What is a "hate fact?"

Quoting from a review of Dutton, Edward and Michael A. Woodley of Menie. At Our Wits' End. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic, 2018. ISBN 978-1-84540-985-2.  Emphasis mine.

During the Great Depression, the Empire State Building was built, from the beginning of foundation excavation to official opening, in 410 days (less than 14 months). After the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001, design and construction of its replacement, the new One World Trade Center was completed on November 3, 2014, 4801 days (160 months) later. 

In the 1960s, from U.S. president Kennedy's proposal of a manned lunar mission to the landing of Apollo 11 on the Moon, 2978 days (almost 100 months) elapsed. In January, 2004, U.S. president Bush announced the "Vision for Space Exploration", aimed at a human return to the lunar surface by 2020. After a comical series of studies, revisions, cancellations, de-scopings, redesigns, schedule slips, and cost overruns, its successor now plans to launch a lunar flyby mission (not even a lunar orbit like Apollo 8) in June 2022, 224 months later. A lunar landing is planned for no sooner than 2028, almost 300 months after the "vision", and almost nobody believes that date (the landing craft design has not yet begun, and there is no funding for it in the budget). 

Wherever you look: junk science, universities corrupted with bogus "studies" departments, politicians peddling discredited nostrums a moment's critical thinking reveals to be folly, an economy built upon an ever-increasing tower of debt that nobody really believes is ever going to be paid off, and the dearth of major, genuine innovations (as opposed to incremental refinement of existing technologies, as has driven the computing, communications, and information technology industries) in every field: science, technology, public policy, and the arts, it often seems like the world is getting dumber. What if it really is? 

That is the thesis explored by this insightful book, which is packed with enough "hate facts" to detonate the head of any bien pensant academic or politician. I define a "hate fact" as something which is indisputably true, well-documented by evidence in the literature, which has not been contradicted, but the citation of which is considered "hateful" and can unleash outrage mobs upon anyone so foolish as to utter the fact in public and be a career-limiting move for those employed in Social Justice Warrior-converged organisations. (An example of a hate fact, unrelated to the topic of this book, is the FBI violent crime statistics broken down by the race of the criminal and victim. Nobody disputes the accuracy of this information or the methodology by which it is collected, but woe betide anyone so foolish as to cite the data or draw the obvious conclusions from it.)

This is the essence of the so-called red-pill.  What is an SJW-converged organization?  Almost all of Western Civilization these days.  It's almost impossible to find an organization that doesn't believe in the wishful thinking, magical logical that informs social justice.  But if you believe in things that are demonstrably and undeniably true, but against the current culture of "it's not polite to point that out, or even acknowledge that you see that—in fact, it's required that you vigorously deny it and virtue signal to everyone around you that you don't believe in what is true if it ever comes up" then you are red-pilled.  And your acceptance of these socially unacceptable truths mark you as someone who believes in "hate facts."  You'll be lied about and slandered by people who are either too dishonest to acknowledge the truth, or too stupid to recognize the truth.

As the review points out, there's literally nobody who doesn't acknowledge that different dog breeds have different capabilities, traits and characteristics—while still acknowledging that they are equally dogs.  But suggest that different human populations also have different capabilities, traits and characteristics, and that's a hate fact.  You'll probably be told something about equality—which is not a Christian teaching (parable of the talents) an guilt-tripped and shamed into pretending that you don't notice these differences.  And yet they exist nonetheless.  It doesn't have any impact on God's love for all of this children, nor should it on yours.  But it does have a tremendous impact, if you think through the implications of it, for your expectation that different population groups are likely to live together in harmony in the same geographic space, rather than needing to be kept separate for the benefit of both.  Again, nobody suggests that some other family in our ward should be free to move into my house just because if I don't give them free rein, then I'm a "familyist."

Another major one is fundamental differences between men and women.  Lots of people, including people in the Church, have been agitating to pretend that there is no fundamental difference and that women should be free to act like fake Men as much as they want to (curiously, this always seems to be a one-way street, based on the observably false idea of "male privilege")

Anyway, as I've said before, although Nephi says the wicked take the truth to be hard, in my experience everyone takes the truth to be hard, especially if they've been indoctrinated in the idea that it's simply not acceptable to acknowledge certain truths.  It becomes even worse if you build up some aspect of your identity or your conception of the world and how it is supposed to work based on something that is provably false, because then it becomes emotionally very difficult to step away from the falsehood and acknowledge the truth.

But shouldn't it be our role and expectation that we seek truth about everything and from anywhere?  We're not limited to only doctrinal truths, nor are we only to accept that truth is available in the scriptures and General Conference.  We can learn much that is true about the world and our place in it from other sources, and the Lord has always told us to seek truth from the best books and from wise people in the world, utilizing the Spirit to discern truth from error.

And that's the real crux of "hate facts"—not whether or not they are true, because the would be "hate gossip" if they were not.  But how to interpret those facts, and what does knowing them do to your behavior?  And that's also where we need the guidance of the Spirit the most, because there is lots of opportunity to slip into error in interpretation of "hate facts" into our daily life.

Smollett

The Smollett Hate Hoax is an interesting one.  It's prompted a lot of columns and stuff; but I think the most pertinent are here.  First, a selection from Jonah Goldberg.  His entire column isn't good; he can't stop with his pro-Jewish and anti-American identity politics because he's not very honest with himself sometimes, but this point, at least, is 100% true:

Here’s something you might not know: In Nazi Germany, very few Jews staged bogus hate crimes against themselves. 

Here’s some more trivia: Very few blacks in the Jim Crow South went to great lengths to pretend that they were harassed or attacked by racists. 

You know why? Because that would be incredibly stupid. What, exactly, would the German Jew who staged an assault on himself gain from it? Where would he or she go to ask for sympathy or recompense? Conjure any horror story you like, the Nazi official you brought it to would say, “Yeah, and . . . ?” The black sharecropper who took the time to make his own cross and burn it on his own property would benefit . . . how? 

Why am I bringing this up? Well, for a bunch of reasons. I have more points to make than can be found at an English Setter competition. 

First, people who live under real oppression have no need to fabulate oppression. To paraphrase Madge from the old Palmolive ads: They’re already soaking in it. 

Second, when you live in an oppressive country, there’s no one you can take your grievances to because that is what it means to live in an oppressive country! For God’s sake, people, you’re making me use exclamation points and italics here. If you’re an inmate in the Shawshank prison, you can’t go to the guards to complain. When you live in North Korea, you can’t go to the local police and gripe about your working conditions or the sawdust in your bread.

