of 2016, and while it included a lot of what I had already heard, it also included something that I haven't seen before or since. It straight up said that most of the Democrat core constituency was not reproducing. Of course, the progressive elites were not going to tell their followers that they needed to start having more kids. Their heads would literally explode considering how committed they are to the message that having kids will ruin your life. What the writer of the report recommended was more illegal immigration, and while sanctuary cities had existed before the Trump administration, they really took off during it.
Let's step back a bit here. Democrats have long known that a certain kind of immigrant has always benefitted their party more than others. Back in 1965, Democrats changed immigration law to move away from a preference for people with skills that our country needs, to preferring the relatives of existing migrants; citizen or not. Immigrants with good skills that can easily assimilate with the dominant culture, and so could stand on their own were of no use to Democrats. They wanted more people who would be more likely to insulate themselves in a foreign cultural bubble, thus be more fearful and more likely to seek protection. These were the ones that Democrats have always wanted. With this report I read in 2017, they were finally stating openly what I always knew about them when it comes to immigration.
Now I know what you're thinking. Illegal immigrants can't vote, but considering Kamala won every state that didn't require identification, and lost every state that did, I find that a little beyond coincident. This report I read didn't allude to illegal voting, but it did point out how A pathway to citizenship
resonated with the population regarding the children who were brought here by their illegal immigrant parents; the euphemistically termed Dreamers.
The report stated that it would not take much to move that sentiment over to all illegals. So the report said to get as many in as they could, and even if they can't get them their pathway to citizenship (AKA Amnesty), their children born here sure will, and that's the point. And at a minimum, more people equals more apportionment relative to the census. With legal residence bailing blue-city hell-holes, they needed anyone they can get to prop up their numbers.
What I would add, which that report wouldn't be bold enough to say, is that more people needing services, is more NGOs (grifters) collecting taxpayer funds to provide those services, who can then kick back money to the politicians that created the problem in the first place. Do you ever wonder why none of the hotels that were used to house those illegal aliens complained about it? That's good guaranteed money. With so many Democrat donors that are making a fortune off of the homeless and illegals, where exactly is the downside for Democrat elites with sanctuary cities and illegal aliens?
Who cares if the occasional Democrat voter loses her life in an unspeakable manner. There is a party that needs to maintain its power, and so sacrifices need to be made.
Enough with all this exposition into the failings of progressive politics. Time to bring all this home and start defining what it means to be apolitical, which begins, oddly enough, by describing what it is not.
Back on one of my earlier pages, I discussed one of the differences between liberals and conservatives, which is that liberalism is divided up into two groups, elites and their tools. Yet with conservatism, these groups do not exist. Liberals think they exist among conservatives, but that is pure projection. Projection is where you see something in yourself that then must also (or only) exist in other people. I find it absolutely laughable that Democrats think that Republicans just do what Trump or Fox News tells them. Ha! Liberalism doesn't work without having victims (tools) and saviors (elites), while conservatism doesn't work unless everyone takes responsibility for their lives.
I was reminded of this dichotomy that makes up the Democratic party when I tried to get clarification from one of these women when she claimed she was apolitical. She was almost insulted that I asked. To paraphrase her response, she said that is why she votes for Democrats. It is the people she is voting for that should explain why women should vote.
Seriously?
This brought to mind one of the most diabolical rulings from the supreme court since Dred Scott, which was the Miranda ruling. I like to paraphrase that ruling as Don't you worry your pretty little head about your rights. The government will let you know what they are.
Don't get me wrong. There is nothing worse than a police officer that doesn't respect our rights, and all of them who abuse our rights should be thrown in jail themselves, but the idea that we need not know them is a complete oxymoron. Knowing our rights is what makes us citizens. Not needing to know them makes us servants to the government, and not at the consent of the governed.
