A measure of things - Part 2 | Is there a point?

Well - "being the Storm" really sounds silly when one only focusses on all the bad parts of what constitutes it in the first place. And that's somehow the point. Either you get it, or you don't. If you don't - well - the thing is more about understanding its motion - and squaring that understanding with your desires. Like, you might think to yourself that you're a good person; And thus you'd want to turn the storm in favor of what is good.

Now - you might have noticed that I do have some partisan bend; Or bias - but I do understand that I should still try to bridge the partisan divide. Which, I think, is going to be difficult if I hold on to those biases; But maybe not impossible. But so I do have to possibly warn you. I'll write this as some kind of comedy. Fully leaning into my biases and cynicisms - but in a somewhat self-deprecating way so that conservatives may understand.


So, let me start with that brainwashing that us liberals have fallen victim to. The thing is, it's like ... we're having all these weird opinions that we don't seem to be able to completely elaborate or even expand upon. It's almost as if we don't really understand them - and yet expect others to share our positions; And then wonder why it is that ... we're getting owned all the time.
To that end we can look into the previous part - where I wrote something about putting down my finger. I'm not even sure if that's how the analogy or figure of speech works. But it's supposed to look really strict and authoritarian as I aggressively push the tip of my index finger onto the desk. But what was I pointing at?

And that's just a thing. It's ... like that missing piece. It might look like I got something to point to - but for all we care it might just be the imaginary desk here. Anyway, whatever it was, it kind of slipped from my mind but I figured there were other more important things to focus on. But, enough with the quip quap ... here's the thing:

Us liberals, we really love to hold these "liberal" beliefs. It's like ... we really just take certain things for granted - like, unquestioningly - and yet we, as pointed out, don't seem to be capable of fully explaining why we for instance think it is wrong or bad for a father to cease legal ownership of his daughter to sexually exploit her for personal profit. And my best answer to that is, that we've been growing up in some weird bubble. And within it we're of the understanding that, as pointed out, it's somehow self-understood. Though we need to understand that maybe ... we do actually need a little help.
Now, because we think it's self-understood, we for so long at least also believe that it's right. So, naturally, we try to argue how come we're right - but in doing so, we maybe forget to listen. And if we don't listen, we of course can't see the wisdom that is being shared with us.

And yea, it so might be an innately liberal handicap of sort that we don't see the error of our ways. And thereby we're also easy on dismissing the entire conversation. We think ourselves intellectually superior; So we get to assume that maybe we're unfair by even considering that conservatives don't share our understanding and then move on to some other issue. And so it might seem like we don't have an answer, though actually it's just that we believe that everybody already has the answer. And sure, because we just assume it to be so, we end up perplexed as people express themselves to the contrary.

Well - it's not that we don't have thinkers that try to delve deeper into the mysteries of liberal opinion having - but to our detrement we tend to find that the concept of liberalism falls apart in consequence. And naturally, us being liberals, we have a hard time dealing with it. I mean, us who thought to much about it - at least - we might then try to find other labels and terms to describe us; But ... at the end of the day people tend to remind us that we're just "libs". And ... "duh" ... of course we are because we aren't conservatives.

But "A Kingdom divided against itself cannot survive" - or something like that. So, it sure would seem as though we need to check our worldview and acknowledge our wrongdoings.

But on the other hand, it's not easy to do so when being called degerates for adhering to our concepts of freedom. For once, of course, because we're afraid. We're afraid that this means, that people want to take this freedom away from us. And because we feel comfortable with this freedom - we're also somewhat uncomfortable with a way of life that would seemingly exist against that. It sure is a tough pill to swallow.