Then, from the Z Man:

Because I am not insane, I assumed the Jusse Smollett caper was a hoax as soon as it made the news. It ticked all the boxes of a hoax. The alleged victim was a black Jewish homosexual, who makes a living as a drama queen. The alleged incident happened in Chicago, where the last racist redneck was last seen in the 19th century. The incident happened in a part of town that caters to deviants like Smollett, not MAGA hat wearing Trump supporters. Again, only a nut would accept the story at face value. 

Similarly, once the hoax was made plain, I knew the believers on the Left, by which I mean everyone on the Left, would go through the usual phases that they always pass through when confronting disconfirmation. Initially they would lash out at doubters, calling them blasphemers. As the truth was slowly revealed, they would search for explanations to excuse Smollett. Finally, once it was confirmed to be a hoax, they would enter the phase where they admit it was a hoax, but claim these crimes are common. 

[...] The general explanation [for this behavior] is that these people need to be reinforced in their beliefs and they need to reinforce one another in their beliefs. Progressivism is a social system, as well as a set of beliefs. The believer is not just defined by his beliefs, but by his association with others. Much of the signaling we see from them is not intended for us. Like fireflies blinking in the dusk, they are signaling to one another. These hoaxes provide the opportunity for it. 

The people [from the cast of The Big Bang], for example, don’t care about the details of the case or whether it is even true. They play make believe for a living, so facts grounded in observable reality are not important to them. This Smollett thing was like a stage that suddenly popped up in the public square, allowing them to climb aboard and perform. What they will remember and what their coreligionists will remember, is that they were on board early and stood strong for a victim of those terrible white people on the other side of the wall. 

It’s why these people not only fall for these hoaxes, but amplify them. You can be sure that many of the people [above] have fallen for many of these hoaxes. The little Jewish guy, front row, third from the right, is a barking at the moon anti-white. He really believes Hitler is about to pop out from the bushes and carry him off to a camp. The next time whites are libeled in some way, he will be right there showing his support for the anti-white, regardless of how silly the claim. He is consumed with a hatred of white people. 

That’s the thing though. Not only do these people keep falling for these hoaxes, these hoaxes are becoming more common and more outlandish. This one is so absurd, it would not pass muster with Hollywood script writers. The University of Virginia rape hoax was also laughably absurd. In other words, instead of these hoaxes leading to greater skepticism, these hoaxes result in greater credulity on the Left. It’s as if each one is an appetizer, wetting the appetite of the believers, who are desperate for the real thing. 

The other side of this dynamic is the civic nationalists are close to a frenzy, trying to prove the next hoax false, confident that this time will do the trick. The Left, confronted with the reality of these hoaxes, will throw down their weapons and finally admit, that yeah, these things are fake. The fear of the secret invisible Hitler people is all nonsense. During every one of these, the CivNats start blinking to one another, working the details of the puzzle, confident that their “eureka!” moment is at hand. 

It is a good example of the central challenge of this age. Guys like Steve Sailer truly believe they can turn the tide with facts and reason. He probably has 25 posts on this Smollett thing. He has been working the hate-hoax angle for close to two decades now, yet here we are anyway. He is no closer to unriddling the hate hoax puzzle than he was twenty years ago. If anything, the hoaxes have become more outlandish. Even so, he will keep trying to use facts and reason to address a matter of belief. 

No doubt, some civic nationalist types would argue that their project is not about convincing the Left. It is about demonstrating to normal people that these people are dishonest, crazy or even dangerous. In other words, using facts and reason is not about countering belief, but about convincing the rational. The trouble is the Left is undefeated against this strategy and it permits them to own the moral high ground. In this case, they were the ones defending the victim against those evil whites. 

Culture wars are moral wars. It is about imposing your morality on the other side, no matter what it takes. It’s why radicals have had no qualms about using violence against their perceived enemies. It’s why Antifa exists. They’re not trying to prove their case or win arguments. They are about clubbing the doubters into submission. From the perspective of the Left, this Smollett affair was a big win. They reinforced an important point They control the morality and they will impose it on society.

And from Roissy.  I've edited it for language.

The best thing about the Smollett Libel is that it also smears the media, because the gears of the Anti-White Hate Hoax Machine are as much lubed by the Narrative agitprop of credulous journalists as they are by attention whore gay Jewish black actors. You can tell this shames the media as much as it does Smollett by how sheepishly the usual suspects are reporting the story. 

The Mainstream Media, as is their nature, are treating the Smollett Libel as a one-off. But it’s not. Anti-White hate hoaxes are the norm rather than the exception in Clown America. 

Neither was it a ruse by Smollett to coax his Empire producers for a salary raise. That's just his lawyers' squid ink to distract from the real, underlying motive. Smollett may have thought the insta-fame from being a hate crime victim would shine his Hollywood star ("see, randos on the street know who I am!"), but the compulsion came from a deeper place, where raw tribal instincts boil in a hindbrain stew. 

Let's be clear about this, Smollett’s Blood Libel carried with it some very serious consequences, if he had pulled it off. The sociopath narcissist was ready to condemn two innocent White men to prison to preserve the believability of his faked anti-black and anti-gay hate crime. Had the security camera been pointing in the right direction, he may have succeeded. Realize what this means. A pumped and primed media running a 24/7 weeks-long propaganda blitz featuring a grainy video of the two masked Nigerians wearing MAGA hats in a choreographed beating and noosing of Smollett would have set Chicago ablaze in race riots. There would have been multiple deaths, billions in property damage, and even greater State hounding of dissident White men. 

We dodged a huge bullet thanks to Smollett’s idiocy and the media’s eager overreach. People lament it's as if the media learned nothing from the anti-White UVA and Covington Boys hate hoaxes, but that misses the point. The media ARE NOT INTERESTED in learning any lessons; the media WANT to push these blood libels against White Christian men. Do you think leftoid media apparatchiks don't already know most of these "hate crimes" are hoaxes? They know, and they don't care. They abide one journalist ethic: GET WHITEY. 

The blood libeler exploitation was a mutually reinforcing feedback loop. Smollett exploited a credulous media that so badly WANTED TO BELIEVE IN AND PROSELYTIZE the myth of structural White racism, while the media exploited a narcissistic racist Smollett who so badly WANTED TO MAKE EVERYONE BELIEVE IN the myth of structural White racism. 

