How To Defeat Trump, Milo, and Other Terrible Men

I want to talk for a moment about laws.  Specifically, I want to talk about when it is acceptable to break laws.

The first set of laws I want to talk about is the Laws of Physics.  These are the laws by which the entire universe operates.  It is impossible to break these laws as long as the universe remains a closed system.  The only time these laws appear to be "broken" are during instances of miracles, and even then whether or not miracles actually "break" any laws is disputed.  Humans are unable to break these laws even if they wanted to.  We cannot jump 100 stories.  We cannot walk through solid walls without the aid of a door.  We cannot create matter from nothing.  Therefore, asking when it is acceptable to break these laws is incoherent and pointless.

The second set of laws is the Laws of the State.  These laws are established by government entities, drafted by legislators, enforced by executives.  Sometimes these roles are filled by the same person: a Monarch.  Sometimes these roles are filled by different people: a Republic.  These laws are therefore made by man are only binding so long as the government in question has the power and the authority to enforce their laws.  However, breaking man's law is sometimes acceptable, and even necessary.  Any law that would violate your conscience or cause you to commit moral evil must be disobeyed, regardless of the consequences.  It is not acceptable to disregard laws that you merely find frivolous; you are not above the law, after all.  So, when it comes to the Laws of the State, one's moral principles must always take priority over one's desire to obey the law.

But what about the Laws of Social Etiquette?  This is where things seem to get unclear, and this is where I really want the discussion to be focused.  Here is something that many people do not consider:

In the United States of America, it is not illegal to call someone a cunt.

Rude?  Certainly.  Uncalled-for?  Almost certainly!  Abusive?  Without a doubt.  Illegal?  Not even close, nor should it be, and here is why: every human being on this planet has the God-given right to Freedom of Speech.  Your government may not recognize this right, but it is a right you have nonetheless.  In the presence of God, you may speak freely.

That is where the Laws of Social Etiquette come in.  It is not a violation of the Laws of Physics to interrupt someone.  It is not a violation of the Laws of the State to curse someone out.  No, these practises violate etiquette.  They're not illegal, they're socially unacceptable, they're in poor taste, they're RUDE.

Physical and State Law can be enforced, but what about the Laws of Etiquette?  You can't go to jail for flipping someone the bird, or questioning the legitimacy of their birth, but society can still punish you if it sees fit.  Ostracism, criticism, being left out of social functions, and being called "disrespectful" are the penalties that society can inflict on rude people.  Depending on your rude behavior, you can lose respect, your job, or even friends.  There exists no entity that enforces these social customs.  They just happen, like a Newton's Cradle swinging to the beat of cause and effect.  Call a woman fat, and she will slap you.  Ruin a friend's party, and you won't be invited to the next one.  Throw a pen at your teacher, and you are excused from class.

Or, in Milo Yiannopoulos' case, people set a city on fire and your autobiography's publishing is canceled.  Why?  Because Milo made some very rude jokes, and had a very poor choice of words that made him sound like he endorsed pedophilia.  Pretty serious, right?  Wrong.  There is no evidence that Milo actually supports pedophilia (his track record in outing prominent pedophiles indicates he loathes the practice), and saying mean things does not warrant rioting or book-cancellation, right?

Well, according to the Laws of Social Etiquette, it seems that the publisher was right to cancel Milo's book.  It's their right, after all.  They don't have to publish anything they don't want to (and in that regard I support their decision wholeheartedly).  The rioting, on the other hand, violates the Laws of the State, and therefore was not warranted by Milo's crude sense of humor at all.

With all this in mind, let's go back to the original topic.  When is it acceptable to violate the Laws of Social Etiquette?  It is my firm believe that you are free to disregard Social Etiquette whenever you want.  My reasoning is pretty simple: you can't tell me what to do.  No belief is too extreme, no joke is too offensive, and no word is too terrible.  You have the right to think, believe, and say what ever you want, and anyone who says otherwise is a threat to your personal freedom and should be wiped off the face of the earth.

That sounds rather extreme, doesn't it?  Of course it does.  It was supposed to.  I'm not saying it because I believe we should kill people who tell us not to say rude things.  I'm saying it to make a point.  I have the right to say those things whether you find them offensive or not.

I have the right to say "Women who are raped deserved it."  You don't have to listen, you don't have to agree, and you don't even have to like what I'm saying.  You have just as much a right to criticize me for saying as I do to say it in the first place, and that's how it should be.  (And because some of you are too stupid to figure this out on your own, I don't actually think women deserve to be raped.  I was making a point again.)