And it is not just not knowing your rights that makes you a tool to the elites, it's also believing what the elites tell you are (or should) be your rights, but really aren't, that makes you their tool. Was there anything sadder than watching all these tools melt down after Roe was overturned. Even the sainted Ruth Bader Ginsburg recognized the flaw in Roe vs Wade, but there was no way the elites were going to resolve it. It's existence as a precarious right was far too useful in keeping their tools in line. Even with it overturned, it continues to pay dividends for the elites, which is why they continue to expand what should be rights, like health care, shelter and a college education (debt forgiveness). Yet none of these rights
can be provided without taking something from someone else, which means they can never be a right. But they can be used by the elites to keep their tools in line.
Never forget this distinction. Actual rights set you free, and are only protected by the government. Anything that the government provides that they can trick you into believing is a right will only enslave you. And I might add, specifically done for this purpose. Never trust in the benevolence of people seeking to wield power.
So was this woman truly apolitical as she claimed? As an essential cog in the progressive political machine in helping to keep the elites in power, she's not. Not even close. Her need to have Democrats in power negates that on its own. Government is absolutely essential in all of these women's lives. Try Googling The Life of Julia,
which was a campaign ad for Obama in 2012. I doubt you will find it, but nothing demonstrated the absolute emptiness of progressive thinking. It unironically showed the benefits
of the government in the lives of women. And as I have stated in the past that just because in a democracy you get to choose your master that doesn't make you any less a slave, it is also true that just because you don't want to pay attention to politics that doesn't make you apolitical.
As a side note, what is truly damning of modern feminism is that no Life of Julia
political ad would ever be considered with a man in Julia's role. Need I say more?
I understand why these women see themselves as apolitical. Back when I described Democrats as being divided into two groups; elites and tools, I said that one way to tell them apart was to look at the reaction to the accusation that liberalism was nothing but repackaged socialism. If they honestly claimed it wasn't, then they were a tool. Yet if they knew that it was, but needed to lie about it, because that was in everyone's best interest, they were an elite. Back then there was too much stigma on advocating for socialism, but not anymore. Both sides of the Democrat party now seem to be openly embracing socialism.
The important point is that the two sides are divided by the true believers and the ones that can't come to grips with what it means to advance socialism. Only a true believer can look at all the death and destruction the world over caused by progressive politics and see it as an acceptable consequence of their actions. Not to mention the cognitive dissonance generated to at once see that women must be able to choose what to do with their bodies when it comes to killing their unborn babies, but at the same time must give up every other decision on their bodies with single-payer health care, must be phenomenal. It's so much easier for many to just pretend that the politicians they are voting for know what they are doing, and claim to be apolitical.
As I have stated before, I want to reiterate again here, I am not accusing the elites of wanting to harm their tools. They have simply painted themselves into a logical corner and have no way out. A good example demonstrating this was a video I saw leading up to the election showing all of these progressive talking heads claiming that Trump was a threat to democracy. Before I saw the video, I had been seeing these accusations for some time, but always marveled at the hutzpah it took to accuse the other side as a threat to democracy while your side prevented any challengers to the president during the primary voting season, then swapped him out without a single vote before the election, based solely on the belief that you didn't think he could win the election. What this video did was morph the heads from saying a threat to democracy to a threat to bureaucracy. And oh yes! Trump is definitely a threat to the bureaucracy.
When I was a young man, I, like many at the time, believed that Republicans and Democrats had the same goals, but only had different ideas on how to achieve them. At some point though, Republicans weren't seen as wrong by the Democrats, they were seen as evil. This was inevitable because Democrats believed the only possible solution to what ailed the poor and oppressed was the government. Any talk of other means was seen as an attack on the poor and oppressed. The corner that Democrats painted themselves into required them to believe that Republicans must want to harm them as the only possible objection to their perceived only possible solution.
As time went on, I began to understand that there was much more going on with the left, and it finally proved itself out with gay marriage. The progressives wanted to portray it as nothing more than seeking the same benefits of marriage, but in many states, they had already provided it with domestic partner laws. It was their insistence that they were fighting bans on gay marriage that exposed it for what it was. There was no ban on gay marriage. Did you see even one gay marriage being stopped by the government? Just one? Of course not! There just wasn't government sanctioning of it. For a progressive, government blessing is everything, and if the government was not blessing it, it was banning it.