The media is disproportionately, veering toward predominately, staffed, operated, and owned by (((special people))), who harbor a visceral hatred and spiteful envy of White male Christians. It is what it is, I don't write the cosmic laws. As long as the media is in the grips of this small but powerful minority, the GET WHITEY prime directive will remain in place. The only solution is mass firings from media outlets and substitution with Heritage Americans. I'm looking at you, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, BEZOSPOST, CARLOSSLIMTIMES, AP, REUTERS, YAHOO, AXIOS, HUFFPO, BUZZFEED, and EVERYONE AT FOX EXCEPT TUCKER CARLSON. 

Smollett let down the media because he was such a dummy that he exposed the Anti-White Hate Hoax Industry and the media's role in it to Nice White Americans who would normally give these "victims" the benefit of the doubt. No more. A killing blow has been delivered to the Hate Hoax Machine. The media will try to move on from Smollett as if nothing much has changed, but they will find their hope outraces their accelerating disgrace when, in future hate crime cases, regular White Americans shrug and ask for hard evidence first before giving their credulity. 

Smollett screwed up this cushy gig the media (and their Uniparty allies) had going, and for that we should thank him. Ironically, Smollett has done a world of good for MAGA.
Smollett revealed two simultaneous, interdependent operative cultures: The Lie Culture and the Anti-White Blood Libel Culture. These are real cultures, as opposed to Fake Cultures like Patriarchy or Rape Culture or White Privilege which White liberals cling to for ego gratification and guilt amelioration. 

The hot take from National Review is instructive. Smollett is the consequence of a "victim culture" in which social status is gained through victim "faming". While not entirely meritless, this typically cuck-preferred argument is misleading. If a victim culture were the primary motivating force behind all these hate hoaxes, why is it primarily White Christian men targeted by the victim mongers? A true victim culture would feature a more random assortment of perpetrators to boost the opportunities available to the victim whore. 

The truth is that the fundamental motivation of these hate hoaxes, and the nature of the culture which exalts the hate hoax mentality, is HATRED OF WHITE PEOPLE, and specifically hatred of White Christian men. 

This is the alpha and the omega of modern day America. NO COUNTRY FOR GOY WHITE MEN. 

Until and if "mainstream" conservatives acknowledge this reality, we will continue losing the war, and our nation, to the degenerate Left.

Where's Captain Moroni and the Title of Liberty when you need them?

It requires some courage, is where it is.  Here, from Audacious Epigone, a statistician who has a column at the Unz Review, with some comments on his article.  (His article is firstly, mostly a repost of someone else's comments to begin with.)

First Comment (from username Screwtape—nice literary reference)

George Washington lost at least three major battles before he was able to secure a victory. 

I’m trying to grasp for a silver lining in the dark clouds over Trump, but yes, he looks to be maneuvering toward the status quo. 

The thing is, he is surrounded by enemies. He has no true side from which he can direct his forces. 

Did he underestimate the landscape? Probably. Did his base? Probably. 

He got his mandate at the ballot box and has done some good things, some mediocre things, and some bad things along the way. 

But what did all of those voters do after they pulled the lever? 

How many scattered back into the shadows because "p**** grabber"? 

How many were unwilling to risk a hit to their social status as granted by the Prog death cult, so they held their tongues and let the darkness creep? 

How many are willing to step into the parent teacher conference, the church, the little league game, the boy scout troop and speak the truth? To step into the Overton [Window] themselves, to drain the swamps in their own back yards? 

How many are looking for a proxy to joust for their honor in the DC swamp while they let their wives emasculate them in their own kitchens? 

The war is not just decided by a man in the DC swamp. 

We are in a culture war, one we have been losing – nay, may have already lost. 

No one general is going to take down a hundred years of rot without pitchforks and torches in every town square. 

What I hoped for was an awakening in the everyman. That Trump would embolden men to take up arms in their own homes and communities; a bottom up groundswell. 

Eh. A man can dream. 

Some think the ‘next Trump’ will actually be a literally Hitler. I doubt it. 

The entropy of the left is accelerating, however, and this is a good thing i think. But I don’t see us being able to choose our next general.

Second Comment (from AE himself)

No one is going to stand up for Middle America. Either Middle America stands up for itself, or it’s finished. Voting once every four years isn’t going to cut it. We have to stand up for ourselves where we are in whatever capacity we are able to. The costs will be to varying degrees social, economic, even physical. But we are descended from people who have done much more with much less. We do well to remember that.

Third Comment

Right now, the costs are mostly just social and occasionally economic. People had better just quit being worried about being called names and un-LIKED, before they have a lot more to lose. 

I wrote this under one of the Sailer threads on the Covington kids, but I think all it will take is one particular incident in which no-one on our side backs down, and we have enough brave-enough souls to support a cause in reasonably big numbers, to embolden a whole lot more people. There’s a whole lot of tactics that patriotic Americans could learn from the 1960’s, and I don’t mean old chants and not bathing for weeks. 

People will learn that at a certain numerical level of like-minded people that they can’t arrest all of us, they can’t fire all of us, and all their nasty tweets in the world don’t mean a damn thing. The patriots have a very distinct advantage in being the people that make the world go ’round.

Fourth Comment

Yes, many who are focused on how Trump is letting them down fit the profile of “I went to the polls and pulled the lever, so I did my part” America. Maybe they even went to a Trump rally or two, but they don’t get the broad irony: Even conservatives are influenced by the profound cultural impact of leftist orthodoxy in our society, the one that loudly proclaims, "Everyone else is to blame!" 

Most Americans view politics and politicians as just another product or purchase decision in their lives. If a refrigerator, car or surgery goes bad, they want their money back. They seem to think something similar should happen with politicians. It would be interesting to know how many people on this site (and many other alternative conservative sites) actually email, call or talk to their senators or representatives (federal and state) on a regular basis. I’m sure many do, but I’ve been going to (and testifying at) our state’s legislature for hearings regarding illegal immigration or voter verification measures for years, and I generally see about a dozen people on our side vs. a hundred(s) for the left. Where is everyone?? They’re mostly at home looking at the computer and getting mad, it seems. 

Yes, Trump is letting us down, but when a ship is sinking, how do you spend your energy and direct your efforts? Insulting the captain? A wall may or may not be built, but at least you can do something to promote voter ID in your state. Or promote legislation that inhibits sanctuary cities. I think there’s still a chance for a wall, regardless of what (the temporarily and understandably) demoralized Ann Coulter says. 