What about jokes?  Surely there are some jokes that just take it too far, right?  Wrong.  There is no such thing as an "inappropriate" joke.  No topic is off limits when it comes to humor.  None.  Humor doesn't care what you think is rude.  In some cases, it COUNTS on your thinking it's rude or offensive.  Look at racist jokes, for example.  Racist jokes aren't funny because racism is cool or good.  Racist jokes are funny because racism is MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE.  The same is true for jokes about rape, or the Holocaust, or suicide.  Jokes about these topics wouldn't be funny if they weren't all terrible, tragic, and disgusting.

Milo's jokes about pedophilia (and thanking his childhood priest for molesting him) are no exception.

Here's the thing about Milo, and President Trump, and even myself and my closest friends: we all typify many facets of the Jacksonian tradition (named after President Andrew Jackson, one of the most controversial presidents in US history).  Jacksonians, generally, prefer to mind their own business and keep their noses out of trouble...unless you poke the bear.  The Jacksonian bear is slow to wake up, but if you poke it enough, it will turn and devour you in the most violent manner possible.

Andrew Jackson was a bear.  The Native Americans woke him up after attacking hundreds of cities and destroying thousands of American lives.  Remember the Trail of Tears? That was Jackson the Bear devouring the people foolish enough to poke him.

Donald Trump is a Jacksonian bear that awoke after being prodded by the economic and social decay of his country.  His endless executive orders and battle with the Supreme Court are Trump, the Jacksonian bear, responding to being prodded constantly by what he perceives to be an attack on the American way of life and the civil liberties of Americans.

Milo Yiannopoulos is a Jacksonian bear that awoke after seeing free speech destroyed in his home country, and traveled to America when he saw the same thing happening here.  His offensive jokes, openly gay lifestyle, and inflammatory speeches is how Milo the Bear (pun intended) will devour the Social Justice Movement.  Social Justice Warriors, feminists, and other similar groups have created a culture of outrage.  Milo's job, therefore, is to be outrageous.

I understand that a lot of you are quite offended by the monstrosities that these men are.  Milo is hurtful and divisive.  Trump rules with an iron fist and is ruthless against his enemies.  Jackson nearly committed genocide.  All of these men demonstrate a complete and utter disregard for the Laws of Social Etiquette.  They have all done things that "simply are not done", and they don't care.

Remember how I said that one of the penalties for violating Social Etiquette is criticism?  Jacksonians are immune to criticism.  Andrew Jackson, despite his harsh treatment of the Native Americans and his willingness to send troops to invade South Carolina and his crusade against the banks, he was elected twice, and his popularity soared even after he retired from public life.

Despite all the nasty and terrible things Trump has said, he ascended to the presidency against all odds.  He beat out his establishment opponent who spent more than twice what he did campaigning, and he did it under budget and ahead of schedule.  Not even voter fraud could stop him from steamrolling the Democratic Party and winning the election.

Regardless of every outrageous thing Milo has done, his popularity continues to climb.  After the UC Berkeley riot (which was a reaction to Milo being scheduled to speak there), the ratings for his book increased by over 12,000% overnight.  He then went on to appear on national television, and is scheduled to not only return to Berkeley, but also speak in Washington DC.  His platform is bigger than ever.

When you criticize a Jacksonian, their power only grows.  When you poke the bear, it’s your own fault if you get mauled.  Are these men monsters?  Maybe, but they are monsters that their critics created.  If the Native Americans hadn’t killed countless Americans, Jackson would never have sent them on a thousand-mile march.  If the United States government hadn’t failed to protect its citizens, Trump would never have been elected.  If free speech had never come under attack in America, Milo would have stayed in England.

Every time Social Etiquette is used to oppress, manipulate, and control people, you can expect a Jacksonian to wake up and disregard every rule, stir every pot, and offend everyone in sight.  The bear always kills the man who pokes it, but once the man is eaten, it does not go on a rampage.  It goes back to sleep.  Criticism doesn't deter the bear, either.  It only makes the bear stronger.  When Jackson fell under heavy criticism by the National Bank and it's congressional lobbyists, Jackson used it to fuel is reelection campaign, and he won it by a landslide.  When you criticize a hungry bear, he eats your critique, and then he eats you.

If you want the Laws of Social Etiquette to remain intact, if you want terrible men like Jackson and Trump and Milo to leave us alone, there is only one thing you can do:

DO NOT POKE THE BEAR, and if you do, DO NOT EMPOWER HIM WITH YOUR CRITICISM.