So for me, the progressive need for the benevolence of government was proved out decades ago, but only the deeply delusional can't see it now. Going into the 2020 election I could accept that those that voted for Brandon thought that they were voting for someone that represented their values. Yet if you looked close enough you could have seen his dementia even then. At the time, the rest of the Democratic field was bat-shit crazy, so they had no choice but to nominate him. Going into 2024, the jig was up. Mainstream media and Hollywood may have been in the tank for Brandon, but the calls to replace his cackling idiot of a VP were obvious signs that he needed to step aside, because they new she wasn't a viable replacement. By the time the trigger was pulled to replace him, it was too late. Due to identity politics, they had no choice but to go with his VP. Pushing aside a woman, and a POC at that, was not an option. Identity politics Uber alles!
The important point in all of this was that no one was considering the competence of either of them. The only consideration was whether they could garner enough votes to win an election. Nothing more. Every single person -- without exception -- knew that electing them meant not just maintaining, but expanding the bureaucracy. It was in the bureaucracy that each and every voter, elite and tool alike, had faith in. Competence at the top was irrelevant. All that mattered was the faceless bureaucrats running the show whose only existence depends on getting you to believe they are needed.
There is no doubt in my mind that anyone who voted for Democrats in the last election could not possibly have a valid claim to being apolitical because of how important government is to them. If the word apolitical is to have any meaning at all, it has to refer to the degree that government is important to you. People like I described on another page who are the third of the population that don't vote at all come to mind. At the time I wrote about them, I thought they were merely apathetic. But when I later took a closer look, I found that they were composed mostly of people who were religious fundamentalists and/or gun owners. While some people don't vote because they don't believe that their vote matters, the majority of them believe it is the government that doesn't matter. These are the actual apolitical people.
And the more I thought about it, the more I realized I am more apolitical than these women who claim to be. In fact, I had long been looking for a way to distinguish myself from most people who call them conservative, and I think this might fit the bill. But before I can explain further, I need to review my definitions for politics and religion.
I have an entire page on the subject, and if you haven't read it lately, I highly recommend that you do. I have received quite a few push backs on it that are some variation of You can't have your own definitions for things,
saying that my claims are illegitimate because of it. But they way I see it, I'm not making up new definitions. They are like how I have heard mathematics described. Math wasn't created, it was discovered. Good mathematical principles merely explain our universe. The better they explain our universe, the better the math.
The same is true for all of the definitions I use. I'm not creating them to support what I want to believe. I do it to better understand the reality of the world around us. Or as I like to say, There is no problem so simple to solve that having a poor definition will make it intractable.
So if you have a problem that is hard to solve, maybe you have defined the problem poorly.
Before restating the definitions, I want to make clear that politics and religion make up a dichotomy, which means the definition of one requires the definition of the other. They are not the same, but they are inseparable. This means there is no conflict between politics and religion, so if you see a conflict, you have a poor definition of one or the other or both.
So my definition for politics is:
Politics [pol-i-tiks] – noun
1. the process of determining the norms and customs that the members of any society use to interact with one another
And my definition for religion is:
Religion [ri-lig-uhn] – noun
The values you use to define who you are
What I want emphasize on this page is that as a dichotomy, both sides need to be defined separately. What you do (politics) and who you are (religion) will be defined erroneously if you don't make a conscious effort to do so. Too many religious fundamentalists use religion to define their politics, and too many progressives use their politics to define their religion. One or the other happens by default if you are not aware of it.
The most obvious example I can use for myself is abortion. I have been attacked by many on the right because I state that I do not want any laws against abortion. It's not that I don't think it is evil, I do. Unlike many of the things that I want outlawed, like theft, murder and assault, I don't view most women who want abortions as people who want to harm other people, or gain any unfair advantage over anyone else. Abortion does not fall neatly into the category of a crime because of the unique motivations of the women who seek them, compared to all of the other crimes that I want made against the law.