One of the failings of the otherwise impressive Steve Sailer is that he almost never explicitly encourages political activism on the part of his readers. I guess he sees his job as literary and little else, but throwing stones only goes so far in taking care of the problem. Look at one of the Democracy Now! podcasts (found on this site) and you may start to understand why the left is so successful. I’m trying to visualize the impact that some of the impressive eloquence found on this site could have at state legislative hearings. With that in mind, I think this comment from Screwtape is outstanding. 

Fifth Comment

I suppose I could stand up like the article says; it’s well written and I agree with its theme, but reality has a way of rearing its ugly head. If I stand up, I will be out of a job, lose my house, and be unable to support my family. My former co-workers and most of my family will shun me because they will think I’m insane, as they make up what is the majority of middle America that has absolutely no idea what’s coming. Now I’m unemployed and alone. Can I move in with Screwtape at that point? 

The change (read: violence) will begin when either the welfare entitlements and government pensions start to dry up and those folks begin to loot and burn in the urban areas, or when economic collapse drives the working class out of their jobs and puts them into a position of nothing left to lose. 

If the kind of populist driven reversal of course is going to happen absent those two things, it will have to be started by a group of individuals who have the resources to sustain it through the beginning stages (the Founding Farthers were not middle class, they were the rich guys.) 

I’m also more genuinely concerned about the idea of firearm confiscation becoming a real possibility than ever. Here in Shillinois, Pritzger seems pretty intent an making a legit attempt at doing so (btw his brother is a former army colonel who served for 26 years, retired, and has since become a transsexual who splits his time between Chicago and Israel.) So then if it happens, who are all of these so-called red pilled police going to side with at that moment of truth? The people and the 2nd Amendment? Or their own pensions? To ask is to answer it. The police in metro areas, as we have seen in all of these LARPing dust ups the last few years, either take the antifa side or remain out of sight. Any attempt for a dissident group to organize would be shut down by the SWAT teams made up of "conservative" cops. 

The larger point is the police are not on our side, and won’t be if there is violence. They will serve their masters in the state on the promise of comfortable salaries, OT, healthcare, and pensions . They will shoot us down in a heartbeat if we organize or refuse to give up our guns. If you want an example as to why I believe this, visit the Second City Cop website and see how these two "conservative”"cops feel about pensions. They feel as emphatically entitled to them as any garden variety negro does about his LINK card. Has anyone here actually known of a commenter to identify as a police officer at UR? I’ve been reading here for over 2 years and haven’t run across a single cop (that I can remember.) They probably are here but keep it to themselves. That speaks for itself. Cops are paid legionaries; their loyalty is to the man who gives them coin.

Sixth Comment

Ironically, the Second Amendment has given conservative White Americans an "illusion of power" which has lulled them into complacency about the Left's scorched earth policy towards American institutions.

Seventh Comment

I agree wholeheartedly with AE’s post. There definitely needs to be more standing tall out there. Coulter has said the same thing. The only show of public support and respect Trump gets is when he’s in Israel. We shouldn’t be surprised if his actions reflect that.
In December, I was visiting my hometown of Norfolk, Nebraska and was drinking some home distilled "shine" with four or five local guys–fathers and grandfathers–farmers–in the machine shed one of them has rigged with a wood burning stove, refrigerators, still, and home-made compressed-air automatic beer can crusher. 

All were very strong supporters of Trump. So I showed them a banner I had made and intended to display at the busiest intersection in Norfolk the next day, which was Saturday, wearing a yellow vest. 

My spray painted canvas banner was much cruder but it was something like 3′ x 12′ and said "DON’T F*** WITH TRUMP" with a menacing Stuey from Family Guy brandishing a hand gun. They liked the slogan, helped me mount the canvas, but none would join me the next day for my stab at displaying support for Trump. 

I don’t blame them, really. It’s scary for us to do something like that. There were a couple of comments about not wanting to go to jail. 

The next day, I drove to 1st St and Norfolk Ave and began putting up the banner by pounding pointed stakes into the ground. Before I was finished pounding the stakes into the ground, three cop cars arrive and park and two approached me–a young white cop and an older white cop. 

Young cop as he’s walking up: Hi, what’s going on? 

Me: Putting up a banner. 

Young cop: You got any ID? 

Me: Yep. 

Young cop (after standing with his hand out): You wanna show me that ID? 

Me: Why? 

Young cop: We just like to know who we’re talking to. 

Me: You’re going to have to arrest me in order to see my ID. 

Older cop (breaking in): OK, no, you don’t want to go there. What are you doing with this sign here?
[meanwhile, more and more cars are pulling over to stop and watch] 

Me: I showing my support for our president. 

Older cop: OK, well of course you have the right to free speech. But you have to hold any signs like. You can’t pound them into the ground. 

Me: I can’t hold it by myself. I don’t have anyone to help me, even though everyone around here supports Trump. 

Older cop: Well, you have to take it down. 

Me (growing angry): You know why I don’t have anyone to help me hold it? Because of you. They were afraid they would go to jail. You are the problem. 

Older cop: No one is going to jail for holding a banner. 

Me: Well that’s what they said, so YOU guys ARE the problem. Trump’s fighting all the power in DC. He’s got George Soros with his billions doing everything he can to destroy him, and here I am, one lonely, puny guy out here with my homemade banner, and you are shutting me down. You are out here helping George Soros, for the love of God. 

The older cop just stood there for a minute. Then he turned and walked back to his car without a word. The young cop followed him, and all three drove away. 

Now some of the cars that had pulled over to watch this highly unusual spectacle for the Midwest honked and gave me thumbs up and yelled they liked the sign, and one lady ran over and asked if I would take her picture with the sign. 

It was the most exhilarating thing I’d done in a very long time. 

Here’s me just after the cops left:

At this point there's a picture of the guy in a yellow vest standing near a street intersection with his banner.

This is all kind of a long read, but very pertinent.  Captain Moroni tore his cloak, created the Title of Liberty, prayed for the freedom of his people, then marched through the land gathering people to his side, who tore their own cloaks, clashed their swords and shields, and swore an oath to defend their freedom to the death. Which many of them then did; Moroni marched at least four times if I remember correctly, against traitors and backstabbers among his own people to say nothing of the many years of warfare against the invading Lamanites.

What are you doing to defend your freedom?  Your religion?  Your family? American legal, cultural traditions and community morality?  If you're like most "conservatives" you're virtue signaling about how it's not such a bad thing that they're all being destroyed right in front of your eyes.

