Pornography is a Thief

You rarely hear about the evils of pornography anymore. Everyone assumes that everyone else has seen or continues to see images of strangers or dates or girlfriends or boyfriends in suggestive positions without clothes and everything continues fine, as this is merely dating in the second millennium. Lost in this facile wish is the uneraseable facts of how the human mind, heart, and soul function; they function in fixed ways.

Pornography is a thief. It steals from the viewer the expectation, the delight, and the shared secrecy of beholding the spouse wholly unadorned. It places such an experience right beside all the other experiences of virtual stripteases of women with stage names, who undress for anyone. How then is the wife special? How then is the husband special?

Pornography implicitly devalues marriage. It whispers, “Here, you can have all of the pleasure and none of the pain at a fraction of the cost.” Of course, what it gives you is not a real experience, but a commodity which you can only enjoy through autostimulation. It can give you nothing of the emotions, the physical sensations (except one), the romance, the heart, or the experience of two souls connecting.

Pornography trains the viewer to view people in terms of what they can give, and what the viewer can receive. It makes users selfish exploiters, and goads them to lie so that they can get what they want. It does not teach men how to be men; it teaches men how to be animals. And it lies to women — it tells them, “You’d better be as alluring as these images or you stand no chance.” In all, it coarsens and cheapens the human soul.

Pornography robs intimacy. Because pornography urges people to think carnally, it makes sex itself into something not special. You don’t have anything special to give to your future spouse, because you’ve already given it away to all your other relationships, relationships you would not have pursued had your mind not been corrupted. Even if you somehow abstain from the deed with others physically, you have still given yourself to others.

Pornography haunts you. This is another grande and awful secret, that few are willing to speak aloud. Once you choose to use pornography, stopping is not easy, and even when you stop, the images you have enjoyed (however you may) remain, sometimes for decades afterwards. No, it is not a harmless, victimless crime. No, it is not an activity that has no effects. Pornography is a long-term poison.

In better times, in a gentler age, pornography was illegal to distribute through the US Mail. That is because the United States’ citizenry had a firm conviction that the distribution of such materials was harmful to everyone involved. Since pornography has been classified as free speech, whom has it helped? Whom it has harmed is easy to see, but whom has it helped?

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

We Don’t Get a Say In Whom Kisses Whom

I think this is obvious, but apparently transsexuals don’t understand that “no means no”. Forcing someone to kiss you is called sexual harassment, and if the other person isn’t interested, then he or she isn’t interested. That should be the end of it, but in the perpetual whine-storm and constant Twitter tantrum, somehow, it’s not.

No-one alive gets their own way in romantic situations, regardless of equipment. Your own experience tells you this. Also, not wanting to engage with (insert the blank) romantically is not bigotry. No, it is a personal choice. You can stand up for XYZ rights, but that doesn’t force you to date or marry an XYZ person. Why is this hard to understand? Why do the #LoveWins bigots think they get a vote on whom kisses whom? Why do they think that they get to choose other people’s lifestyles for them? Last time I checked, we were all free to engage in consensual relationships with anyone willing to do so. Why can’t I have my own desires and my own preferences? Why do I have to run them by some unelected cabal?

This is the problem — these activists want to regulate whom I love, yet these very same people have already stated that no-one has a right to look into other people’s bedrooms. You see, if homosexuality must be tolerated because it’s private choices by strangers, then whether people have romantic relationships with transsexuals is none of our business either. In fact, to demand that anyone else make the choice you want is both childish and Orwellian. Again, no-one is stopping you from doing whatever you want. You just don’t have the right to choose for others.

In fact, that is a linchpin of freedom — you don’t have the ability nor the right to choose for others. You don’t have to agree with their choices, but you do have to defend their ability to make those choices. Whatever happened to respect? So if my love doesn’t look like yours, it’s bad?

Isn’t it strange and creepy that people demand that famous people or anyone, really, choose X or Y in their romantic life? Isn’t that the ultimate kind of bedroom spying? Isn’t that the very definition of playing God? Isn’t that the ultimate form of tyranny — that we cannot even choose whom we love? These activists have demonstrated they have no love of God because they are too busy trying to be a degraded version of Him, choosing the whole world’s romantic and sexual partners, jettisoning freewill completely in the process.

If #Lovewins, then why can’t Ginuwine or me or you love whomever we want? Why does #Lovewins have to be about forcing people to do stuff? Oh wait. It always was, wasn’t it? #Lovewins has always been soft tyranny, because it sure didn’t care about the expressed will of the voters on homosexual marriages. I guess it is a matter of course that they are also about choosing people’s romantic partners as well.