That, and as a proud supporter of the patriarchy, I want the men that get women pregnant held responsible for all abortions. No women has ever wanted an abortion, and so so sought out a man to get her pregnant so that she can. As I have stated many times before, all abortions are the result of the immature or malicious actions of men. And considering there is not even a remote possibility of a government action that can accomplishes this, begins to point to why I consider myself apolitical. I do not look to the government to make us better people.
Before moving forward, I want it understood that I am NOT Pro-Choice. There is nothing more progressive, thus society destroying, than to respect someone's choice just because that is their choice. It is safe to say that anyone in our pampered, self-centered society is more than likely than not to make bad choices for themselves.
In short, just because I don't object to your choice, does not mean that I respect it.
So when someone on the right rejects my claim to being pro-life because I don't support laws against abortions, I always turn it back on them saying that what I haven't done is given up on women. People who want to outlaw abortions are only confirming that women get an advantage by killing their children. You either believe that children are life-affirming or that they are life-limiting. I know women are better off with children, and I act accordingly. I have some sympathy for women who want to outlaw abortions because of the pressure they see put on them to kill their children, but not enough to agree with them.
I have seen too much in my life where women realize that the abortion they had when they were younger was a horrible mistake. This is unique among the things that there is a consensus that are crimes. Murderers, thieves and rapists rarely, if ever, see that their lives would have been better if they had not travelled down the path that they did. If they have any regrets it is that they were caught. So arresting and imprisoning them is something that I am fully behind. But as I have said before, laws are what you pass when you no longer wish to respect those that you disagree. I have also said that when you save the mother then you save the child. So whenever I see someone advocating outlawing abortions, all I see are people who have given up on women who want to have an abortion, and are good with them going to hell for it. I'm not. I believe they are salvageable, but it has to start with respecting them, if not their choice, which I never will.
For a long time now I have recognized that there was something different between me and most people who described themselves as conservative, such as: Pro-life describes what I am for, and not what I am against. I have an entire page on that subject. So what exactly is the difference between me and most conservatives has long escaped me. The typical Jeffersonian maxim Government that governs least governs best
used to describe most conservative thinking doesn't go far enough for me. I want no governance over me at all. Yet, such sentiments are usually assigned to anarchists or libertarians, and I want nothing to do with either of them.
Anarchy is not the answer. I want way more police involvement in shutting down criminals, with Antifa at the top of the list. I wouldn't say I want a police state, because I don't want to have to prove my innocence to any police officer, but they do need to arrest anyone engaged in any activity that limits my ability to live my life as I see fit. Be they criminals or protesters, it's time for the looting and mayhem to be put to an end.
And as for libertarians (or Losertarians as I like to call them), One, I am not an isolationists. I want to fight our wars in other countries before they come to our shores. So much so, I would like to see the Department of Defense renamed back to the War Department. If the last four years have proved anything, it is that our weakness means more death and destruction world wide. Contrary to what Einstein believed, if you want peace, then prepare for war. And two, no political movement is more dedicated to virtue signaling instead of accomplishing anything than these guys. The only thing Libertarians have accomplished is to see the people further from what they believe get elected. Speaking as someone who was once a Libertarian, there was no way I was going back to that cult.
For many years now I have been stuck with just calling myself a conservative without any way to distinguish myself from other conservatives, until I started contemplating apolitical. Yes, I voted, but not for me. I vote because it is my civic duty, and not out of any belief that it accomplishes anything for me personally. It's like my objection to guys that think they are girls competing against girls in sports. This has no impact on me, but I object to it anyway because it is not fair. The same is true for voting. I vote for others, and not for me.
Yet the accepted definition of apolitical wasn't quite right. I am exceedingly interested in politics, and that is when I realized that the definition was wrong, mainly because it suited the purposes of progressives. Just as I redefined politics to take government out of the definition, I did so because progressives want only the government to be the correct solution to our problems. They do not want people trying to work out our problems without it. The accepted definition of religion also suited the progressives by having it be about what you thought about God, so as to label conservatives as theocrats if they want to use their values to guide their politics. Nevermind that it is the progressives wanting to impose humanism/atheism on us that makes them the actual theocrats.