And I try to understand. Something my liberal brain can make out is this whole freedom of speech thing; Because ... freedom is something we at least think we value. But maybe we got it wrong. The way I understand it then, and sorry in case I'm wrong but I'm trying, freedom of speech is to call us degenerates for the freedoms we adhere to - but not for us to promote that "degeneracy". I get that, as us liberals have some similar ideas about the freedom thing. Because of our degeneracy, as conservatives would call it, we really need to respect each other's boundaries. It is how liberals can co-exist with each other. So, we do inherently have some kind of ... absence of freedom, as part of the freedom we hold dear. And yea, now I realize ... [yikes emoji] ... that doesn't sound so logical.

And so perhaps that's what makes us inconsistent. I mean, we don't think we're inconsistent; But hearing over and over again that conservatives don't like it when we shove our ideology down their throat - that does seem like it's a boundary problem. One we don't seem to recognize for some reason. And maybe we don't want to, and therefore somewhat blank out. I mean, it's more like a religion thing. I mean, it's kind of like there is lore and mythology that makes us really uncomfortable around what we call 'authoritarianism'; But we have plenty of terms for it. It's like, a big evil ... that encroaches on all that we hold dear. A bit like ... Demise or Ganondorf from the Legend of Zelda, if you're into that sort of thing. Or the Nothing from the Neverending Story. Though I probably can't expect conservatives to be all that familiar with Liberal media.

But yea, Atreju was one of my Childhood heroes. And there's this one traumatizing scene that I think goes a long way at explaining the liberal mindset. So, Atreju, a young warrior from a warrior tribe that has to go on a quest to save Phantasia, but without weapons, he also had a Horse. Artax. But one day, they happened upon a swamp. A swamp of sadness. And as they traversed it, Artax sank into it and died. I guess we might add: Horribly. And Atreju tried to save him, but ... he couldn't. People say, so that's how we're back in the liberal religion, that this is a metaphor for depression. The swamp feasting on people's sadness or dispair or hopelessness - and to overcome it we have to be steadfast, looking forward and being optimistic. And yea, I see it now. There's another inconsistency there. I mean, another part where 'looking away' is kind of our go to thing. Though granted, it's not quite that easy.
Anyway, I digress ...

So, this 'great evil' that goes by many names - so, I think this is to make us thing that we have a nuanced understanding though at the end of the day we might just be cherry picking what we feel this great evil is today.
I mean, maybe fascism IS the opposite of authoritarianism - but we have a hard time regarding the two as two different things as both threaten our liberal beliefs.
But so we also have a hard time realizing when we're being served our own medicine. Is that how you say it?
I mean, I'm sorry. I'm bi-lingually challenged. Like, we may have shoved our ideology down conservative's throats - and them saying "no" to that almost feels like ... getting something shoved down our throats. And yea, I can see why people wouldn't want that.


But then, I suppose "we think we're doing the right thing" doesn't really count here. It's another one of those issues that some managed to lift from the depths of liberal mysticism; Another inconsistency it seems. Like, we think that everyone thinks they're doing the right thing - but a few that actually mean ill. Though even they might think they're doing the right thing in some ... twisted way. But we also think that everyone else is doing it wrong, while we're the one's doing it right by not assuming that we can perfectly tell what the right thing is. Instead we exalt ideals such as "human decency". Which is similar to that whole respect and boundaries thing.


And yea, this is also why we also don't like war. Which, I reckon, isn't exclusively a liberal belief. And I think, being consistent at being inconsistent it would seem, we're maybe not all that anti-war. At least some of us think that ... sometimes military action is justified. That was for once how that "big evil" got defeated the first time around. Though we kind of thought that it would be gone for good. And yet we're afraid of it and seem to find it around every corner. It's ... a little paranoid I guess.

But so it goes on, I think. Like, I can't find my way out. I might not have found the answers I sought, so I must assume that I've internalized the liberal belief so much; I'm basically captive by it. And yea, I might thereby also suffer a somewhat severe case of liberalism. I mean, when I was younger - I was really really ... into the whole mysticism and religion aspect of it and effectively subscribed my entire being to a liberal deity. So, it's like I have the whole liberalism thing written into my heart. So ... I guess that means I'm stuck here. I might even be too far gone. So, I can only hope that this will be a lesson - and maybe my sacrifice can do some good after all. I would really like that!


