Some time ago, I put in a profile somewhere that “diversity of thought is what matters.” It’s probably still out there. If I find it, I’ll be changing it.

The reason? Well, I don’t think I actually believe in “diversity of thought.”

I started thinking about this after reading a comment on The post-Christian dilemma from Vox Day.

Now, yes: if there’s a problem I’m facing, getting somebody else’s perspective is often useful. At times, it’s even essential. Farming an idea to a handful of people can sometimes be fruitful.

But there is a reason that “too many cooks spoil the broth” is an expression.

Also, it’s rarely the case that the solution is something entirely novel. Usually, it’s something I overlooked, if not some wisdom I conveniently forgot.

Based on how I actually live my life, and how it appears others live theirs, nobody actually believes in “diversity of thought.”

The reason is this: very little is actually new. When something new does emerge, failure is the rule.

We rely on alignment and conformity of thought to go about our daily lives.

Furthermore, the expression, “diversity of thought,” is never an individual endeavor. You could call that “free thinking,” though that has its drawbacks (for one, not everybody can do it successfully or responsibly). No, “diversity of thought” is all about group and committee.

The other thing about “diversity of thought” that concerns me is just thinking about rhetoric. I’m no expert in the area, but rhetoric is about convincing people through emotional appeal.

SJWs love to use “anti-diversity” as a rhetorical attack against whites, particularly white males. They’re calling you “racist” or “sexist” without using those words.

Putting “diversity of thought” out there as a shield or, God help you, a retort against such an attack has got to be a rhetorical fail. Why?

The clearest test is if SJWs are offended by it. “They have to go back,” is very effective. Perhaps I’ve just missed it, but do SJWs even care about “diversity of thought”?

You can also just look at the expression itself. “Diversity of thought” is complex and wordy in a way that “They have to go back” is not. There’s an appeal to dialectic in the former that is going to go right over most people’s heads.

Another problem is that rhetoric need not be entirely true, but it must contain a kernel of truth at its heart. “They have to go back” doesn’t mean we need to expel every foreigner. Foreign guests who remain friendly and respectful of our culture are usually fine. But the vast majority of foreigners who, by their numbers, are changing our culture, need to not be here.

However, as I discussed above, “diversity of thought” doesn’t contain enough truth to be effective. The best you can come up with is that you ought to have some tolerance for new thoughts, but those new thoughts must stand up to scrutiny. Or, it is helpful to have a few different perspectives, as long as they are relevant.

Yeah… what about it?

Just like any mainstream narrative these days, you’re being lied to about abortion.

“What about rape or incest!” is designed to stop you in your tracks. It’s a rhetorical trap. The whole point is to freeze and isolate you, to play upon your empathy, because only a monster would force the poor victim of rape or incest to carry the baby to term.

You want to talk monstrosity? Those numbers are from Florida, 2015. The source has since been removed, but Florida still has the numbers for 2016 through 2018 available.

• 2017 stats (local)
• 2018 stats (local)

As you can see, the overwhelming majority abortions are elective.

So, who is the monster? The person who wants to stop 70,000 babies in Florida from being murdered, or the person who wants it to continue in the name of 100 babies who are the result of rape or incest?

This is what narrative has done to us. Nuance doesn’t exist. We can’t have a conversation.

On the balance, I’d go with the side who doesn’t try to prevent you from stopping an epidemic by throwing 0.1% of the problem in your face.

We are in full-on cultural decay. It’s not just the current wave of feminism, nor Marxism, nor post-modernism, nor PC culture. It’s a full scale mass denial of reality that is bringing what used to be shining cities on hills to their knees.

It takes far more investment to not see these things, which is why authorities frequently make it difficult or impossible for parents to keep their children with them during their formative years. Not sending your children to school is still seen as fringe and nutty, but it’s probably one of the few tools available to us to free the next generation from a guaranteed demise.

I mean, boys aren’t allowed to be boys. Girls aren’t allowed to be girls. Men and women aren’t allowed to be men nor women. And I daresay that the current darlings of the mainstream zeitgeist are also not allowed to be what they are, though that’s harder to see directly.

Do you think, given the choice between pursuing a relatively normal life or being a political pawn, that people would choose the latter, in the long term?

Sure, some would, but those would also be not very smart, and would lack people in their lives who love them enough to pull them back from such destructive paths.

“You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”

What we are is a big part of who we are. We don’t get to choose a lot of what we are, and if we deny reality in this area, we’re setting ourselves up for a long, disappointing, and miserable life. But, even worse, we propagate cultural decay.

It is true that previous generations have failed us. We inherited this decaying culture from them. Furthermore, they passed it down in a worse state than they received it. But our ancestors behaving badly does not justify our bad behavior.