The same is true for apolitical. It suits the progressive elites to have their tools be disinterested in politics. If you are not a true believer, then they don't want you looking too closely into what is going on. Besides, what other use is there for a word that describes what you are not interested in, other than to manipulate you? I can think of a near infinite number of things that I am not interested in. Must there be a word for every one of them as well?
So if apolitical is going to have any useful meaning at all, it must be:
Apolitical -- adjective
Describes someone who believes that government does not matter, because only what we choose to do of our own freewill matters.
Again, I am not an anarchist. I'm not saying that the government is not important. The utility that delivers the electricity to my house is very important to me to support my expected standard of living, but other than that, I could care less about who that utility is. All I care is that the service they provide is reliable, and that they charge me a fair price. And I have the exact same expectation of government. It should be a service, and nothing more.
For the federal government, all I expect is that it kills our enemies, yet it should avoid war if practical. For Democrats, they consider the absence of war means there is peace, but this is just wishful thinking. Regardless of what you want, if your enemies are at war with you, then you are at war. Unilateral peace is just another name for surrender.
I also expect the federal government to responsibly manage our monetary system. Free markets do not cause inflation. Government either directly steals the wealth from its citizens through taxes, or it indirectly steals it through inflation. And as bad as progressives are with the defence of this nation, they are 10 times worse with their monitary policies.
Could the federal government do more? Sure, but it must first do these two things well before even considering anything else. And neither of these expectations were even on the radar of the Obama/Biden administrations. Their focus was on reshaping this nation and its citizens to meet their expectations, which defines a theocracy. For citizens to be free, it is their expectations of the government that must be met, not the other way around.
All my other expectations of government are at the state and local level. Police, fire & utility selection are the ones I care about whether they administer them correctly, and I could care less about party affiliation. Of course primary education is an important function, but only if vouchers are offered for those that don't find the public options acceptable. What is very telling about their importance is that who I vote for has little bearing on this. It is where I choose to live that has a greater influence on whether my expectation will be met. I choose to live in a suburban city, in a red state, and it is that choice that I make for myself, and not who I vote for, that determines the quality of my life.
So government doesn't matter because as my definition of politics states, it is the process of determining the norms and customs that the members of any society use to interact with one another, and since government is nothing but force, it is a very poor tool to determine how we should interact with one another. Specifically, if you are using force then your are giving up on politics. When I offered my new definition of politics, it was to get people thinking outside of government in how we should govern ourselves. Only what we chose to do of our own free will matters, so what we are forced to do can never matter. Thus, with my definition of apolitical, I am bringing this idea to its logical conclusion. Government, at best, can treat the symptoms of our degrading society, which it instead only seems to exacerbate them. If we want to be better people then we must do it, and not expect an extraction of us, the government, to accomplish it.
But what really makes me apolitical is that I don't see any wins or losses in elections. What I live by is that winners and losers only exist in games. In real life, we either all win or we all lose. More to the point, and a very big difference between me and most conservatives, I don't see Trump winning the election as a victory. There were still 3 million more people that voted for Kamala than voted for Obama, and just labeling them as losers does not help this country. Getting more votes may determine that you have won an election, but it does not make you right, and will never convince the other side that your are. The act of voting is truly meaningless to me, because what changes other peoples minds are the relationships you develop and not who you vote for.
Before moving forward, I want to make it clear that I am not MAGA. Mainly because I never saw this nation as not being great, so Make America Great Again
has always been a nonsequitur to me. There was a period of time when the Obama/Biden administration made a disaster out of our government, but our government is not our nation. Our nation was made great at its conception, and was proven great for the world to see by the beginning of the Twentieth Century. I have not seen anything since that would lead me to believe that any other nation can carry the moniker of the greatest nation on the planet but the USA.