Hint: you’re next, #Lovewins bigots. Soon your romantic choices will be mandated for you, too, and you won’t like it one bit.

When freedom evaporates, we all lose, eventually.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Parasite Theory: Google as Example

Over time, successful organizations lose the fire that propelled their creation and initial expansion; unless self-correction is part and parcel of the organization, they eventually succumb to laziness, inefficiency, immorality, and a sense of entitlement.

As an example, organizations often desire to control their market by keeping other competitors out and by trying to warp their marketplace so that it better suits them. This sort of attempt to control is the opposite of innovation, and this stems from a rot in corporate culture. By this point in time in an organization’s life, it finds itself not steered by innovators or people who care passionately about its reason for existence, but instead care about other things that use the organization to support them. To these people, their causes come first, and the organization is useful only so much as it furthers their causes. These people are parasites. The organization is their host; they care not about the goals and purpose of the host; the host exists only to serve them and their causes.

Much of Silicon Valley businesses have become hosts. Mozilla has, when it demonstrated its fealty to homosexuality over interest in developing good code. Google has demonstrated a positively Orwellian workplace in its treatment of James Damores. So, how do hosts behave? How do parasites behave?

Hosts

First, as the organizational empire turns from innovation and expansion to control and fear of competitors, hosts become immobile. They try to avoid lawsuits, bad PR, and the displeasure of state regulatory organs. They cave to whatever seems popular socially. Because they have lost their vision, they operate now out of fear and a desire to keep things as they were, and this always leads to liberalism.

Second, hosts are blind. They assume that because they do the “right things” that the media organs and state regulators will leave them alone. That, along with supporting the “right candidates” and the “right charities” is their hush money. Yet people find out. People notice. Revenues decline, but they never discern what caused the decline.

Parasites

One, parasites always alter the host’s culture, to subvert it to their own causes. However, they cannot do this overnight. They work like grubs, like sappers, to traffic on the good name of their host, as they quietly turn it into something else.

Two, parasites are always dishonest. They must lie about what they are doing, lest the people who created the organization find out. Thus, they are sneaky, two-faced, unstable, and have little appetite for risk. They only sign up for organizations once the organization has slowed down, left the innovation frontier, and become safe.

Three, parasites multiply. Once a certain threshold is reached — say 10%, with much of the parasites in middle management or HR — they open the floodgates to other parasites, and soon, technical ability becomes just one of many criteria that is required in an ever-expanding constellation of liberal positions and beliefs.

Four, parasites change the rules so that those who are like themselves cannot be fired; if someone who supported their causes were fired, then massive lawsuits would erupt from liberal agitation groups, if not from the regulatory agencies of the states or the feds, so they essentially have locked in a job for life. Now, because performance is not as important (and sometimes not important at all) — only believing and saying the right things — the organization begins its spiral downwards.

Five, parasites kill the host. Once the last people who do innovate and actually work leave the organization, the parasites find themselves in a bloodless host. The organization collapses, mass layoffs occur, or the organization is sold to others who clear the host and replace it with at least moderately successful others. The parasites that survive resume the cycle.

This theory of parasitism explains why when any organization gets large enough or influential enough it spends more time turning its culture and its working environment into a nuclear cleanup site than doing anything remotely resembling what it once did. Eventually the organization falls, is absorbed into another one, or is reduced to nothing; so while good men and women see their dreams and efforts destroyed, the parasites merely seek out another host to bleed dry.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Farewell Steve Bannon — Actually, Just Get Lost

Not only has Steve “platform for the alt-right” Bannon been kicked out of the Trump administration, as of today, he’s been booted from both Breitbart and Sirius XM. I am overjoyed. This man is a reprehensible scumbag, and he has fomented the most disgusting, low-brow, fascist and racist turn I have ever seen in American politics.

I know people who think that he was going to lead some great conservative insurgency, but why would he? As far as I know, Bannon never had any morals or integrity to give away (unlike Palin). There’s nothing for a conservative to gain by associating with this man, and he’s no conservative himself. Bannon was and is an opportunist with no moral core.

So farewell — no, actually just get lost Steve Bannon.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Five Kinds of People You Meet on Your Blog

This blog aims at a distinct audience — people who think deeply about things that matter. This is lost upon most who visit here, which is both a mystery and a tragedy. Yet from this, I have noticed that commenters fall into five distinct categories.