Decay is always present, but destruction need not be inevitable. Decay needs to constantly be identified and scrubbed out.

Be what you are. Know thyself. Choose truth and righteousness.

YouTube: 

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/V-YBpTCXTQ8/

Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!

It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.

Luke 17:1ff

I am not a learned Bible scholar. I haven’t studied the Bible for well over 15 years. I’m no theologian… or anything, in that regard.

I realize there are other verses which talk about forgiveness, and they don’t contain qualifications, but the word of the Bible is to be taken as a whole, not divided into pieces that you like, with chaff according to your judgment. 

There is room for interpretation as it is recorded by men. But it was originally inspired by God, as the belief goes. 

So, when it comes to forgiveness, you don’t just blindly forgive. I think you also seek to not hold enmity in your heart, if it pulls you away from God. I suspect that learning how to bring glory to God if you’ve been treated unjustly is more than mere forgiveness.

The upshot of the passage in Luke is that you forgive your brother in Christ if he is repentant. 

This is what God does, so why should it be different for us on earth?

Furthermore, how can a man be godly and never repent to others? Is he somehow greater than God?

Nay, such a man is far from godly. He should seek repentance towards those he has wronged, until they are satisfied.

It could be that the wrong is so great that full repentance is impossible. That does not mean that he should avoid seeking repentance. He should do so, and also work to accept that he has done more wrong than he can repair. Helping others to avoid his mistakes can be a way of continual repentance in the face of permanent damage to others. In fact, doing so will almost certainly bring the light of Truth to where it is needed most.

By way of example, a murderer in prison may never be released; his crime is great and full repentance to the victims is impossible. But, if he gives his life to the Lord, few places need light more.

As it turns out, in the #MeToo era, “Women In Tech” is shaping up to be only women or only men in companies that recognize that even the whiff of an accusation is incredibly costly. Not only are such accusations individually destructive; such accusations may mean the end of your business.

SJWs don’t care about this, of course. Some people just want to watch the world burn. SJWs in particular are more than happy to douse it with gasoline, even if it means they’re next to go down in flames.

I used to have the opinion, “I don’t care who or what you are. As long as you are capable of doing the job, let’s get down to business.” But, empirically speaking, this is a sucker’s game. If you’re a white male and you hire somebody of a different identity, you are taking a risk that they will be used to destroy your business.

I can feel the objections rising, even within myself. “But I know good people who aren’t white nor male!” And you may well never see an issue yourself. Believe me, I want to be able to judge people as individuals. But I don’t think we can do that safely. Furthermore, I’m not sure it was ever actually possible.

America has had over 50 years of significant third-world immigration. It was initially promised that our demographics would not change. Our values would not change.

I find it hard to believe that anyone was actually convinced by this, but then again, you were probably labeled “reactionary” or “racist” if you resisted these policy changes, even back then.

Go along to get along, that’s what white men are told. That works great for non-whites and women, at least in the short term.

But, in the end, everybody suffers.

The Swamp is not only the embedded interests in DC, but also the leadership of multinational corporations that have absolutely zero fealty to the United States as a nation.

As is so often the case, there’s a good reason to distrust and dislike corporations.

Any organization that has a “Trust and Safety” team is a leftoid-infested nest of social justice warriors.

Hello, 1984.

Or, at least, it wants your money.

I won’t pretend to be well-informed on the ins and outs of Gnosticism or occult religious practices, but I do know that when you put forward a philosophy that effectively denies the existence of evil, you are doing the work of Satan.

I have Vox to thank for this clarity, contained in his recent work, Jordanetics (Kindle).

I, like many other men, have been hungry for a suitable father figure for most of my life. It’s difficult for me to not place men I admire into that mental role–and probably impossible for most.

Initially, also like many others, I was impressed with Peterson’s statements about Bill C-16. I looked at those who were attacking him, and thought him to be an ally for free speech. I assumed that this alliance extended into the larger culture wars.

However, as time wore on, and Peterson grew in public stature, he revealed himself to not be an ally, neither for free speech, nor culture, nor anything else valued by Western European tradition.

Whether it’s hypocritically deplatforming Faith Goldy or tweeting horrifying SJW advice to now-Justice Kavanaugh, he is not a man that values the West.

In Jordanetics, Vox goes over Peterson’s writings, and comes to a fairly damning conclusion about what the man is actually promoting. He makes his case carefully and meticulously.

I found myself laughing at the start of Chapter 3. It was deliciously absurd, or so I thought. By Chapter 6, I was no longer laughing. I realized that what I was reading was deadly serious.

You may not believe in the spiritual realm. But you deny the existence of evil at your own peril.

Read Jordanetics.