Getting back to my definition of apolitical, it can be seen from a couple of angles. One is that it doesn't matter what the constitution or laws that exists say, the people of the government make of it what they will. They not only completely fabricate rights, such as Roe vs Wade, they also misuse what is there like the 14th Amendment. The intent of that amendment was to make sure that former slaves were considered as citizens, but morphed into a scam to do an end run around immigration law, something never intended by those that voted for that amendment.
The most egregious example was the Patriot Act, which was passed to make it easier to investigate and prosecute terrorists. It ended up being abused by the Obama/Biden administrations to go after their political enemies. Libertarians like to pat themselves on the back saying they knew all along it would be used that way, and so should never have been enacted, but I saw the people in the government completely manufacture crimes to prosecute a former president. No Patriot Act mechanisms needed. If you elect evil people, you get evil deeds, and there is no law that can protect you. The Soviet era saying Show me the man and I will show you the crime
describes all governments. Any faith in government will always be a misplaced faith.
To sum up this angle of my description of apolitical is with the common conception among conservatives that we put our faith in God's creation of man, while progressives put their faith in man's creation of government. In other words, we believe in what is real (people), while they believe in an abstraction (government).
The other angle I want to look at, is how we go about helping others and at the same time, making ourselves better. There are two basic approaches that fall into either dealing directly with people to help them make a fundamental change in their life, or hitting the Easy Button and have the government do it. I've already talked at great length about this concerning abortion. Even if you think you can save more children's lives by outlawing abortion, you have done nothing, and even made things worse, at changing the nature of the women who would kill their children. When it comes to making real and positive changes in people, government does not matter. More to the point, since the repeal of Roe v Wade the rate of abortions committed in this country has only increased. It is time to stop wasting our efforts on government, and focus on the people and addressing why they think their life will be better if they kill their child. Not just mothers, but fathers too. If fathers cared enough for their kids, they would stop getting women pregnant who would kill their kids.
The point is, you either focus on saving all the kids from abortion, which naturally leads you to seeing the government as the solution, because only the government can save all of the kids. Or, you can focus on the people around you, and be a positive influence in their lives. The former is an illusion, which can lead to a lot of unintended results like more abortions than when you started your efforts, while the latter may not save all the kids, it will save some, and without the unintended consequences.
Of course the progressives are way more into hitting that Easy Button than the conservatives, and the reason is due to their unreasonable goals. They start with something like wanting to end poverty in this country, but only the government has the resources to tackle such a monumental problem, so naturally they will lean in that direction to get it solved. This may seem like a noble expectation, but no deed is so noble that the force of government will not turn it evil. With actual acts of charity, the one who has earned, or is otherwise the rightful owner of the resources, will voluntarily give it to the needy without any coercion of any kind. Only under these circumstances will the giver experience the joy of being a positive influence in someone else's life, and more importantly, the receiver can experience the life affirming feeling of gratitude.
Not so when the Welfare State doles out their largesse. The government may legally possess the resources, but it will never be the rightful owner. Government does not earn a dime, and everything it has acquired it has done so by force. Either directly through taxation and confiscation, or indirectly through printing money, thus increasing our national debt, which is a way to steal from future generations. The recipient of the welfare may not consciously recognize this, but his soul does. The proof is that the recipient doesn't feel gratitude, he instead experiences entitlement. His soul knows it is stolen money, so he has to feel entitled to what he receives in order to sleep at night. Gratitude, on the other hand, is such an uplifting attitude, and motivates the recipient to get off the charity they are receiving. Entitlement is a trap. It will ensnare the recipient to stay on it. After all, he is entitled to it. This breeds hatred and resentment towards the real source of the wealth.