Liberals and mental disorder

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/02/18/when-white-liberal-prophecy-fails-cognitive-dissonance-and-the-liberal-mind/

There are a lot of correlations between liberalism and mental disorder, but this is a great—and new—take; the idea that cognitive dissonance is mental trauma and the inability of liberals to confront their cognitive dissonance and accept things that are true is a serious mental condition that deserves some attention.  Let me quote a few parts of the article above:

Cognitive Dissonance theory might be more important in explaining the Left’s mindset than we appreciate. Although frequently invoked by mainstream conservatives to superficially skewer liberals’ incoherence and hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance should be applied more broadly and explored more deeply. According to psychologists, the dissonance produced in the mind when holding mutually exclusive beliefs is actually nothing short of a form of mental trauma. Facts and opinions which challenge, for instance, one’s self-identity or long-held conventional wisdom can, say experts, result in agony for the afflicted, producing a feeling of desperation akin to starvation or intense thirst. Unsurprisingly then, the resulting discomfort can push the sufferer to great lengths of irrational and extreme behavior in order to obtain relief. Understanding cognitive dissonance, therefore, may go far in explaining our opponents’ aggressiveness and, given the growing unreality of today’s society, their increasingly toxic and desperate behavior.

Nephi says that the wicked take the truth to be hard.  In my experience, everyone takes the truth to be hard, because everyone struggles to accept something that's clearly true but which challenges their sense of identity, or their belief about how the world must be because they feel bad about it not being that way.  This is certainly true with most of the core conceits of liberalism as an ideology; it requires accepting all kinds of wishful thinking and delusional ideas in spite of and in the face of all kinds of daily evidence that those conceits are clearly false.

Political psychology professor Drew Weston has found that the same brain circuits activating biased reasoning are actually the same ones activated in drug-addicts when getting a fix. Like drug-addicts, the cognitively conflicted will do anything to return to a state of comfort and euphoria. The minds of the conflicted can employ numerous stress responses when, for instance, one’s long-held belief or self-image is challenged, such as avoiding the conflicting evidence in question (and any possible sources of such evidence); resorting to self-denial and magical-thinking; even intentionally misremembering or suppressing past experiences i.e. previous episodes of ethnic tension, etc. And when confronted by ideological opponents, the afflicted can resort to convoluted, fantastical arguments as well as hostile or nakedly diversionary ones, such as making dismissive, personal attacks on the opponent’s motives. No doubt many readers have experienced such episodes from liberals before, even to the point of visible neurosis, hysterical anger, or even threatened or actual violence. As Cognitive Dissonance expert Margaret Heffernan says, "we are prepared to pay a very high price to preserve our most cherished ideas."

Ouch.

Although blocking out evidence disruptive to one’s sense of self can, in theory, also apply to White advocates, it’s important to note why it’s largely a White liberal phenomenon. White liberals operate in a constant state of neurotic discomfort and confusion. From noticing wildly different behavioral patterns of, for instance, Blacks in public and the workplace, seeing disparate levels of Black achievement in school and professional life, and experiencing instances of anti-White intimidation and violence, etc., for White liberals, nearly every day is a challenge to their worldview which can be summed by the belief that racial equality and diversity are, now and forevermore, right and good. This doesn’t apply to White advocates. Although no doubt extensive, our daily discomfort is nonneurotic, and relates to real, non-self-contrived troubles, such as worrying for our future progeny or lamenting over a healthier past. Our concern about the future is well-founded, to say the least.

I don't know why advocating for your own people in their own country should be considered a controversial thing, but in the world of cognitive dissonance, it is.  I wonder how much I'll have to "defend" that quote, because equality or something.  It's fairly easily done, but I'm surprised at how much it has to be done because of Pavlovian reactions to the idea that different populations have different traits, or that America was founded by Americans for their own posterity triggers people so badly.

And it brings to mind the fact that this isn't really a liberal problem.  Old-fashioned "conservatives" who have failed to conserve anything about America because of their false wishful thinking delusions about reality may suffer from this even more than liberals, or at least as much.  Heck, I had a brief conversation with my Dad not long ago—in talking about being disappointed that Hispanic, Indian, Jewish and other non-Hajnal Line Americans might be great at what they do, he was shocked that they practiced tribalism and nepotism rather than meritocracy.  Well, yeah—because in their cultures, meritocracy isn't valued; tribalism and nepotism are.  You import people with different values, you get a change in the culture.  That's bleeding obvious, but he has the typical Boomer Conservative cognitive dissonance about it where he still believes that people can become American by virtue of geographic relocation and the filling out of some paperwork, rather than, naturally, remaining what they are, because what you are is immutable.

That doesn't mean that people can't change their minds about things, and learn and grow and progress, of course.  But just as it would be absurd to suggest that I could ever become Chinese, it's equally absurd to suggest that a Chinese person could ever become an American, and for the exact same reason. Maybe that Chinese persons descendants could be Americans—after a few generations of abandoning their Chinese identity, intermarrying with Americans and adopting American customs as best they can.  But the original Chinese person never can be.  It's absurd to suggest that they can be.  And yet people believe it all the time.  As Joseph de Maistre said, "False opinions are like false money, struck first of all by guilty men and thereafter circulated by honest people who perpetuate the crime without knowing what they are doing."  Many of these lies were told very deliberately, indoctrinated to our children in the schools very deliberately, and propagandized by anti-American media and academics very deliberately.  So that regular, decent and mostly honest people spread ideas that are demonstrably untrue, yet they can't perceive the obvious untruth of what they are saying.

So yeah, that's cognitive dissonance.  Let me let the article bring it home.

Apart from reinforcement-learning during development are the broader institutional and social foundations for cognitive dissonance. Heffernan points out the importance this area of support played in the X-ray case, specifically that the doctors’ intolerance of the countervailing findings was likely due to their industry being dependent on the status quo. Moreover, she notes that the doctors were in positions of great, institutional power, resulting in their colleagues and subordinates likely reinforcing, rather than questioning, the official line. 

That similar institutional foundations undergird White liberals’ individual worldviews needn’t be argued in detail. The equality-diversity paradigm reigns supreme over every major institution in the country as well as in the broader Western world. Numerous sources (the mainstream media being one) are at work daily to provide the reinforcement, assurance, and social pressure, White liberals need to stay on point. Needless to say, this type of support for cognitive dissonance does not apply to White advocates. We operate no institutions nor depend on any institution which relies on or reinforces our beliefs (in fact, no such institution exists). 

We also don’t subscribe to beliefs deemed respectable, virtuous, or because of who or what they’re associated with (in fact, some of us routinely try to disassociate ourselves from many of those who actually share our beliefs). 

