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.

Nationalism is Christian. Globalism is Satanic

https://younggospelminister.blogspot.com/2019/01/in-defence-of-nationalism.html?m=1

Biblically, nationalism is something that God gave the world as a gift to protect it from globalism, which is really just imperialism dressed up in modern clothing. Those who know their Bible well will know I am referring to the Tower of Babel. In this biblical account God is concerned about the evil that humanity can fulfil while they are unified as one people. “And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they all have one language, and this is on the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will be impossible for them. Come let us go down and confuse their language, so that they might not understand one another’s speech” (Genesis 11:6-7). In his mercy God dispersed the people into nations, different groups of people, to limit their ability to commit evil. 

We tend to think of humanity uniting together to be a base line good thing, a united humanity brings to mind for many the world of Star Trek, a utopian war free almost heaven like existence. But really everything depends on why humanity unites. 

So what did God do to limit empire? He confused the language of the peoples and split them up into nations. On our own, humans can achieve evil. Together we can achieve much evil. We can at times achieve some good things, but if you look across the history of empire, you will see many evils committed in its name.   

Let’s look at this another way, what is the opposite of nationalism? Imperialism or globalism, both of these are movements towards centralized power, in the hands of fewer and fewer people. We have been conditioned to see globalism as a good thing in the wake of World War 2, partly because many who called themselves nationalists did evil things.

This can be stirred up by evil people with evil purposes. For example, when Hitler stirred up hatred for those in Germany and Europe whose nationality was not German. But Hitler was not really a nationalist. He couched some of his arguments in nationalist terms. But he was really an ethnic imperialist. He believed the Germans were the superior race and should rule over all other peoples: this is the definition of imperialism, not nationalism. He was a German supremacist (some people will respond here that he was Austrian, but Austrians are ethnically Germanic, in this broad sense Hitler was German). Obviously, this idea is crazy and dangerous, everyone knows the Japanese build better cars than the Germans. But we should not confuse nationalism with ethnic supremacy. Ethnic supremacy is an evil blight on this world. Nationalism is God’s means of limiting the imperial pretensions of powerful world leaders, like Hitler. Who rose up against Hitler to limit his imperial goals and eventually stop him? Other nations.

Great article, comparing globalism to the heresy of the Tower of Babel.  I'd point out that also it is the same drive that led Lucifer to propose centralization of power and influence on himself alone in the pre-existence.

Nationalism, which is really nothing more than identifying with a bigger, broader extended family, is the solution to dealing with the temptation of Lucifer's plan.  It's not only not evil, but it is essential to combating the influence of Satan.

It's no wonder that the forces of Satan have tried so hard to destroy nationalism, at least within the confines of Christendom.  It's not for nothing that you'll probably note that they don't necessarily have as much problem with Third World brown nationalism, because it doesn't stand in the way of achieving their imperialist, Luciferian goals.

The wisdom of the past...

... we we have foolishly discounted and forgotten.  This gem is from Cicero: "But the business of the foreigner or the foreign-resident of a country is to keep to his own concerns; he has no reason to probe into things beyond this and by no means should inject himself into the affairs of his host nation."

Needless to say, pretending that you ARE part of the host nation is right out.

The Wages of Feminism

This is interesting.  Mostly because it's the reality for all too many people out there.  And a slightly lesser version of this for careerist women who get married late, hurry and scramble out a few kids before their fertility is gone, and yet still focus more on their jobs than their families is something that I've seen first hand all too often too.  Speaking of, as I did last post, lies that many of us accept uncritically.  How many times have you seen this lie plastered all over every media we consume?  The adventurous life in the big city!  Home and family at a young age?  Trite! Boring! Foolish!

Or is it?

Anyway, it really needs no further comment.

I feel like a ghost. I’m a 35-year-old woman, and I have nothing to show for it. My 20s and early 30s have been a twisting crisscross of moves all over the West Coast, a couple of brief stints abroad, multiple jobs in a mediocre role with no real upward track. I was also the poster child for serial monogamy. My most hopeful and longest lasting relationship (three and a half years, whoopee) ended two years ago. We moved to a new town (my fourth new city), created a home together, and then nose-dived into a traumatic breakup that launched me to my fifth and current city and who-knows-what-number job.

For all these years of quick changes and rash decisions, which I once rationalized as adventurous, exploratory, and living an “original life,” I have nothing to show for it. I have no wealth, and I’m now saddled with enough debt from all of my moves, poor decisions, and lack of career drive that I may never be able to retire. I have no career milestones and don’t care for my line of work all that much anyway, but now it’s my lifeline, as I only have enough savings to buy a hotel room for two nights. I have no family nearby, no long-term relationship built on years of mutual growth and shared experiences, no children. While I make friends easily, I’ve left most of my friends behind in each city I’ve moved from while they’ve continued to grow deep roots: marriages, homeownership, career growth, community, families, children. I have a few close girlfriends, for which I am grateful, but life keeps getting busier and our conversations are now months apart. Most of my nights are spent alone with my cat (cue the cliché).