But if you want to see some real hatred, look no further than the progressives that are orchestrating this transfer of wealth. They hate with every fiber of their being the people they see obstructing this transfer. The progressives believe they should be benefiting from the joy from giving in charity, but their soul knows differently. Their soul knows this is not true charity. Instead, the joy they should be feeling from what they believe are their actions to benefit the needy, they instead have an emptiness inside, and so attempt to fill it with the hatred of Republicans. It is the Republicans that keep reminding them of their failure. They have been trying to use the government to address poverty for nearly a century, beginning with FDR's New Deal program's through LBJ's Great Society, right on through to today's progressives efforts to implement Socialism, yet there are more people now than ever that believe they are oppressed and in need of the Welfare State. We have spent trillions, yes, TRILLIONS on the war on poverty and this is all we have to show for it?
And if you are still not convinced, I want to direct your attention to the people the progressive elites despise more than Republicans. And yes, there are people they hate more than Republicans, and they are those that have openly rejected what the progressives are offering through the government. If you are a non-white, gender non-conforming or a woman that openly states that you reject progressivism and all that it offers, you will be branded a traitor, and the scorn that will be rained down on you will be unmerciful. I ask you, why is that? If what you were offering was actual charity, you would think it was a good thing that someone said they didn't need it. The fact that it bothers you in anyway should be all you need to know that something is very wrong here.
Just wanting the government out of our efforts to help people doesn't make you apolitical. That's Conservatism 101. I just brought up the preceding to show one of many ways that reliance on government will go awry. For what it means to be apolitical, a good place to start is with elections. For some time now, the right, and particularly with the last election, both sides have been OMG! THIS WILL BE OUR LAST ELECTION EVER IF THE OTHER SIDE WINS!
Pardon me if I don't respond to what is clearly hyperbole. While elections have consequences, they don't determine what our country is. And what it is, is a lot more resilient than whatever politician wins an election.
I view elections much the same way that I view the military. They are essential and consequential, but have absolutely no bearing on who we are. I vote because it is my civic duty to do so, but I don't look to them to make a meaningful change to us. The reason is fairly obvious, because I (and many others) have said that democracy is nothing more than tyranny of the majority. This means it is evil, and nothing good comes from evil. Just as the military is necessary to defeat our enemies, it takes more than the military to make them our allies. The same is true for elections. Trump may dismantle the nonsense the progressives have instituted, which will free us up to live the lives we want, but that is an indirect benefit. More important, those that believe they need the government won't see this benefit, and it will take more than just saying, Well that's on them,
to turn this around. I've lived long enough to see the cycles go from one side to the other many times. We can't just say We won, now you deal with it.
Another way to look at this is that progressives are good with getting 51% of the people voting for them. They don't even believe that all of the people that vote for them need to understand what is in their best interest. They need that win in order to impose their will on those of us that they know will never agree with them, and due to projection, they believe the same of us. We can argue until we are blue in the face that we want to lift government imposition, but all they see is that we want to impose our privilege on them. They will never see that the worst places to live are those run by Democrats, so they will not see that they are the real loser when we lose. As counter-intuitive as this may sound, we need to stop saying we win when we win elections.
If you think that last sentence makes no sense, then you are not familiar with what I have written about Us vs Them. There is no Them, there is only Us. Progressives need thems to exist. There has to be a perpetrator to protect their victims from. Real conservative thought requires that we all can take care of ourselves. Of course there are those that can't, but they aren't that way because someone is preying on them. Private charities, where all who participate voluntarily, are more than adequate to handle them. To be a Conservative has to be something more than just wanting to impose what we want to impose rather than what the Progressives want to impose. Only when we reject that they are them, and are in fact one of us can we do this. And if they are one of us, how can we possibly defeat them? More importantly, how can we claim that we won?
I am not just apolitical, because I want to responsibly participate in our society, which includes voting and jury duty. And I am not just conservative, because I know the best way to defeat progressivism is not by defeating progressives. I am an apolitical conservative, which means that the government does not matter, because I know the only thing that does matter is what we choose to do together of our own free will. This is my definition of successful politics, which means that my definition of failed politics includes anything we have the government do beyond being just a service to us. This is OK when we are referring to our criminals and enemies, but let's at least be honest and admit we have failed when we do so.
Bottom line: Government is either just a service to us, or we are in service to it.