Importantly, Heffernan also notes the doctors’ worry over their self-image as health experts as a basis for their rejection of the conflicting X-ray findings; that is, any public perception of them having hurt, rather helped, patients in their care. This concern for self-image analogizes well with liberals who, of course, preeningly view themselves as righteously doing good for society (i.e., fighting for social justice, equalization of outcomes, the oppressed, righting historic wrongs, etc.); efforts which would be all for naught should they accept countervailing truths. 

Moreover, notes Heffernan, accepting the truth would have forced the doctors to admit to the harms they had unleashed on the public, which in liberals’ case would be the White public — the harms caused against Whites through discrimination in hiring and school admissions, denigrating White flight and ignoring the plight of the White working class, erasing White identity and historical achievement, etc. 

By contrast, we, as White advocates, don’t hold beliefs that would make the world better if they were true. We’re simply too intellectually serious not to accept reality as is, knowing that by relying on dishonesty, only harm can come—As AmRen’s mast head on its old print edition used to read (quoting Thomas Jefferson): “There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world.” Unlike White liberals, we know it’s in the best interest of those we care about for them to fully understand the world they live in. 

There are two dissonance-inducing stress responses acknowledged by analysts which I think deserve greater emphasis: the mind’s ability to adjust the importance of challenging cognitions; and its ability to add on new cognitions so that challenging ones become outweighed (such as the ghost-narrative in Festinger’s Ifaluk case). These strategies may go far in understanding those White liberals (there are bound to be some) who do not betray their observational faculties and internally acknowledge innate race differences, but who, nonetheless, zealously pursue the equality-is-right-diversity-is—our-greatest-strength worldview. 

Regarding the former, “honest” White liberals may adjust downward the importance that IQ disparities play in society (thereby reducing their discomfort), telling themselves, for instance, that they can be overcome through better diet in childhood, or investing more money in education, etc. This would work to lessen the dissonance between the realities they privately acknowledge and their desired, more convenient, equality-diversity worldview. 

On the latter, similarly situated White liberals may add on new cognitions, for instance, by telling themselves that, regardless of the reality of race, White advocates wish opprobrium and even depredation on non-Whites and they must, therefore, be countered. To do so (however correct White advocates may be) is to help to defeat ugliness and evil in the world. Again, the mental anguish of having to deal with uncomfortable facts (and becoming like us) is therefore resolved. 

Although paper-thin and routinely challenged, the White liberal paradigm rests on a solid foundation; one which we all must strive to understand. Ignoring or blocking out inconvenient facts regarding race draws numerous psychological and emotional benefits in today’s society, including social and financial ones. By contrast, the race-realism and White advocacy we voluntarily pursue provides us with no such benefits; only the bracing satisfaction of living in accordance with the truth and doing what’s right.
Although their paradigm will develop cracks as the level of contradiction to reality in society increases, the fear and anguish caused by being on such intellectually shaky ground might actually keep much of it intact for some time, producing more denialism and dysfunctional thinking, more hysterical calls and campaigns for our moral exclusion, and more desperate measures in general.

On the relation between the sexes (again)

I don't actually necessarily think that much about this all of the time, but it sure seems to come up a lot, so I end up writing and re-writing my thoughts on the subject over and over again; clarifying and modifying the vision as it evolves.  I'd like to talk about more things, but since this keeps coming up, well—here it is again.  Part of this may be that I have three sons, including two still in high school, making this a topic that I can't seem to avoid whether I want to or not.

Anyway, one of my sons is a senior in high school.  The other day, my wife was out of town, my 20-year old daughter was at work, and he was with me in the kitchen either helping get dinner ready or cleaning it up; I can't remember now.  I mentioned that our Mock Prom dance event; a four (or even five) stake mega-stake dance was only a month away really, which seems kind of shocking.  We got to talking about that and actual real prom.  Keep in mind that he goes to a small charter school, not one of those big public schools, so although they do prom, he's not really that interested in the event, and doesn't anticipate that it'll be all that fun.  Although he also, I think, doesn't really want to feel left out of it either.  He said he was unlikely to go, because he had no idea who he would ask.  He wouldn't want to ask anyone from school, both because they're not members, and because it's a small crowd and he isn't interested at all in anyone there anyway.  But he also wouldn't want to ask anyone from church for various reasons.  And this is where I found out that something that happened nearly a year ago is maybe a worse problem than I thought for him...

See, first of all, keep in mind that by personality this particular son of mine is rather antisocial and introverted. Let's take a step back and establish some context.

Alex doesn't have a lot of friends, and doesn't make a lot of friends, and doesn't want a lot of friends.  When he was younger, he had often just one good friend; one at church and one at school, that he spent most of his time with, and that's often all that he wanted.  That's not really true anymore, and he does have more friends, although not really very close ones at school right now.  His best friend at church is still around, but their relationship has become complicated.  In general, Alex doesn't feel like he has been a good friend, or that he can trust him in many respects.  Plus, he's aware that he's not a great influence on him, so he tries to avoid falling too often into being led into, say, skipping Sunday School to go do donuts in the parking lot.  Alex finds that temptation fairly difficult because he doesn't find Sunday School a socially welcoming or comfortable environment anyway, but this friend of his is constantly attempting to draw him even further into just not showing up or not engaging—as he himself often does.  My wife and I are good friends with his parents and know from them that they're fairly worried about his direction too—he's got a lot of friends at school that aren't very good influences on him, and he's got a bad attitude about church, the ward, his leaders, etc. and looks for any excuse to duck out of what he should be doing rather than just do it anyway even if he doesn't like everything about it.  So... like I said; their relationship is complicated.

From my son's point of view, the real problem he's had with this guy is that he is unreliable and easily distracted rather than loyal and dependable, though.  A few years ago—back when they were all about 14 or so—a girl in another ward in the stake was obviously interested in him and Alex felt like suddenly his best friend was ditching him to go hang out with more interesting people, and he honestly felt kind of betrayed by this whole affair.  She Yoko Ono'd their relationship, and while he doesn't blame her for that (he blames his friend), I suspect that he does resent her to some degree.

