Black Lives Matter – One Thousand And One Parsecs

What’s really behind the “Mormon Church”‘s stance on the Respect for Marriage Act?

Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court overthrew Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs v. Jackson decision. This was a major legal and cultural earthquake. A big question that arose from this decision was how will this affect Obergefell v. Hodges, which codified same-sex marriage as legal back in 2015? Most of the conservative justices stated that Dobbs does not affect Obergefell, but Justice Thomas stated that he was willing to revisit that case.

In response, congress crafted the Respect for Marriage Act, which would require the federal government to redefine “marriage” in a way that would recognize same-sex marriage equally with traditional marriage. What does this mean for those who believe that marriage should be limited to a union between a man and a woman? As I understand it, those who espouse this view could be prosecuted for discrimination if this bill passes. There are some protections for religious institutions, but many conservatives believe that these are too weak, and that this law would put us on the slippery slope to churches losing their tax exempt status and possibly even being forced to perform same-sex marriages.

To everyone’s surprise, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints came out with an official statement in support of this legislation, or specifically, this “way forward.” There’s been a lot of noise in the press about this, most of which is either misinformed or outright misinformation, so here is the full statement:

The doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints related to marriage between a man and a woman is well known and will remain unchanged.

We are grateful for the continuing efforts of those who work to ensure the Respect for Marriage Act includes appropriate religious freedom protections while respecting the law and preserving the rights of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.

We believe this approach is the way forward. As we work together to preserve the principles and practices of religious freedom together with the rights of LGBTQ individuals, much can be accomplished to heal relationships and foster greater understanding.

Some outlets, like the Washington Post (where democracy dies in darkness), are reporting that this statement represents a doctrinal shift for the church, and an embrace of same-sex marriage. However, a careful reading should demonstrate that this is fake news calculated to create a false narrative and manufacture consent for that false narrative. Sadly, this is typical of MSM rags like the Washington Post.

Other commentators argue that the restored church has “surrendered to the spirit of the age” and is siding with Utah Senator Mitt Romney, who is ready to sign the Respect for Marriage Act as it stands, instead of Utah Senator Mike Lee, who is pushing for an amendment to the bill that would strengthen the protections for religious freedom.

Frankly, I don’t see that. The church’s statement does not endorse any specific legislation, but “this [new] approach,” and expresses support for “the continuing efforts of those who work to ensure the Respect for Marriage Act includes appropriate religious freedom protections.” (emphasis added) Yes, the statement came out before the bill passed the house and Mike Lee put forward his amendments, but I don’t see anything to indicate that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is siding with Romney over Lee.

But has the restored church gone over to the spirit of the age? At best, it appears that the church is making a strategic retreat in the culture wars. It’s certainly a far cry from the Proposition 8 debate in the 00s, in which Californians ultimately voted to ban same-sex marriage. What a different world that was! With this most recent statement, it appears that the church has switched from defending the traditional definition of marriage to pushing instead for protections on religious freedom.

How are we supposed to square this with paragraph 9 of the Family Proclamation? That was the question that Greg Matsen asked on the most recent episode of the Cwic Media podcast. For reference, here is paragraph 9 in its entirety:

“We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”

When you read the rest of the Family Proclamation, which is a line-by-line, point-by-point refutation of many of the radical gender theories currently taking over our society (which is remarkable, since the proclamation was issued in the 90s, long before any of these radical ideologies had hit the cultural mainstream), it certainly seems to be at odds with the church’s recent statement, which supports “preserving the rights of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters” and “the rights of LGBTQ individuals.”

But what if those two documents aren’t at odds at all? What if the best way to “preserve and maintain” traditional marriage in our current cultural climate is also to preserve LGBTQ rights? In other words, what if the church isn’t capitulating or retreating from the marriage issue, but making a strategic retreat in anticipation of a new front opening up in the culture wars—a battle which will make strange bedfellows of same-sex marriage proponents and the defenders of traditional marriage?

In an ideal world, the church would want to foster a society in which the laws of the land are in harmony with the laws of the restored gospel—in other words, a society that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Obviously, we don’t live in that society (at least, not here in the United States). So what are our options instead?

On the one hand, we can accept that same-sex marriage is now the law of the land, and seek to promote laws that strengthen both the traditional family and the families of same-sex couples together. On the other hand, we can push for the libertarian approach of “getting the government out of the marriage business altogether,” removing the tax benefits and legal protections of marriage and making the state totally agnostic to marriage and families.

Which of those two paths is more likely to “maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society”? Which of those paths is more likely to lead to a society where marriage is considered to be obsolete and unnecessary?