Hmm ... I just realize. All of this is basically like therapy speak. Another sign of just how far gone I am, I think. Anyway ... tell my family that I love them, even though I never met them. But uhm ...

How to be Serious again?

I mean, while I do have a really thick skull, I am also really easy to impress at times. And I have gotten so used to standing my ground; That taking this step aside is somewhat new to me. And new stuff is often times something my brain latches on to. It's like ... there's "brain energy" and new stuff gives my synapses reason to fire.

And so this whole ... acting like I don't have a clue thing probably also comes with some extra baggage. If I were to still entertain that possibility. And on the other hand I've also tried serious. A lot. And it's been somewhat tiring. So, besides 'serious' I've also dabbled in 'sincere'. But that is oddly difficult. I mean, it is somewhat at odds with being cynical.
Or maybe I'm downplaying my sincerity with basically all that I'm doing.

I mean, even if I was be goofin' - I'd somehow ... find a way to convince myself of making an effort.

But so - in closure, the first big question to accompany this writing, I think, happens to be: Why being a feminist? And that question is similar to: Why is slavery bad? There certainly are parallels; And for once we might speak of respect, or in other terms: Being a 'good' slave owner. So, what does it mean to be a good slave owner. Is it to yet insist on depriving other people of their freedoms? Or is it rather to internalize the idea that slaves are also just human beings? And thus deserving of respect that might eventually require us to set them free?

So, regarding conservatism - its pathology - I happened upon the understanding, that European Conservatism isn't burdened by matters of Slavery because Slavery was never a big part of our culture; And so there isn't really anything that could be conserved there. And we may also argue, that it is due to our Viking/Germanic heritage, that we're also a little less sexist overall. I mean, the concept of Valkyries is pretty much somewhere stuck in our culture. And that would be why we perhaps just by sheer luck happen to have a rather liberally bent flavor of conservatism here. And I'd be curious about how like ... the apostles would have gone about exorcising those strands from our cultural identity. Assuming that that would have been an objective. Which is like the next first thing: Like, for some reason I have a hard time grasping the concept of Paul being like "women have to shut up" in the court of some Viking royalty. Maybe that's why they called us barbarians?
But, to be fair, it didn't really work on the italians either - I think.

And yea, I think I hear that Vikings also had three genders. Like, Warriors, Bitches and ... Weird.

And maybe that's also why Hitler was into the Swastika. I mean, it's somewhat hindu related - and - when it comes to respecting women they might just be ... like ... the worse. Maybe even bad to extremist Muslim standards.
I mean, the whole Discipline and Purity nonsense that Hitler was into did, I think, certainly add towards the overall increase of Sexism that came with the reign of the Nazi party.
Though it may have had its origin in that hard on we had for going to war around that time. Which would also be where the anti-liberal bent had its origin. So we went to war, suffered in consequence; And then somehow ended up thinking that we had to go to war, just harder. And luckily that failure made way for our liberal buds to bloom.

So, to an extent it is certainly true - overall - that there's a certain perplexity that overcomes me in reaction to anti-liberal ideas. And that I then turn towards ideology and myth and such to cope with that.
And - any understanding that I might have, might as well go by some other term also.


I mean, the idea of putting mind over body - for instance - wouldn't really be a liberal thing per se. Or, to spell it out, to not think with your genitals. Though we could call it: Synapses on standby for regulation - and, yea, regulations ... would I think be somewhat associated with liberalism. Though I guess that's more of a socialism then.


But uhm, yea - it took a moment for me to realize that I got my facts wrong. I mean, sexism in europe was probably very well alive way before ... WW1 - and yet, squarely identifiable as a Christian import. Which, upon migration to the USA, was kicked into overdrive. And so we're getting to another "maybe it was meant to be so" take on this.

