—“Work on yourself, King”. The only thing worse than “Christian self-help” is secular self-help. The so-called “manosphere” and the alpha-dog talk tells you to make yourself better, because in that improvement you will find meaning. Experience reveals this to be false. Even now, as you write, and you read, you cannot explain where the joy comes from, if it comes at all. To what end, or for who, are you making yourself better? For people? Why? Does anyone notice? Or care? If so, that is not why you’re doing anything. If not, what’s it matters??^[1][2]

Then who are you improving yourself for? For Christ? He is making you better.

Perhaps it is best to take a passive view of “improvement”. You have found a circle that is trying to guide you, assuming you let them in, and follow a God whose primary objective is to make you more like Christ. You are your own worst enemy when you are the only one in your head.

The conversation around the Iowa shooter has become “well, he was bullied and that’s why he snapped.”

I studied this kind of stuff (incidents, the vulnerability of certain spaces, the fact that violence is merely physics, etc) for about 13 years before getting bored with the broader discussion, the similarity of the incidents and politics generally as it all started to make me rather cold. That said, looking at this and the Covenant shooter, I don’t recall seeing this kind of relative sympathy for mass killers. I get the sense, however that it’s because the shooters aren’t plausibly Republican anymore. Not like they all were OR that it plays a role into most of them. They’re almost to a man, and it is almost always men, bullied, lonely, fatherless, on boatloads of antidepressants and/or narcissistic.

It’s really a fascinating thing to watch the broader conversation in the media and on the socials shift drastically and still, one assumes deliberately, miss the point. As if there’s a mutual agreement to not contend with the problem.

— The first, and most important point to note in any political discussion is that opinions are not people, nor should they define the person. If you are the kind of person to call someone who disagrees with your position racist or transphobic or whatever pejorative fits the occasion, two of three things are true. The first, is that you’ve never been challenged on your beliefs and/or your favorite pejorative. The second is that if you have been challenged on it, then the accusation was enough to either get your opponent to shut up, or realize you were beyond reason. The third is that you have nothing substantial undergirding your position, so a rather effective personal attack is the only bullet in your arsenal, so it had better work, or you will be reduced to flailing and all kinds of cruelty.

—When you contemplate death and suicide, remember what you’ve said to a beloved family: “No time soon”. This. Is. A. Promise.

—That you can contemplate suicide simply as a concept is a good sign that you are not suicidal. (this is more for the reader that isn’t me. I am fine. A lot has changed for the better and I am not afraid of telling people when something is wrong)

All of this is written in the third person. I am talking to myself. I take this style from Aurelius’ “Meditations” for three reasons (very Presbyterian of me to keep it to three main points). One because that was the inspiration, two because I put this in practice as a thought exercise before putting it to paper and three, because the endless use of “I” started to feel self-centered and it is more important that the ideas be the focus of this project.

I hate the expression “deep down”. Generally speaking, it sounds like the place where some asshat can project what they want for your life onto your subconscious. It’s acceptable if they’re well-meaning, but it feels like something that will stop a conversation dead, whether its political in nature, or if a friend is trying to tell you to do something that “you know deep down” is the right decision. 

But, as I am learning, there is a defense mechanism there, in that some behaviors are so irrational, that you must wonder if they know it to be such when they’re not behaving this way. My best example for this is usually the terminally online (or perpetually marching, when it’s warm out) political activist. Their language never changes; if it doesn’t fit in a tweet (or on a sign, when it’s warm out), they don’t say it. it’s where we get the NPC meme from. Further, they begin from a position of fiery, self-righteous anger and only seem capable of getting angrier, but incapable of thinking with depth and complexity. A writer for Vox managed to distill this kind of activist in a long screed against how online discourse has become extremely tiresome, with emotion that stands vastly out of proportion with its actual impact on the world. And so, after 2 election cycles that were vitriolic, divisive, full of sound and fury and changed nothing, one has to wonder if the activist is getting tired and simply doesn’t know how to stop, or if they’re having fun being horrible as the Lockdown Cult did in 2020 and most of 2021?

In other words, can they be made to stop being cruel, or is that just who they are now?

The political lessons of 2021 are a series of warnings that stem from the problems of 2020. This is entirely due to the ideology of Team Lockdown dominating the zeitgeist. Because that ideology can be seen, and I don’t mean this lightly, by every decent person as fundamentally evil, the lessons from life in its grasp are as follows

Continue reading Political Reflections: Lessons of Team Lockdown →

A bunch of random, sedimentary (except point 3) thoughts have come across my head in the last several days and I thought they’d either be interesting or show you that, while to other people’s random may be something trivial or something else about bacon or toast (nothing wrong with that, it’s probably preferable to have your random be more focused on levity), my random, incomplete thoughts look like this.

I don’t really care how well this reads, I just need to get back into writing and get my head on straight. I’ve felt “not myself” for the last few months and this feels like part of the way back. I’m sticking with what’s easier; political stuff first, then moving into a bit of religion and not even trying to write happy after that. I’ve been mentally stuck for the past several months.

Continue reading Wandering Mind 3 →

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, let me take the speck out of your eye” when all the time, there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” – Matthew 7:3-5

I find myself in a position that is generally antithetical to my being as a politico; I am feeling a calmness and a bit of disappointed resignation to where we are headed as a country. I am not happy about what’s coming, but I don’t see an alternative. We have a toxic, angry, partisan bubble completely devoid of complex thought or good faith conversation and nothing good can come from that. We’re seeing that cycle play itself out particularly in the field of racial injustice. Black Lives Matter, the organization, seems to be so-named as a semantic sleight of hand. Those who are against the organization can be said to be against Black people generally. In the same way, those against “the Affordable Care Act” were against “Affordable Care” or the “Patriot Act” dissenters were unpatriotic and so forth. The tactic of usurping the moral high-ground through the use of language is a simple, dirty trick. 

Continue reading “Evil Is Universal” →