Which brings us to the next major front in the culture wars, which I believe is going to be between those who view marriage and family as a social goods, and those who view the family as a “system of oppression” and want to deconstruct and abolish it altogether. We got a sneak peak of this in 2020, when the Black Lives Matter movement posted the following statement on their website:

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

At the time, this statement created some controversy, and the organization ultimately took it down. If you search online for information about it, you get a bunch of articles “debunking” that BLM ever advocated destroying the traditional family. But the radical left’s modus operandi is first to hide and deny what they’re doing, then to accuse you of doing what they’re actually doing, then to ridicule you for pointing out what they’re doing, and finally to attack you for opposing it at all. We’re already well into the first phase of that process.

Black Lives Matter isn’t the only faction in the radical left that would love to destroy or abolish the nuclear family. Those who are pushing to normalize pedophilia would love to see such a cultural shift too. Same with those who are pushing the Cloward-Piven strategy of making us all more dependent on the state. Same with the Malthusian climate change alarmists who are pushing the depopulation agenda.

If this is the next big front in the culture wars, then conservatives might play right into the hand of the enemy by continuing to push a losing cultural battle for the traditional definition of marriage. After all, what better way to “get the government out of the marriage business” than to point out that we can’t even agree on the definition of marriage in the first place? And once the state becomes agnostic to marriage, we’re well on the slippery slope to a society that views the family itself as obsolete and unnecessary.

I would love to live in a society that recognizes the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that vigorously promotes measures to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society. Unfortunately, at this point it’s going to take a generational struggle to get us to that society—perhaps even a multi-generational struggle—and we’re not going to win that struggle by fighting the last generation’s war.

So has the restored church capitulated on the issue of traditional marriage? Has it surrendered to the spirit of the age? Hardly. If anything, I think the brethren are just as far-sighted and inspired as they were when they gave us the Family Proclamation. Be prepared to make some very strange bedfellows in the coming years.

Marxism is the new Black

The 21st century disciples of Karl Marx have a problem: all of Marx’s theories have been debunked, and all of his predictions have failed.

The workers of the world never rose up.

Capitalism never gave way to communism.

The class wars ended because extreme poverty ceased to be a global issue.

The labor theory of value was slain by the free market.

Materialism, not religion, proved to be the opiate of the masses.

So what’s a Marxist gotta do?

In the 00s and 10s, the Marxists made a subtle but insidious change to their ideology. They created a bunch of victim groups, and invented a thing called “intersectionality” to determine who was the greatest victim based on how many victim groups they could claim. Anyone who ranked too low on the victimhood scale was deemed “priviledged” and an “oppressor.” In this way, the Marxists created a new opressor class, and transposed their whole ideology onto the framework of identity politics.

Their greatest success came on the issue of race. The Democratic Party—the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and the Ku Klux Klan—had, through government handouts and welfare programs, created a dependent black underclass. In 100 years, these policies had done what 250 years of slavery could not: destroy the black family. With their families thus shattered, their communities fell apart, and the members of this black underclass found themselves trapped in a multi-generational cycle of poverty and violence.

Marxist ideology depends on envy and resentment in order to survive. That’s why it found such fertile ground in this dependent black underclass. But there was a problem: race relations in the United States were getting better, racism was on the decline, and through hard work and self-reliance (both of which are anathema to Marxism) an increasing number of black Americans were escaping the Democrat plantations. In fact, things had gotten so good that the United States had just elected their first black president.

So the Marxists spun a new narrative, calculated to foster as much envy and resentment as possible. They told the black underclass that all of their problems are due to racism, that all white people are racist against them, and that no matter what they do, they will never be able to get ahead—because racism. They sowed fear and dischord between blacks and the police, proclaiming falsely that the police were killing blacks in disproportionately large numbers. And when blacks who had climbed out of the underclass rose up to challenge this new narrative, the Marxists derided them as “Uncle Toms” or “not black enough.”

At the same time, the Marxists told white Americans that they were all guilty of “privilege” and “systemic racism.” They turned white supremacy into a boogeyman that was under every bed. They used hate speech to silence free speech, and replaced real justice with social justice. They forced us to hire them as diversity directors, and used Maoist struggle sessions to force us to confess our “white fragility.” Those who dared to challenge the intersectional narrative were fired from their jobs, removed from the internet and social media, and otherwise driven into the wilderness. The ensuing fear of cancel culture kept everyone else in line.

Which brings us to the Coronapocalypse.

Marxists work on a four-step playbook to subvert the societies that they want to control. The first step is demoralization, and it takes about a generation. The second step is destabilization, and it takes about 10-15 years. However, the third and fourth steps—crisis and normalization—happen very quickly.