But so then, the point on conservatism still stands. That there's like ... a conservative urge - which then draws on cultural identity to mount a revolt against progressivism.


Anyway - accordingly, an overarching idea with this was to impose a burden of proof - onto conservatives. Which, wouldn't be a new idea, but maybe I can concentrate it some more. So, why Feminism? Well, I've ... given some answers - as though the burden of proof were on us. And - yea, maybe we like it this way as we dread the answers to the question of "why not?". Not because they might convince us that we're wrong - but because we're tired of hearing it. Though, I would yet ask the question - or at least hint at it - while however trying to specify a bit more what this burden of proof is about.

For once: The more that people argue in principle of faith/belief (religion) that it ought to be so, the more we are justified in doing the same and the burden of proof moves on to your religion at large. I, for my part, have shared about mine as much as I can - give or take - and would leave it up to YOU to decide whether or not you wanna be a part of it.

Now - in my opinion - it might subsequently appear as though conservatives have good arguments for why feminism is bad. They would refer to it as a movement with an agenda - and highlight its possible failures while insisting that women are inferior to men in all ways but what they generously let them be good at. But that's not what we're asking. It's not what I'm asking. I don't care about whatever feminist movement. To me it's more about the fundamentals of emancipation. And while I'm willing to concede that 'equality' might be overrated - I'm yet concerned of what the idea would be. But "woman shut up" ain't gonna cut it; I can tell you that!


I mean - we may further entertain the idea that what women may have only comes on behalf of men allowing it. But that is Bullshit! For ages ... mankind has learned to bend the rules in favor of convenience. And yes, for ages men did what men be doing - and women did what women be doing. But in as far as there was no legal requirement for what those things be - things just followed the logic of convenience. Or the convenience of logic. Whatever. Something complementary, in essence. And this simple dichotomy around gathering and housekeeping is challenged by something as basic as education and what it enables. Here it would be then where, like, fragile male ego's would feel an urge to curb the female freedom; And perhaps that's how the Muslim world fell from its grace too. I mean, I'm not familiar enough to say for certain - but I would assume that at the peak of its glory, women found their way into social existence that some people took offense in; Thus breeding an urge to curb that - which then ended the Muslim Golden Age in one fell swoop.

And that's where we end at. Either the male dominance extends itself to control EVERY aspect of the female life - or life will inevitably claim emancipation. Similar to how it is in the animal/insect Kingdom. Unlike Bees for instance, we - within our sexual dichotomy - are a lot more similar. Basically like mammals - where, it would be difficult to distinguish males from females with a simple look.

So yea - in a way the weaker only has what they have because the stronger "allows" it; Though perhaps it's also because they can't completely curb it. So is there also a cost that comes with it. As ... the dynamics between the genders. I mean - I suppose that insecure men can be led to think that they'd like it more if women were subservient and under control and all that - as to possibly be further convinced, that they could do that while being as generous as to not allow for that to breed animosity. But here the difference between a "good slave owner" and a "bad one" would come to show around what were more important: Friendship ... or Control and what comes with it.
I mean ... once generosity - and that's in the Bible - becomes a means of extortion, it isn't really generosity anymore. Like so - what's the point of this generosity that would prevent the women from developing animosity towards men - if it doesn't redeem them from the very cause of that development?


And there ... is ... like really no weight behind an argument of what's natural - when the natural thing only exists once it's artificially maintained.


But, I suppose - the really hard core conservative mind is getting lost at some point during these lines of reasoning. That is because ... at the end of the day one side has to let go. Or more to the point: All of us have to let go of our wrongs - and in as far as this 'conservatives versus liberals' thing exists on a bunch of them - some may have to let go of more than others.

Anyway - it's gotten late and I don't feel like I accomplished much by this tangent. And there's probably something I missed here or there or whatever. Right now, however, I'm out of juice. Maybe I'll try this again at some other point, or continue ... . But maybe there was actually a point to all this.