But it gets worse.  Another girl moved into the area, and also became really good friends with his former best friend (almost all of his friends lately are girls).  This was all whatever to Alex, until she started causing completely unnecessary and unexpected drama for him.  A year ago, as we were setting up the decorations for Mock Prom, my two sons were in the bathroom, and as Logan was walking out, Alex farted and coughed, which made Logan laugh because this girl was standing (for whatever reason) right outside the bathroom, and obviously heard this.  But apparently, she didn't actually hear what it was, because the next thing we know, I'm being told that Alex was vaping in the boy's room!  This was kind of ridiculous for a lot of reasons, one of which was that his brother was in the bathroom with him, and I was right around the corner in the gym, and not a lot of people were in the building generally. Also, Alex is unable and unwilling to hide his contempt and scorn for vapers; he thinks that they are posers and try-hards.  While that's not the best attitude to have, I've tended to think that there are more important things to worry about rather than really correct it, so I've let it go.

Nevertheless, I went and talked to him about it, and we all thought it was really weird.  In fact, it became a little bit of a family joke.  But a few months later, it seemed to gain a second life, and people in the YM presidency and the bishopric got hold of this rumor and were worried about it; they talked to me and Alex a few times.  I can't find any evidence that he's secretly vaping and not telling me about it, and I seriously doubt that it's very likely or even possible, so again, we were scratching our heads about what the devil was going on, although this time it was maybe a little less amusing than it had been the first time around. (As an aside, Alex is particularly miffed at the irony that the girl who started this gossip about him was literally issued a citation a few months ago for possession of marijuana.)  And this time, the gossip seems to have spread a lot further.  Yoko Ono has told his old former best friend that he shouldn't hang out with Alex anymore because he's a "bad influence" (which the former best friend told Alex about as a joke, because I think they both recognize that the reverse is more likely true) but I note that he didn't stand up for him and rebuke the gossip.  And apparently the story has spread among a lot of the girls his age, who now think that he's trouble and avoid him, because of the gossipy nature of Yoko Ono and her friend.

In short, Alex isn't sure that it's worth trying to get to know any of the girls in the stake his age well enough to ask them out, because he feels like the well has been poisoned against him anyway.  Especially with regards to one girl in Yoko Ono's ward who had an obvious and rather blatant interest in him for over two and a half years (which he at least to some degree returned) who he now feels like he can't even attempt to pursue.  Now, granted—given the two personalities involved there, it would have been a miracle if those two could actually manage to hold a conversation that lasted for more than ten minutes without one of them freaking out and running away, much less go on a whole date or have a relationship of some kind, but still—he never really showed much interest in anyone else, so it was the best chance he had.  Now, he's decided to basically just grit his teeth and finish out high school and then try again with a new crop when he goes to college.  Which isn't the worst result ever, but he's never been on a date, he doesn't have much successful socialization or experience with the right kinds of girls, so he's perhaps not as well poised as I'd like to take advantage of the new situation that will be facing him after his mission.

And in the meantime, the situation was worse than I thought.  He doesn't feel like church activities are very welcoming or inviting, and he's felt burned and betrayed by his friends at church that he expected better of, and he (along with my other sons, for different reasons) has a terribly negative attitude about girls in the church in particular.  Luckily, there are some other mitigating factors—his real best friend is his younger brother, and they always have each other's back in many respects both socially and otherwise.  He also understands that church isn't about the social experience (although having a miserable social experience often makes it much harder)—he's excited about going on a mission, and has had some really great experiences in many respects doing things like HEFY and others which have given him some confidence, strengthened his testimony, etc.  But he has not had a very fun or happy high school experience, and his social life is still... well, it's not what I would want for him, and I don't think it's what he wants either.  But, I'm not really very worried that his social difficulties are going to draw him away from the Gospel or anything, so it's just one of those difficulties he'll have to deal with and overcome, I suppose.  And while that's what matters most, it's still hard to see one of your own kids struggling with an experience that by personality they're particularly ill-equipped in some ways to deal with successfully.  It's a little bit heart-breaking sometimes to have to watch, and it has sometimes bled over into his relationships at home too over the past few years.

And it's been eye-opening for me too.  For a long time, these boys have been somewhat demoralized and disillusioned by bad behavior of the girls at church in particular.  I've talked before about the term we coined called Bratty Princess Syndrome, but they learned it first hand from the girls that they've interacted with.  For a long time, when they complained about the girls at church being pushy, bossy, entitled bratty little princesses who cause pointless drama for their own entertainment and who completely lack the skills to be charming, sweet, feminine or delightful to be around I would call them out for being snobby, overly negative and judgmental.  I'd recommend that they get to know certain girls better that I thought they'd get along with, and they'd almost uniformly tell me that I didn't know what I was talking about.  I'd get an avalanche of first hand experiences from them about the girls in question, to the point where I finally had to apologize to my sons for questioning their judgment.  And my older son, who's now married, has an increasingly long list (which his wife contributes to, actually) of examples of shockingly bad behavior from women at Rexburg, both from while they were single and even from their young married student ward.  I'm now convinced that Bratty Princess Syndrome is a very real stumbling block to the development of healthy and successful relationships between men and women in the Church—and, of course, there are parallel developments in the development of men and boys that exacerbate the problem to a great degree; men "going Galt" in particular. After a life-time of being continuously beat down and taught to expect very little other than overbearing hen-pecking, they either become doormats and cowards who think getting bad behavior is their lot in life, or they simply check out completely and refuse to engage or try altogether, focusing instead on selfish and cowardly bachelor pursuits, or developing bitterness and resentment towards women in general.  I'm shocked now that my eyes are a bit more open to it, at how dysfunctional the relationship between men and women is in general, and how ill-equipped this rising generation is to deal with it because of false messages that they've been indoctrinated with their entire lives and social skills that they haven't learned.  And while I think much of the doctrine (and culture) of the Church insulates people from the worst excesses of this in our broader ruined society, there's still enough that comes through that it's a significant problem.

So I've got teenaged boys who have a lot of literal war-stories about girls, and a very bad attitude about them in general.  Their expectation is now bratty, entitled bad behavior, and they're pleasantly surprised when they don't get it from girls at Church.  Alex has said, about the girl who had an obvious crush on him in the past, that "I don't care how pretty she is, if she can't even manage to be pleasant to be around, what is she good for?" after seeing her yell at all of his friends from her ward, throw rocks at Logan because she was irritated that he was in a good mood in the morning at Youth Conference, and then bad-mouth me of all people because Logan called her a princess; which I had earlier told her that my boys had said about the girls in her ward in general.  I guess she didn't think that I was telling the truth, or something, until she actually had one of my boys call her out.  I think Alex was able to overlook it, though (I pointed out that her behavior was probably a subconscious reaction to her nervousness and awkwardness socially) so maybe he does care how pretty she is after all, but he's come around to thinking that they simply aren't likely to be any good for each other because she's too hard to try to talk to.