If there’s one good thing about this global pandemic, it’s that the ideological masks are coming off even as the n95 and face masks are coming on. Whether or not the virus itself was engineered, the Marxists certainly aren’t letting this crisis go to waste. They see an opportunity to get everything they want, and they are doing all they can to seize it, setting our cities on fire and leaving hundreds of dead black Americans in their wake.

At this point, I can only see one way to defeat the Marxists, and that is for black America to rise up and reject this new narrative. It has to be the blacks, because it is their story that has been hijacked by the toxic Marxist ideology, and they need to take it back. No one else can do it for them. In the 20th century, the rallying cry was “we shall overcome;” in the 21st century, it needs to be “we already overcame.” Otherwise, I think we may see the fall of the republic and the end of the American experiment, which is exactly what the Marxists want.

It would make me profoundly sad if the American story turned out to be a tragedy, but such could very well be the case. If the American Revolution was the beginning, then the seeds for America’s collapse were sown in the patriots’ failure to reject slavery. The first civil war was the end of the beginning, Woodrow Wilson was the beginning of the end, and if black America fails to stand up for the republic, the tragedy will come full circle and the Marxists will win.

But what makes this so insidious is that the new Marxism is far more racist than anything else this country has ever seen. Under segregation and Jim Crow, blacks still had a place in society. They were treated as second class citizens, but they still had a place. Even under slavery, blacks were generally praised for being loyal and hard-working. But within the intersectional narrative, there is no place for “whiteness.” If “people of color” are the new proletariat, then whites are the new capitalists and need to be purged for the crime of being white.

That is why, in true Orwellian fashion, they had to change the dictionary definition of “racism.” The most racist people in American history are now in the streets chanting “black lives matter!” and attacking—sometimes even killing—those who dare to say that all lives matter. And when you try to point out that all black lives matter, they reject that as well, because at the end of the day, it isn’t about black lives at all. It’s about ideology.

War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is strength.

Marxism is the new black.

What have we learned from the BLM riots?

The driving forces of Antifa, the BLM movement itself, and most of the violence on the ground are far-left Marxists who seek to bring a Bolshevik-style revolution to the United States. Having failed to start a class war in the most prosperous country in the world, they are now substituting race for class in their Marxist ideological framework and are seeking to divide the country along racial lines.
A majority of Americans are being exploited as useful idiots by these Marxist revolutionaries. We can see this from the popularity of the BLM movement and the fact that most of the public discourse revolves around racism, both real and perceived. These riots are not actually about racism; rather, they are exploiting the issue of racism to achieve their radical revolutionary ends.
The Democratic Party establishment still believes that they can control the far-left radicals within their party, and use them to achieve their political ends. They see political violence as a dial to be turned up and down, rather than a switch to be turned on and off.
The driving imperative of the Democratic Party establishment is the removal of President Trump, through any and all possible means. It is not an accident that all of the violence is happening in Democrat-controlled areas. They have demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice the lives and property of the people they represent to achieve their political ends, and we must assume that they would destroy the United States itself rather than allow Trump to remain in power.
The mainstream legacy news media, including CNN, MSBNC, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and NPR are nothing less than the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party establishment. We must assume that they are engaged in a massive psychological operation against the American people, and pay just as much attention to the news they refuse to cover as the way they cover the news.
The big tech companies of Silicon Valley have aligned themselves with the radical left wing of the Democratic Party, and are actively pushing the agenda of the Marxist revolutionaries. We must assume that no digital space controlled by big tech is safe for those who oppose this Marxist agenda, especially on social media.
At this point, the primary target of the Marxist revolutionaries is our history. The movement to tear down statues has nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with erasing our American history and heritage. We must assume that this will be followed up aggressively in the digital space by the Silicon Valley tech companies, as we are already witnessing the digital equivalent of book burning.
If we assume that the Marxist revolutionaries are operating according to the four-step subversion process described by Yuri Bezmenov, we have completed the demoralization and destabilization phases and have entered the crisis phase. This means that the violence will likely get worse between now and the November elections.
At this point, the primary battlegrounds in this uprising are the Democrat-controlled parts of the country. If you live in a blue state or city, now is the time for you to implement your bug-out plan.
As the revolution spreads across the country, violence will spread into purple and red areas as well. If you live in a red state or city, you should be prepared for a lengthy bug-in scenario.
The Millenial generation is lost. Once the demoralization and destabilization phases of subversion are complete, the only way to reverse it is to raise up the next generation outside of the subversive influence. Marxist ideology has infected every aspect of American society, and will take several decades to remove.
For this reason, it is absolutely imperative to preserve our history with physical documents and artifacts that cannot be digitally erased. If we lose our history, we lose our country.
Violence and chaos only plays into the Marxists’ hands. The only way to defeat them is through non-violence. We must push back against all of the forces seeking to divide us by uniting as Americans, regardless of color or race.
E Pluribus Unum. United we stand, divided we fall.