The gatekeepers of the Laws of Social Etiquette have poked the bear twice: once by accusing Donald Trump of sexual assault, and once by accusing Milo Yiannopoulos of defending pedophilia.  All because these two men have said mean things.  Because of their decision to poke the bear, the current cultural attitudes of politeness and rudeness will die, and they will die in a spectacular and bloody fashion.

The only way to defeat Trump, Milo, and Other Terrible Men is to make sure they never awaken from their slumber in the first place.

An Open Letter To Those Still Angry With Me

To all of those individuals who, for whatever reason, still carry anger in their hearts against me:

Why on earth would you allow me to have so much power over your life?  Why would you voluntarily submit yourself to that level of mental stress?  What do you have to gain by holding a grudge against me?

There are many of you, I know.  Most of you probably have justifiable reasons to be mad at me.  I look back on my life and I see a lot of things that I did that would have filled me with shame a few months ago, but now I realize that shame is pointless.  I'm responsible for my own behavior.  How you decide to respond to things (even the genuinely horrible things) I did 3 or 4 years ago actually has nothing to do with me.  That's a decision you make.

Honestly, it bothers me that you're still angry.  I wish it didn't, but it does.  I do regret many (probably most) of my actions that I made throughout my schooling.  I hurt a lot of people, even members of my own family, because of my own anger.  That's why I don't want you to be angry with me forever, because I understand anger more intimately than most people should.  I am a first-hand witness to the destructive and spiritually-rotting power of unrighteous anger.  I nearly killed myself twice because of it.

So I must ask again: Why?  Most of you won't even talk to me or even acknowledge my existence.  Some of you have made it your life's goal to make everyone you can despise me, which is your prerogative.  A few of you would even deny there's anything wrong.  I cannot imagine why, but that is how things are, and it confuses me.  It confuses me that I could have had such a profound negative impact on your life.  Granted, I said and did many hurtful things, but for you to carry such bitterness to this day?  Surely my transgressions were not that serious!  If they truly are, then I hope one day you would allow me to make amends.

What bothers me the most is that most of you will not allow me to make amends, or even understand what it was I did wrong.  I can guess about some of you, and for just a few of you, I actually know what I did, but for the most part I am clueless, and I'd like to know.  If you have been wronged, I want to make things right.  Why will you not let me?

On the other hand, some of you have no business being angry with me.  Some of you genuinely have terrible excuses for the way you feel about me.  To those of you, I urge you: get over it.  Your anger is your master.  Be free of it.  You need not be bound by the poison of bitterness any more, so throw off your shackles and walk with a peaceful mind.  I owe you no apology, no retribution, and no explanation.  In fact, it is a few of you who owe me an apology.  You will likely never offer me one, but I nevertheless forgive you.  I mean that with the utmost sincerity.

I write this partly for myself, to get the weight off my heart, but also because I hope I can repair my relationship with some of you.  A few of you will refuse, no doubt.  I have accepted that, but I am cautiously optimistic.  If we could be friends again, I would be overjoyed.  If not, so be it.  I will shake the dust off my feet and move on.

Whatever you decide, I hope you can at the very least reach out to me to answer my questions.  They were not rhetorical; I really want them answered.  I wish you all the best, and may the peace of Christ rule in your hearts.

On Christianity and the LGBT Movement, & Why They Are Enemies

I am writing this one day after the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruling that same-sex marriage must be made legal across all 50 States effective immediately.  Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy was quoted saying, "No longer may this liberty be denied to them."  Upon hearing about the SCOTUS ruling, I checked Facebook, and was immediately bombarded with pictures of rainbow banners, and tie-dyed profile pictures, and dozens of pages sporting the hashtag #MarriageEquality.  Many of my friends were celebrating what they saw as a victory for the LGBT community, posting celebratory statuses, photos, and another hashtag: #LoveWins.

Unfortunately for many of my friends, they don't understand that love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth.  Now, before you break out the pitchforks and torches to have me lynched for speaking such hateful, bigoted, homophobic things, let me explain.

I have several friends who are openly homosexual.  As many of you can imagine, most of them were thrilled by the SCOTUS ruling.  One of them, however, was very displeased.  I asked him why, and what he said shocked me.  He told me, "I'd be happy if I knew there wouldn't be a wave of degeneracy coming.  I really wish [same-sex marriage] would have remained outlawed."