One are the spammers. The most hilarious group of these keep posting this puerile story mocking Christianity that demonstrates both their inability to write and their inability to think deeply about faith. Their comments never see the light of day, yet it’s the same ol’ copy/paste repeat every few days. Why? Who knows. It’s one of the least effective ways of engagement that I’ve seen.

Two, you have people who freak out about some issue because you address that issue. They usually respond to the title of a post and then spend all their time commenting on an article they never read. Repeated attempts to get them to read what they are commenting on fail. They end up thinking that the comment space is their blog and I have to leave them to founder in their own confusion.

Three, you have people who leave encouraging comments and who have read the article. These are few in number.

Four, you have regulars who usually agree with you but even if they don’t, leave thoughtful replies. These people are even rarer still.

Five, you have enemies, who follow you around and hate on whatever you write. They usually don’t read the article, but even if they do, they are unable to really contest it. These people either serve up mockery or their “impressions” on what they read, which are their paranoid psychoses in action.

Most of the time you run into types 1 and 2, which makes seeing comments something like heartburn. Fortunately, it passes with time and you get a clearer perspective on the sad souls who persist in futility.

I find it perpetually entertaining that most of the people that show up here have no real connection to the topics discussed or the approach used. Why they feel the need to comment upon posts from random people simply shows me that too many people have too much time on their hands.

Maybe I should start including instructions on how to read this blog, like “The price of admission is actually reading the article and commenting on it intelligently. If your comment has gone buh-bye, it is because you have not paid the price of admission.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Women Love Suicide

Women love suicide, that is, they love the chase that inevitably leads to their own destruction. This can be either fast or slow, but the one thing that calls women onwards and which they cannot help but follow, is death.

The bad boy is a quintessential draw to women. Why? He is dangerous; he is untamed; he is unpredictable. He radiates confidence. Somewhere deep inside, women know that the man who doesn’t care is probably not going to care about them, but the danger keeps them thinking, guessing, engaged, involved, and they would rather have a brief, interesting life than a long one.

The monster is another draw for women. Whether it is the disfigured loner (the Beast in Beauty and the Beast), the deathless vampire (see Dracula, Twilight, etc), or the savage animal (King Kong), women love to be under the control of men-monsters where they can feign a lack of responsibility for their own actions. You see this reflected in their sayings all the time — “He made me love him”, “It was fate”, and “I couldn’t help myself”. Of course, abuse is probable and death is certain in these situations, but again, the constant danger is exciting.

The tyrant is a third homme fatal for women. Whether it is the despot like Stalin, the serial orgiast of Khubla Khan, the powerful businessman (Thirty Shades), or some other mortal with loads of power, power is a drug for women. The men that wield it are something they worship, to their doom.

Women aim too low. It is not that being head-over-heels, “all in”, or a sacrifice is a bad thing in itself, it’s that being any of these things for a strong man’s abusive pleasures is a pitiful and degraded imitation of Christianity. Women sell out for the cheap thrills of “right now” instead of a satisfaction unending. They love the lies. They choose appearance over reality. Why? Because they have failed to love themselves enough.

Women’s self-esteem is cratering — STILL — forty years of feminism onwards. It’s almost enough to make you ask if there was something outside of men and the endless quest for self-esteem that could provide a stable ground.

Anyone have any ideas?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Degrading the Experience is not Progress

I have to laugh at the Nintendo Switch.

It serves the needs of people who really don’t care much about the video game experience, just like phones serve the need of people who don’t care about the TV experience. The idea that playing on a small screen delivers a functionally equivalent experience to playing on a large screen is only true when the content is easily viewable at both resolutions. The only way that content can be easily viewable and comprehendible at both resolutions is if there’s not much to the content. I.e. content everywhere inevitably means only the most common and basic content everywhere, thus resulting in a widespread degradation of experience.

It’s kinda sad when a video game innovator decides to make it possible for people to care less and less about the experience that said company provides. I guess I’ll just go further down that slope and not care about Nintendo at all by purchasing nothing. The slippery slope leads straight down into apathy and that leads to no sales. Not a good idea, guys.

However, this provides yet another demonstration of the fact that not all technology is progress. Twitter is no improvement over chat in terms of number of characters you can type per message. The Switch is no improvement over Nintendo’s console-only approaches. There is a stealthy underside to technology, as it often makes things easier, yet it also has a tendency to increase apathy and to degrade the experience. Of course, only those who care about the experience will ever notice. Everyone else will just plug in, tune in, and drop out, ever satisfied with faster-moving particles that convey less and less content and even less meaning.