Do Black Lives Actually Matter?

Ever since the brutal death of George Floyd at the hands of the police, the Black Lives Matter movement has seen a dramatic resurgence, both on social media and on the American street. The movement’s titular message declares that America needs to place more value on the lives of its black citizens and no longer treat them as cheap or expendable.

On its face, the message is a good one. And the rejoinder “yes, but all lives matter” is not the correct response, because it implies that the challenges black Americans face are no different than the challenges that all Americans face. That is not true. Many of our nation’s black communities are in a state of crisis, with rampant crime, chronic poverty, and other systemic problems.

Do I believe that black lives matter? Yes, I certainly do. I also understand the need to emphasize that black lives matter, and applaud it.

But do black lives actually matter to the movement itself?

What about black police and law enforcement officers? They put their lives on the line every day to serve and protect their communities. Do their lives matter too?

What about black victims of black crime? In the last two weeks since the protests and riots began, the murder rate in cities like Chicago has skyrocketed. Because of the Ferguson Effect, more blacks are being murdered, not less. Do their lives matter too?

What about the tens of thousands of black lives that are aborted every year? The abortion rate among blacks is disproportionately high. In Manhattan, more black babies are aborted than born. Do those black lives matter?

Don’t get me wrong. I believe that the majority of supporters of Black Lives Matter genuinely have the best interests of black Americans at heart. But when you look at what the movement actually stands for, there are some glaring inconsistencies. For example, Black Lives Matter officially endorses the disruption of the traditional nuclear family. Yet according to black activists like Candace Owens and Larry Elder, the root cause of many of the problems in the black community is black fatherlessness:

If black fatherlessness is the root cause of so many of the problems in the black community, why does Black Lives Matter want to destroy the family?

If black-on-black crime is far too high, why does Black Lives Matter want to abolish the police?

If black babies are aborted at a disproportionately high rate, why is Black Lives Matter funneling donations to the party that advocates for abortion on demand up to (and even after) the point of birth?

Because black lives don’t actually matter to these people.

At best, Black Lives Matter is exploiting the issue of race to promote a far-left political agenda. At worst, it is a revolutionary Marxist front-group. Is it any wonder that they want to abolish the police? Why else would the movement be spreading internationally?

The message that black lives matter is a good one, and a lot of well-meaning people support it. Unfortunately, Black Lives Matter doesn’t believe their own message. They are manipulating us like useful idiots to achieve, through violence, their radical political ends.

And if they succeed, black Americans will be harmed the most.

Speaking Out Again

Hello there.

It’s been a very long time since I posted on this blog. I wonder if anyone is still following it. About a year ago, I pivoted from the blog to my newsletter, and while that’s going well, this blog has been mostly neglected.

And it would have continued that way, if not for recent events. I’m talking, of course, about the ~~peaceful protests~~ ~~race riots~~ ~~Marxist insurrection~~ ~~domestic color revolution~~ whatever the hell is happening in the United States right now. But the thing that really pushed me to action was Kris Rusch’s latest business post: Speaking Out.

Until that post, Kris was one of the people I admired most in the publishing industry. I’ve followed her business blog since 2010, and she was one of the most influential people in convincing me to take the plunge and self-publish. It’s been one of the best decisions of my life, not just from a career perspective, but from a personal perspective as well.

In her latest post, however, I feel that Kris went over the cliff with the rest of our fractured country. Here are the parts that got to me:

The letter [Jeff Bezos] posted on his Instagram page from some racist named “Dave” (last name redacted) told Bezos he would lose customers if he continued supporting Black Lives Matter. The letter is breathtaking in its racism…
…the people who bother me the most are the folks who, for economic or political reasons, can ignore the racism and hatred that spews daily from the White House…
I draw the line at hatred, racism, and bigotry in all its forms. I can’t respect a bigot. I don’t want to be near a racist…
If this post makes you feel the urge to write me a screed or tell me that I should tolerate the bigots for the sake of unity, please do me a favor and just leave.

What is a “racist”? What is a “bigot”? To the left-wing ideologues who control the cultural narrative right now, it’s anyone who dares to oppose their radical agenda. The mayor of Minneapolis is “racist” because he won’t abolish the police, in the midst of the most violent and destructive riots that city has ever seen. White people who refuse to literally kneel before people of color and denounce their white privilege in communist-style struggle sessions are now considered “bigots.” Anyone who dares to utter any sort of criticism or counter-argument to the narrative of Black Lives Matter is fired, canceled, humiliated, doxxed, and destroyed.