What is he talking about?  Degeneracy?  Wanting same-sex marriage to remain illegal?  How could he—an openly gay man of legal marrying age—possibly think such thoughts?  This affects him far more than it does me, a straight man, doesn't it?  Does he have internalized homophobia?  Is he just another bigot, one who just happens to be gay?

I don't think so.  I think he, as do the majority of Christians, understands the true motives of the leaders of the LGBT movement.  It is a dark, sinister agenda: one so evil and malignant, that I can say with confidence that no Christian on earth can possibly support same-sex marriage in good conscience.  I say again: Christianity and the LGBT Community are necessarily enemies, because the leaders of the LGBT movement are working alongside Satan to destroy two fundamental institutions established by God: traditional marriage, and the traditional family.

Hold the phone!  "Working alongside Satan"?  Surely, I'm as cooky as the heretics from Westboro Baptist Church!  To put it plainly, I'll say this: if you are a Christian and you deny that Satan is actively seeking to steal, kill, and destroy, then don't be surprised when you come under spiritual attack and are not in the least bit prepared for it.  I am not saying I hope you come under demonic attack (in fact, I pray in the name of Jesus that you will not), but I am saying that if you are a Christian, then you are involved in a spiritual war: no exceptions.

Now, back to the matter at hand.  There is a woman named Masha Gessen, a lesbian activist and a staunch supporter of same-sex marriage—or is she?

Despite her being a very loud voice claiming to be in support of the LGBT movement, some of the things she has said seem to contradict the alleged goals of the movement, namely marriage rights.  One quote in particular deserves its own line for emphasis:

"Gay marriage is a lie." —Masha Gessen[1]

I find it very unnerving that a prominent lesbian activist would seek to destroy the very institution that so many same-sex marriage advocates are fighting for.  She didn't merely say this in one isolated sound-byte, either.  During a radio interview, she had this to say:

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.  

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago. 

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”[2]

Now, you may be thinking, "She is just one activist.  She does not speak for all members of the LGBT movement."  If that is indeed the case, then where are the activists condemning Gessen for what she said?  Why has no other prominent member of the movement made any attempt to contradict what she said?

And why do statistics seem support what Gessen is talking about?

Answer me this: compared to heterosexuals, how many homosexuals actually get married?  The truth is that heterosexuals are more likely to marry than homosexuals regardless of gender.  There are homosexuals and transgenders who do have a desire to marry, to be sure, but that is by no means a unanimous desire among the movement.[3]  That's alright, though, because they're merely "fighting for the right" to marry someone of the same sex.

Gessen isn't the only pro-gay activist who isn't interested in fighting for marriage either.  Big names among the LGBT community like Zach Stafford and Dan Savage are in the same boat.  Stafford was even quoted saying, “monogamy may be too much to ask of anyone...everyone will have moments of lust or desire.”[4]

We have not one, but several LGBT leaders, openly admitting that it's not about fighting for rights.  It's about destroying the traditional family.  It's about redefining marriage and ultimately abolishing it.  It's about tolerating and even accepting the pursuit of unbridled lust.

How much more evidence must I provide before the church wakes up and realizes just how anti-God this movement is?  If you are a Christian, and you continue to deny that the Kingdom of Darkness is using the LGBT community to attack Christendom at this point, you are a fool.  To my non-Christian readers, I have to ask: why would you support a movement that has proven to be manipulative and hypocritical?

This is a movement that sees children as commodities for people who want to experiment with "new family combinations", which is really just an ambiguous way of saying kids don't have the right to both a mom and a dad.  This is a movement which would have ordained ministers forced to marry same-sex couples or else be imprisoned.  Is this really a fight for rights, or an outright attack on Christianity?  All the evidence very clearly points to the latter.

My brothers and sisters in Christ, it is time we dressed for battle.  Our enemy is not homosexuals (for we are commanded to love them), but Satan, the father of lies.  Satan has deceived these people using LGBT leaders as his puppets (albeit wholly accountable puppets), and it is our duty to expose the lies of the enemy and be the light.  Our weapon is the truth of the Holy Bible, and the love of our Savior.

We will fight the false love of the LGBT movement with the true Love of Christ.  #LoveWins is my favorite trending hashtag right now, because of how ironic it is.  Love does win, every single time, but love doesn't look like a same-sex wedding.  Love looks like Jesus shedding His blood on the cross for the sins of the world and conquering both death and hell.

Now, church family, go out and do battle, and may the grace of God be with you always.