I used to consider myself creative — a good writer, poetic, passionate, curious. Now, after many years of demanding yet uninspiring jobs, multiple heartbreaks, move after move, financial woes, I’m quite frankly exhausted. I can barely remember to buy dish soap let alone contemplate humanity or be inspired by Anaïs Nin’s diaries. Honestly, I find artists offensive because I’m jealous and don’t understand how I landed this far away from myself.

Also, within the past year I’ve had a breast-cancer scare and required surgery on my uterus due to a fertility issue. On top of that, I’m 35 and every gyno and women’s-health website this side of the Mississippi is telling me my fertility is dropping faster than a piano falling out of the sky. Now I’m looking into freezing my eggs, adding to my never-ending financial burden, in hopes of possibly making something of this haunted house and having a family someday with a no-named man.

I’m trying. I am. I’m dating. I’m working out and working hard. Listening to music I enjoy and loving my cat. Calling my mom. Yet I truly feel like a ghost. No one knows who I am or where I’ve been. I haven’t kept a friend, lover, or foe around long enough to give anyone a chance. What’s the point? I don’t care for my job. I’m not building toward anything, and I don’t have the time or money to really invest in what I care about anyway at this point. On top of that, society is telling me my value as a woman is fading fast, my wrinkles require Botox (reference said poor finances), all the while my manager is asking for me to finish “that report by Monday.” Why bother?

My apathy is coming out in weird ways. I’m drinking too much, and when I do see my friends on occasion, I end up getting drunk and angry or sad or both and pushing them away. And with men I date, I feel pressure to make something of the relationship too soon (move in, get married, “I have to have kids in a couple of years”; fun times!). All the while still trying to be the sexpot 25-year-old I thought I was until what seemed like a moment ago.

I used to think I was the one who had it all figured out. Adventurous life in the city! Traveling the world! Making memories! Now I feel incredibly hollow. And foolish. How can I make a future for myself that I can get excited about out of these wasted years?  What reserves or identity can I draw from when I feel like I’ve accrued nothing up to this point with my life choices?

UPDATE: I said it needs no further comment, and it doesn't.  But I saw a comment on it that I thought was great.  This is a bit part of what I've dubbed "bratty princess syndrome", but I should add that this malady is not, of course, limited to women.  It's just that our society has particularly encouraged it lately among women moreso than among men.

As a recovering individualistic libertarian, I now see that each of us is born to play a role in a larger play, each of us is a thread in a larger tapestry. We have relatively limited latitude regarding where our life takes us, and quite literally the only thing we can do of value is to make of ourselves the best version of "us" we are offered, which takes WORK. No wonder things are as messed up as they are, given that our materialist narcissism tells people that the WORLD is obligated to conform to our wishes, and we are under no obligation whatsoever to present the WORLD the best version of ourselves. Ours is what society looks like without humility before something greater than ourselves. Ours is what a society looks like when people have bought the false idea that Mankind is God. 

UPDATE: And another one.  This is maybe too deterministic, i.e., it's not hard to find exceptions that worked out, but that doesn't invalidate the vast, vast majority of non-exceptions that conform exactly to this pattern, or the vast majority of people who have ignored this pattern and had heartache of one type or another because of it.  And no, repentance doesn't mean that the consequences of poor decisions go away.  Spiritually they may.  Eternally they may.  But some decisions are with us for the rest of our lives, no matter how successfully we repent.

There is no going back. Stages of Life are DETERMINED. It is a delusion (sold on every ad) that one can displace life-stages to later ages.

• Socialization: Birth to 16/17.

• Courtship: perhaps as early as 16, up as late as mid 20's. 

• Marriage: late-teens (for girls), to maybe mid-to-late 20's. 

• Family production (kids): Within a year or two of marriage. 

• Nurture young kids: 20's & mid 30's. 

• Survive adolescents: Mid 30's through 40's. 

• Empty Nest with mate: 50-plus. 

• Grandkids: mid-50's on.

80% of the comments I read written by unhappy people come from those who have displaced these stages to later years, or they lost the gamble on pair-bonding by marrying someone full of deal-breakers (and their lives are detonated as a result.) There are no do-overs. There's no going back. The game won't be replayed. This is why "getting it right" the first time is crucial...but no one wants to admit this because it puts so many people in a "you're screwed" situation. Leftism means never having to hear that decisions you made are irreversible. 