Does Kris not see this? When you are so ideologically possessed that a “bigot” is anyone who refuses to (literally) kowtow to your ideology, a tolerant and diverse society becomes impossible? When speech is violence and violence is speech, violence will be used to silence speech. Those who are kind to the cruel inevitably become cruel to the kind.

I tried to post a comment on her blog, explaining that some of these “bigots” who have unfollowed her or withdrawn their Patreon support aren’t doing it because they want to “silence” her, but because they feel she doesn’t recognize that they have legitimate reasons for disagreeing with her, and aren’t the bigots she thinks they are. Yes, Kris, it’s important to speak out, but it’s also important to listen.

What happened next was all too predictable. On a blog post about the importance of speaking up, Kris silenced me. The only comments that she has allowed are the ones that fawn over her and tell her she’s right. Typical.

I can endure a lot of bullshit, but two things I absolutely cannot abide: gaslighting and hypocrisy. So ultimately, it was this episode with Kris, a person I used to admire and respect, that spurred me into action.

This blog is going to become a lot more active in the coming weeks and months. The newsletter will still be my main vehicle for reaching out to readers and cultivating fans, but the blog will be a place to share my more controversial thoughts and opinions. That said, I intend to be very deliberate and conscientious about what I post here, and avoid shitposting, spewing outrage, or going off on political rants.

My working assumption is that the chaos engulfing our country will continue to escalate through the 20’s, and that things will get much, much worse before they get better. We may see an American holocaust. We may see American gulags. We are already experiencing the digital ghettoization of libertarian and conservative voices—or, more accurately, voices that refuse to conform to the cultural and ideological narrative of the progressive left.

That said, I am still optimistic about the future. I believe that after the chaos and violence plays itself out, we will return to the core values that make us Americans. The Republic will survive. Liberty will prevail. Enough of us will refuse to go over the cliff with everyone else that we will, when all of this is over, restore our country.

When that happens, the only people with any moral authority will be the ones who refused to bend the knee—the ones who had the courage to speak out at the risk of losing their careers, their livelihoods, and in some cases even their lives. People like Jordan Peterson, Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, Carl “Sargon of Akkad” Benjamin, and others who stand in the face of cancel culture to call out the lies—the gaslighting and hypocrisy—and serve the truth.

This is my mission statement for my writing career:

To serve the truth and empower my readers to be better people for reading my books.

I cannot remain silent and accomplish this mission. The forces that push us to bend the knee are the ones that compel us to speak out, because we must speak out if we refuse to go over the cliff with the rest of humanity.

I recognize that this is essentially the same argument that Kris was making. And on this point, I think she’s right. Where she goes off is in calling anyone a bigot who falls outside of her narrow echo chamber. I despise echo chambers and don’t intend to fall into any of them.

So I’m going to set some rules.

First, I’m going to assume that anyone who engages with this content is a reasonable person who has come in good faith, no matter their views. No matter how vociferously you disagree with me, I will always strive to see the best in you, and to be generous with the benefit of the doubt.

Second, I’m going to assume that most of my fans and readers are going to disagree, on some level, with the more controversial things that I post here. Some of them will agree and voice support, but others will roll their eyes and click away. I’m not going to fall into the trap of thinking that all good people see the world the way that I do, because that way lies madness.

Third, and most importantly, I’m going to bet that if I keep the first two assumptions on the forefront of my mind with everything that I post here, my readers and fans will stay with me even when I share an opinion with which they vociferously disagree. In today’s hyper-partisan atmosphere, that’s a very dangerous assumption to make, but I don’t think my readers are the kind of people who would jump off the cliff with the rest of humanity.

I think there’s still a majority in this country who see the insanity for what it is, but don’t know what to do about it. That’s the person I’m writing this blog for: the one who’s wondering if they’re the only sane one in a world gone mad. Until just a couple of years ago, that was who I was. But now, I believe that even with all the craziness right now, there are a lot more people like us than we realize.

So yeah, the blog is back, and it’s going to get spicy. I may lose a few readers because of it, though hopefully not too many as I keep to the three rules that I listed above.

And if you have any thoughts or reactions, I’m interested to hear from you! Like I said at the start of this post, I have no idea if anyone still follows this blog, but I guess we’ll find out soon enough. The newsletter will remain my main focus, but I’ll post to this blog as often as the spirit moves me, which may be sporadic but won’t be never. And I’ll try to keep it as timely and interesting as I can.