Contrast the Switch to the technology of moveable type. What was the first book off the printing press? The Bible.

Some technology is progress; most is not.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

A Diagnosis of Trump Cultists

Although I have written on the psychology of the Trump cultist (see here, here, and here), a proper diagnosis is needed. Let’s take a look at how Trump cultists think and see how well it holds up under scrutiny.

Threats

The Trump cultist’s primary mode of argument is the threat, and they try to own the playing field by threatening opponents or bullying them into silence. That this is done over the internet makes it ridiculous on its face. These threats range from the specific to the general and from present to future. The language is fear, but this tactic often backfires because people refuse to be cowed. Given that the primary target of the Trump cult is conservative Christians, it’s downright funny that they expect this to work.

This threatening behavior takes several forms. Sometimes it is expressed in SHOUTING, sometimes In ReaLLy AnnOYing BeHAVior, other times in infodump or blog spamming. Sometimes it is by silly prognostications of doom. Regardless of the specific nature, the goal is to soak up all the oxygen in the area and extract submission. This is tied into their narcissism and bravado (see below).

Hypocrisy

A Trump cultist’s secondary mode of argument is to say one thing followed by its direct opposite. Thus, if they claim to be a Trump supporter, next they will claim to have no use for Trump. Of course this means that they have no credibility because their relationship with words is always changing. One moment they mean everything they type. The next moment, they’ll deny it even when quoted. It is a childish inconsistency that betrays a singular focus upon self-preservation and complete blindness to the effects of their own behavior.

Crystal Ball Usage

Another interesting part of the Trump cultist’s psychological makeup is the possession of a crystal ball. The cultist can see the future and will waste no time telling you so. Whether such prophecies comes to pass or not is irrelevant, because this is a slightly less aggressive way to cow people — they think they can extract submission if they boast about their superior knowledge. Their boasting here extends to the knowledge of future events, which two seconds of analysis reveals as a childish impossibility. All you must do is inquire how they have certain knowledge of future events. That leads down a typical trail of evasions, denials, assumptions, and eventually circles back to threats.

Binary Logic

Another feature of Trump cultists is the reliance upon binary logic for everything, but especially regards Trump. In their mindset, you can only be for or against Trump. You cannot have critiques of his positions, agree with him on some things, but not on others, and you are not allowed to point out any flaws of the man. Everything gets boiled down to for/against, and all reasons are rendered void. This is a cult, and heretics and nonbelievers must be destroyed. That they are not able to do so fuels their rage, however, that is part of the point — perpetual childish anger. Of course other people will refuse to think like this. Of course people will refuse to bow down to their fallible god. So the inevitable reaction is refusal and their recourse is anger.

Denial of Morals/Absolutes/Ethics

One of the more humorous positions of the Trump cult is the denial of any system of morality or ethics. Morality or ethics are greeted with vituperation, because any other source of power besides the blind allegiance to political power is a threat. What they require of people is something no person should give to another mortal. At some level they know this, and so they have to reject every teaching outside of the cult in order to palliate their shame.

Tribalistic Thinking

An oft-quoted reason why the cult member supports Trump is self-preservation for them and their own. Who this tribe is, usually remains vague, but for most it is people of white skin. The limited appeal of this is obvious. The failed thinking in this is obvious. It is a materialistic quicksand here, with all of the moral emptiness and mob mentality of Nazism or Communism. Anyone with life experience has experienced enough to know that race does not describe or bind behavior.

Bravado and Narcissism

The Trump cultist has a distorted perspective of strength. They think to be strong is to be loud, crude, obnoxious, and persistent. As a result, they are boastful (often to a ridiculous degree) and they never back down. In all this, they are living out a frat boy impression of strength, a barbarian’s concept of power. This power is relentlessly self-focused, despite their adoration for Trump; as Trump is a narcissist, so they are little narcissists. Like he, they are the best, smartest, strongest, and no-one is allowed to critique them. Thus they boast and threaten.

Intellectual Laziness

The last feature of the Trump cultist is one of practiced stupidity. I say practiced, because it is a kind of intellectual laziness, not a true lack of intelligence. The Trump cultist, because he or she is perpetually angry and anger prevents clear thinking, has no real ability to think coherently or for very long. So he or she overreacts, responds to headlines (not articles), misconstrues, and makes logical mistakes. Due to their bravado, they never admit fault or error, and so, they never learn.