The social structure that once helped young people find good mates while keeping them from stupidly embedding their own deal-breakers in adolescence is gone. Kids are being raised by the permanent adolescents intentionally created by a materialist, consumer-driven society. It's a huge Lord-of-the-Flies problem of permanent kids raising kids (facepalm.) 

UPDATE: Of course, reading the journals of Anais Nin and thinking that there's inspiration to be found there (other than feeling inspired to avoid that life at all costs) is a huge part of the problem.  Although this anonymous woman is able to draw a connection between her actions and decisions and the consequences, she's obviously not willing to disavow the ideology that led her to make those terrible decisions in the first place.

Secret combinations

While this is true, it misses the point; there is a conspiracy to create the environment where that happened.  Just because most people involved in the secret combination don't actually know anything about it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.  There is a group of conscious sociopathic conspirators.  Or, at least, there was, and they do have their successors, whether witting or not.

The Deep State is often portrayed as a conspiracy. In fact, it is better thought of as a blind sociological event. There is no group of conscious conspirators, simply people being groomed to have the same opinions or at least saying they do. 

What has happened in the UK (and the rest for the West to varying degrees) is the success of the long march through the institutions. That is what ultimately has given the UK an elite (politicians, mediafolk, teachers etc) who are overwhelmingly Politically Correct internationalists. And it’s those people who are at the forefront of the attempts to sabotage Brexit. 

How did it come about? A German student leader of the 1960s Rudi Dutschke, echoing the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, put forward the idea whereby societies could be subverted from within by those of an internationalist bent who would patiently work to gain positions of power and influence. Eventually there would be enough of such people to change the policies of Western societies from national to internationalist ones. That point was reached in the UK at least 50 years ago and the Politically Correct stranglehold on our society is now complete. 

The capture of Western societies by internationalists has allowed them to permit and even overtly encourage mass immigration of people from different cultures, denigrate their own societies, traduce the West and its native populations generally and introduce gradually the pernicious Totalitarian creed of Cultural Marxism which has “anti-racism” (in reality anti-white racism) at its heart. The last brick in the Politically Correct building is the increasingly draconian treatment of anyone who refuses to toe the line—increasingly including the use of the criminal law and imprisonment. 

That is why Western politics until recently has been so ideologically monotone. Brexit was a revolt against that mentality.

Given that the result of this conspiracy has been the destruction of the freedom of nations that clawed their way out of tyranny over multiple generations, the decimation of the family, and concerted attacks on Christianity itself, one can use the Christian maxim of, "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them," from the Sermon on the Mount, and figure out pretty easily who the conspirator in chief is.  The Book of Mormon certainly warned us.

The challenge for righteous members of the Church, of course, is that one needs to be careful to figure out what is something that's nonsensical, untrue, and in fact idolatrous that we've been fed so often by society that we accept it.  Although this may sound boastful, I don't mean it to be.  I've taken two surrogate IQ tests in the past, and have come up with a score of 135 on one and 145 on the other.  I suspect that I'm closer to the bottom edge of that range, but still, both ranges are between +2 and +3 standard deviations over the American male mean (and American male mean is higher than most populations in the world; the global mean IQ is almost an entire standard deviation lower than that, and that lower portion is projected to grow, especially as the sub-Saharan African population balloons to become a much more sizable component of the population. (As an aside, I don't actually think that that's going to happen, because there are loads of signs that the current trend is about to change, but be that as it may; the current trend is still the current trend.)  In other words; I'm pretty smart, all things considered.  And yet, even I really struggled with figuring some of that out.  Sometimes, I accepted cognitive dissonance and just shelved those questions to the back of my mind where I saw inconsistencies between two ideas that obviously contradicted, or between what I was told reality was and what observed reality appeared to be.  But sometimes, I didn't even notice it at all until someone else pointed it out somewhere.

Most other people I talk to are behind the curve on this.  They aren't putting two and two together and figuring out that the answer we've been told is correct isn't actually correct.  And honestly, most of them aren't curious enough to even wonder about it either.

So the passive conspiracy to spread misinformation and lies and pass it off as received truth continues relatively unabated.  What will it take to make a change?  Well, Trump is a good start, because he's saying things on a routine basis that everyone knows are true down at some level in their psyche, but which they've repressed.  Getting it out in the open means that it can be openly discussed, and the framework of covering up the truth with lies gets observably weaker.

But most people won't accept reality until they run face-first into it at top speed.  Even then, as the bizarre case of the idolatrous, hateful Amanda Kijera shows, running face-first into the wall of reality isn't always enough to get you to drop toxic, hateful lies that they've built their identity around.

But the combination of 1) reality intruding on our delusions, and 2) mass zeitgeist turning away from the delusions, creating a social atmosphere in which the delusions are no longer the popular thing to parrot, will eventually restore some sanity.  Either that or our people will just disappear like the Imperial Romans, so our foolish ideas will be dead along with us.