Logan's had his own bad experiences, as has Spencer—Logan in particular, at age 14, was already saying that he was sick and tired of dealing with girls and was more interested in women; thinking that the drama would go away as they mature, I expect.

Anyway, that's not really a Gospel topic per se, although given the importance of family and marriage to the Plan of Salvation, it's one that can't really be avoided by those who seek to follow the Gospel.  And not very many people are dealing with this issue, or telling our youth what to watch out for.  I had a brief discussion with a couple of girls in our ward where I pointed out the numbers imbalance to them.  Their reaction was that, well, with inspiration you can figure it out.  When I told them that that's what all of the girls were saying, and yet still half of them aren't married—unless polygamy comes back or eligible bachelors literally start falling out of the sky, that can't work because there aren't enough eligible guys to go around, they kind of shrugged and didn't think much of it.  And I'm certain that they give no thought whatsoever to the idea that their own behavior can have a significant impact on their odds at being attractive to the kind of guy that they want to have be attracted to them.  They've been taught, indirectly of course, but convincingly and falsely, that all they have to do is show up and be a little bit cute and guys will come knocking.  And that if they don't, that it's probably the guys' fault collectively, and that of course nothing that they ever do could possibly have an impact long term for their chances of having a successful temple marriage.  What has any princess ever had to do to get Prince Charming to carry her away other than show up, after all?

There are hard times ahead for the rising generation.  Hard times that when I was their age, I couldn't see coming, or even imagine.  Most of them can't either, and honestly, most of their parents and leaders can't see it either.  But if there's one thing that I genuinely think that I'm better at than average, it's seeing trends and patterns and predicting how they will play out if some input isn't changed.  This is one that scares me quite a bit.

http://flippingfetchingfiddledeedee.blogspot.com/2018/08/on-numbers-and-dating-market.html

http://flippingfetchingfiddledeedee.blogspot.com/2018/08/on-numbers-and-dating-market-part-2.html

http://flippingfetchingfiddledeedee.blogspot.com/2018/09/last-word-on-numbers-and-dating-market.html

http://flippingfetchingfiddledeedee.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-wages-of-feminism.html

Interfaith initiatives

Not only has our local public affairs rep come to our stake YM/YW meetings and pitched the idea of having some interfaith discussion groups or firesides or whatever, but I'm now getting hit up simultaneously for representing on an interfaith network at work and again by our elder's quorum for something very similar to what's being requested for the youth.  I suspect the latter is at the request of the same public affairs rep; the work thing is something that I've been aware of for many years and have dabbled in a little bit here and there; mostly to the tune of participating in a hymn that we've sung as a small men's acapella choir on the National Day of Prayer because I was specifically asked if I would participate by friends of mine who were doing it and wanted to bulk up the numbers.

While I don't have any problem with the idea per se, I've decided after giving it a fair bit of a go—several years of dabbling participation in the group at work, anyway—that I'm politely disinterested in participating, and with regards to the YM, I would not encourage my teenaged boys to do so either.

Shortly after my mission, I actually got fairly interested in comparative religious studies, and although I never attended BYU, I do note that they had a class that surveyed the world's major religions.  I bought (and read) the textbook because of my own interest.  I've read through some Jehovah's Witness texts.  I've read some Mahometan texts; portions of the Koran and the Hadiths.  I've read portions of the Talmud.  I'm not really (curiously) as familiar with the doctrines of the various sects of Christianity compared to each other, with the possible exception of the Catholic faith, which I've read a fair bit about, in part because it's also such an important part of the history of Western Civilization anyway.  I think that my breadth of knowledge about faiths beyond my own is considerably better than average, and for many of those religions, I can tell you more about their beliefs than most people who allegedly practice them.  But mostly that's been the result of my own curiosity and independent study.  I know for sure that I'm not going to have gotten anything at all like that from going to an interfaith fireside and listening to teenager girls talk about what it's like wearing a hijab or whatever.

And that's in part the crux of my disinterest in the whole conceit.  Not only will you not really learn anything that isn't incredibly superficial (and honestly quite boring and banal, for that matter) but one lesson I've picked up from the whole affair is that you aren't likely to strengthen your testimony or understanding about true doctrine very much by studying false doctrine.  Occasionally you'll learn something that seems so "whack" that you'll feel better about true doctrine and the place of the Church to teach it to you, but that's a far cry from anything truly inspirational.  You can learn about righteous men of the past who didn't have the full truth and be inspired by their faith—I've certainly had that happen to me while studying the Founding Fathers—but not from talking to some random member of another church or religion about what they believe.  It's just an incredibly thin and unfulfilling avenue for spiritual nourishment.  There's a reason why Ammon and Aaron, when preaching to Lamoni and his father respectively, didn't get sidetracked into a discussion where Lamoni told them all about his Great Spirit faith.  No, they quickly said, "yeah, yeah, Great Spirit—close enough, but let me tell you about the real nature of God."—because sharing common beliefs wasn't going to strengthen anyone's faith.  Sharing true doctrine was.

Rather than spirituality, what you are most likely to nourish in this type of exercise is the dopamine emotional hit that some people get (myself not really included, in most cases) by doing things that promote "togetherness."  However, not only does this not do much of anything for me personally, but my experience with this kind of togetherness is that it's largely illusory.  There isn't really any "togetherness".  It's a vacuous, empty gesture and feel-good virtue signaling that accomplishes nothing other than to allow you to bask in the delusional glory that you've done something significant.

If you recall Elder Oaks talk from twelve years or so ago about "Good, Better, Best" you'll recall that we are counseled to not fritter away our spiritual capital in efforts that are merely good when we can (and should) be doing better and best.  These kinds of interfaith initiatives are, at most, only good.  And honestly, I find it a stretch to even call them that—they're just neutral things that you can do if it's the kind of thing that makes you feel good about yourself; but don't run around telling yourself that you're doing much of anything else.  I don't have any problem with people wanting to do them, I'm just not interested myself.

Now, keep in mind that I'm talking specifically about these kinds of interfaith sharing experiences.  I'm not saying that it's a bad idea to have good relationships with people, including clerical and ecclesiastical leaders of other faiths, and that we couldn't or shouldn't join forces to accomplish things that are good in the community.  Those absolutely should be done.  But if all we're going to do is sit around talking about what it's like to be a member of the Church vs being a Catholic vs being Russian Orthodox vs being Jewish, then leave me out.  That sounds not only incredibly boring but also incredibly useless.