Conclusion

The cult member is someone who is perpetually angry, has shame at the moral compromises he or she has made, probably sufferers from loneliness and/or depression, and as a result spends his or her days subsumed in cult-like fervor to feel important and alive. Pointing any of this or any other flaw or error generates volcanic responses due to their narcissism. They have the snowflake mentality on steroids.

Their anger paralyzes introspection and keeps them reactive, jumping every time Trump says “jump”. Their behavior mirrors Trump’s because without the cult leader, they would have no thoughts of their own and no life. Like the SS guards who were nothing in ordinary society, so the Trump cultist only has power or meaning as long as they are vicariously participating in the leader’s boasts and battles.

Thus as cultists, they demand submission, and do not make a case for the virtues of their position. Their bravado covers up an inability to communicate to any real degree. They can only be shamed or mocked, not debated, even at the most simple level. Thus it is impossible to treat them as equals. The best that anyone can do is to regard them as children, and pray for them.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Lack of Accusation: A Self-defeating Standard

A site I frequent regularly has taken upon itself to hold out a lack of accusation as the standard for Christians in public office. That means that the instant an accusation is launched against any Christian, then he or she is immediately disqualified for the race. Now, if you wish to keep Christians out of office, your strategy is simple: accusation. Isn’t it strange that the devil is called “the accuser of the brethren” and that Jesus said that evil people speak the language of their father, the evil one? What could this ever mean? Could it mean that evil people will accuse you of things you never did because they are evil? Horrors! Why, the very thought!

Such attitudes are why Christians do not do well in running for public office. Their fellows insist upon such impossible standards that would shut out all Christian influence from any position of power, even those within the church or parachurch ministries. Such standards do not matter to those who are never part of the battle, though! They are free to stand outside all conflict and opine about how it should be. Thus any Christian running for public office cannot count upon the support of the brethren. They have to make common cause with those who do not share their beliefs, and while necessary, that is not without risk.

How little civics those who hold the highest truth often possess! Ever blind, they never realize that their ignorance and their impossible demands are the very reason why things are as they are. Then they turn around and vote for a vile adulterous man without batting an eye.

You have earned Trump and Doug Jones.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Why Women Fail in the Workplace

Women routinely fail in the workplace, because they do not understand what the rules are at work nor how to behave in the workplace. Here are some examples of what women commonly (not always) do and why it fails.

Being inconsistent This one is more important that you suspect. Here’s why. If you are not consistent, you will not be trusted. If your boss asks you to do A and is even partially unsure if he will even get A or get it on time, he cannot trust you. If he cannot trust you, he will not promote you or give you good assignments. He will give the plumb assignments to people he can trust. Why? Not because he’s not empathetic or a jerk. It’s because work needs to be done.

Not controlling yourself If you present your boss with a set of emotional problems that he must constantly solve for, then that saps his energy and his will. Why would he choose to work with you then? Your boss has a goal — get work done. If you are constantly getting in the way of that, you are a hindrance and not a help.

Demanding special treatment Shut up about what life was like elsewhere, what other people your age or in a similar position are getting, or what you think you should get. Don’t do this. There are times to ask for things, such as at yearly reviews, or one-on-ones; however, no-one does this on a constant basis. Learn what is normative for your job, skills, and experience. Don’t demand.

Work is not designed to be a social club, a group of friends, or a self-help session. Not to be too pedantic about it, but the working environment exists for an external purpose to everyone at any business location — to do work. That means that other needs and wants are regulated in relation to work. Your chance to negotiate is when you are seeking employment, not at every point after you are employed. If you don’t like what you got, it is too late. You signed up for it. Now you agree to work in those conditions. If the conditions suck, get out.

This sounds harsh because this is the working reality that men experience and have experienced since Adam had to till the ground of Eden. It’s never changed and it will not change. I understand if this is not to your liking, but if you would rather that men deal with this harshness then, a lot of men would agree; however, that leads right back into some uncomfortable gender roles, doesn’t it?

I am not saying that no woman is cut out for work. Far from it. Some women are awesome in the workplace, but that is because they have a clear idea what work is and how to handle it. This is probably easier for men to do, but nevertheless, everyone who succeeds in the workplace has the same mindset. They understand that they are there to work, not do other things; they understand that they don’t get to constantly complain or ask for special treatment; and they know that it is up to them to constantly demonstrate their value.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment