One-Moral Morality

One of the major philosophical problems of our society is one-moral morality. And you find this absolutely everywhere in every ideology. Conservative, liberal, Christian, secular, whatever. You can’t escape it. It’s a foundational philosophical premise of our society.

People take one easy moral, hold it up high, declare themselves as a good person, and then absolve themselves of all responsibility for the rest of morality. They’ve already proven they are winning the morality race. There’s no reason to go higher and deeper, because they are already a good person. Heaven is a guarantee. They are on the right side of history.

My grandparents on my mother’s side are fundamentalist-ish. They pride themselves on never having any alcohol or using profanity. Doesn’t matter that they waste their lives in front of a television. Doesn’t matter that they enabled their daughter to become an obese hoarder resented by her children. No, they have already shown themselves to be better than the rest of humanity.

My grandmother on my father’s side believes whatever CNN tells her. She was the only person in the country genuinely excited about Hillary Clinton becoming president. She truly believes all the scandals are just Republicans manufacturing smoke and calling it a fire. Therefore she can act however she wants to her family. She’s already proven she loves blacks and gays (even though she lives in an all-white suburbs and sent her kids to all-white schools). What does it matter how you treat your family if you support trade unions and public schools?

Recently a radical vegan shot up YouTube. No surprise there. She’s already proven what a good person she is by not murdering animals. The flesh-eaters at YouTube got what they deserved.

The communist thugs in the street claiming they are being forced to “protest” violently by Trump’s “hateful speech”. They have already proven how much they love colored people and sexual degenerates. They love everyone! Surely it’s okay to hold a little hate in their hearts for people who are (ideologically) different from them. You know, in the name of diversity.

The internet white identitarian movements. They support the great white family. They’re on the right team. The winners of history. Off to the bathhouses then! No need to procreate and propagate the white race — just being on the winning team means you’re contributing.

Anti-Trump Christians. (Probably the group I resent the most.) Trump is a meany. He says brutally honest things on Twitter, and Jesus was totally opposed to brutal honesty. Clearly this is a sign of emotional immaturity. They would know what emotional immaturity looks like, since they are the masters of it. Yeah, Bush was a war criminal who almost ruined the Republican Party while doing almost nothing for Christians, but at least he was a nice guy in public. It doesn’t matter that Trump has instructed the IRS to quit harassing pastors and used Christmas to talk about the doctrine of the incarnation — he’s just the worst [insert substitute cuss word] in the history of ever.

Male Christian virgins. The vast majority of whom are serious porn addicts. They claim they are saving themselves for marriage and then warp their ability to enjoy sex in a natural, healthy way before they even get to experience it. (One could easily argue that most of these people have no idea how to talk to girls, but I think that’s low-hanging fruit.)

Female Christian virgins. In love with Jesus, and they won’t accept any man less than that standard. Annihilating their ability to relate to men through romantic comedy movies, but at least it’s not pornography like the men do. You know, except for the guilty please of 50 Shades of Grey.


Look people, you can’t earn your way to heaven. Our society is like the rich young ruler asking Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. And the answer is, none of the above. Actually, Jesus said do all of the above, but that’s the point. You can’t just pick a few token moralities and call it a day. Jesus said to be perfect. So get to work. And if you don’t finish the task, then pray for mercy.


What Is Love And Forgiveness?

One of the worst things about our culture is the degradation of language. Words have become extremely vague. And because they are vague, they are unusable.

The most obvious example is love. In our society, the word “love” is a synonym for “orgasm”. This is why homosexuals can claim that love wins, because society’s condonation of their illicit lifestyle has won. It has nothing to do with being open and vulnerable with another human. It’s all about having as much sex with as many people as possible. That’s real love!

One of the things that really makes me groan is when men in dog shit marriages insist that they love their fat, bitchy wife. But of course he love hers. She has sex with him. That’s what love means. You can’t love someone without having sex with them.

And that’s also why people get divorced. They quit having sex. Which means they no longer love each other. You can’t love each other until death does you part if you no longer love each other. If the other person isn’t having sex with you, then they’ve broken their half of the contract.

Which is all marriage is. Just a contract. Two people sign some papers promising to have sex forever. There’s nothing deeper or sacred about it. Nothing supernatural happens at the courthouse. No mystical union between two souls. It’s just two best friends who have sex and share a bank account.

Most marriages are just roommates who fuck each other. That’s why it doesn’t matter what your spouse’s past is. Not only should you overlook the five guys who tag-teamed her up the ass, it’s none of your business. There’s nothing to forgive — because someone’s body belongs entirely to themselves, and it’s no one else’s business what they do with it. Unless, of course, they have a contract from the courthouse agreeing to only allow the other person on the contract to use their body as a masturbation aid.

Sex today has nothing to do with openness. It’s not about two people at their most vulnerable and exposed becoming one with each other. It’s just a man jacking off into a woman’s body. The whole point in game is to entertain her enough where she decides she owes you the privilege of pretending you love her.

And she likes it, too. Women love nothing more than being reduced to a fleshlight. They won’t admit it, but just look at how they dress and act. Women love sex. They love it even more than men. A few women have some ability to veto their sex drive, but these are mythical creatures.

But that’s because women have more capacity for love than men. That’s why we need a woman president. They have a greater capacity for empathy and mercy. They love everyone. That’s why they will have sex with anyone who can make them laugh.

It’s another aspect of the morality of permission, the highest virtue our society can offer.


Stepping back outside the world of satire, the word “love” needs a definition. However, there are different contexts for love, even within genuine Biblical love. The way a parent loves a child is not the same kind of love a man has for his wife.

Let’s identify six genres of (real) love, in descending order of strength:

  1. Spousal
  2. Parental
  3. Other Familial
  4. Mentorship
  5. Friendship
  6. Societal

The strongest bond of love should be that a husband and wife have for each other. The second is how a parent or grandparent has for their descendants. These two are based on animalistic affection, but the actual love is a choice (more on that below).

The third is how someone has for other family members, such as cousins and parents. These have an element of animal nature, but they are can be eroded and are ultimately a choice.

Mentorship is how someone feels for a person, usually younger, under their authority that they have invested in. This would be a teacher who has developed some kind of bond with a student. Or a pastor for certain members of his congregation that he has gotten to know. Or an adult who has adopted a child. This kind is almost always reciprocated, usually in equal measure, so I am including the mentor and the mentee in the same category.

Friendship love is when you are able to sacrifice for your friends because of the bond you already share. For example, buying them a drink and listening to them rant after a break up. In some sense, all of the above five categories fall under friendship. Dating someone also falls under this category, not marital.

The final is the love you should show for all of society. This is what Jesus meant by “love your neighbor.” Some of this is tribal preferences, but in general it is purely a choice. You find a $20 bill on the ground. You can put it in your pocket, but you decide to ask first if anyone dropped it.

All six forms of love are choices and fall under the same Biblical umbrella term of “love”. I don’t think it’s possible to perfectly define love, but we can draw some parameters around it. I have put a great amount of thought into this over the years, and I have identified four metrics that all forms of real love must contain:

  1. You must allow the other person to hurt you.
  2. You must allow the other person to allow you to hurt them.
  3. Selflessness.
  4. Endurance.

All of these are closely related.

Love is about suffering. In order to suffer, you must be open. When you are open, you are vulnerable. When you are vulnerable, you will be hurt.

Our society is full of people who are closed up. They are terrified of being failed by others, and they cannot stand the self esteem hit of failing others themselves. What they are looking for in a partner is someone who shares hobbies and is easy to get along with. Moral quality is only as deep as “don’t lie to me”.

This is why two people who are engaged do not “love” each other (in the Disney sense) — they haven’t suffered with each other through the day-to-day. There’s no commitment to see each other through the worst of times.

And real love does not have a limit to the suffering it is willing to endure. It holds on as long as it needs to.

A parent does not by default love their child. That is just animalistic affection. Most parents do not love their children and are very selfish towards them. Most people treat their children as pets (and their pets as children). Children are just a status symbol. To fully treat this topic would require another article of equal length. Suffice it to say that parents send their kids to 13 years of the great time waste that is public schools because it is cheap and shifts responsibility, and they guilt them into going to college instead of trade school because that’s what society says is the proper thing to do.

Love is a choice. You can have a deep affection for someone. But you in no way love someone until you are willing to endure whatever broken-heartedness they are willing to put on you. Love is being willing to make any sacrifice for the best interest of the other instead of using the other for your best convenience. “No greater love is this, than that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

Some people will say, “That’s what parenthood is! It’s all about sacrifice!” Again, that’s for another article. I’m already past 2000 words.

But what about someone who has consistently wrong you? Should you just forgive forever? Surely I don’t expect someone to keep sticking their hand into a blender?

Well that gets to my definition of forgiveness.


I have spent many, many years contemplating the definition of forgiveness. The normal American Christian definition is to just have no bad emotions. Think well of them regardless. Give people an infinite number of second chances.

That’s not forgiveness at all. That’s funneling your emotions into a certain forced facade and then acting on it. It will wreck your relationships and turn you into an atheist.

One former mentor of mine said that forgiveness is “when you can sit next to them and it’s like it’s never even happened.” Today he no longer speaks to me.

True forgiveness is a restoration. My guiding verse is Luke 17:3-4

If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him.”

If he wrongs you, you are to correct him. You aren’t just supposed to ignore it and hope he doesn’t do it again. Maybe small quirks, sure. But a major offense requires a confrontation. It requires you to be assertive and aggressive. But that aggression is to be filtered through love — being open and vulnerable. You aren’t confronting to get revenge or make them feel bad. You are confronting to restore the relationship.

No emotion is inherently good or bad. The only good or bad thing is how you let them control you.

If your brother repents, then you are to forgive him — restore the relationship. If he holds his ground and refuses to apologize, then you should not forgive him. In fact, you cannot forgive him even if you want to. You cannot restore that which desires to stay broken. You cannot undo what the other person did. Because they believe they did nothing wrong, the moral foundation of the relationship has shifted. The terms you must agree on are different.

And then what? Maybe the friendship can survive it. Maybe not. Pretending it didn’t happen just delays the falling out, which will be worse.

Forgiveness towards the person who does not desire it is to at least view the relationship with integrity.

I remember after Hugh Hefner died, a story was floating around the internet about how when he was a young man, his fiance cheated on him while he was off at war. She said that he could sleep with other women to make it even.

In the world of fairness, that’s forgiveness. He married her anyway (later divorced, obviously). It seems he did his best to think good thoughts of her and forget how she hurt him.

The actual forgiving thing would be to break up with her.  The relationship is broken. You cannot undo that kind of betrayal of trust. Perhaps if she was truly repentant, he could overlook it and marry her anyway. But suppressing your anger and calling it forgiveness only leads to destruction for both people. There’s nothing honest in that. Anger is something that has to be worked through.

Part of love is selflessness. Part of selflessness is wanting the best for other people. Part of wanting the best for other people is holding them to a standard. We all need standards in our lives, and we all need people to hold us to them.

To say, “I cannot continue this relationship until you show me the proper respect,” or, “I cannot continue this relationship because the betrayal makes it impossible to ever return to normal,” is an act of love. And perhaps it will cause the person to re-evaluate how they view others.

You cannot expect others to change. You either except them as they are or not at all.

And if a friend is genuinely repentant but has committed too great of an offense for things to ever go back to how they were, to recognize that the relationship is over is an act of honesty, and to tell them bluntly without being bitter is an act of mercy. It’s not being passive-aggressive or trying to hurt them as deeply as they hurt you. To be honest about the nature of the relationship is an act of respect, because you want them to know the truth instead of trying to exploiting their emotions.

Forgiveness is restoring the relationship as much as possible without sacrificing integrity. Part of that restoration is rejecting bitterness and not dwelling on what they have done to you. It’s okay to be angry; it’s not okay to let the anger consume you.

In some sense, all virtues flow out from each other. If you live your life with integrity, you will eventually find the other virtues. Trying to be emotionally honest with others will lead to love and forgiveness.

Even if you’re being totally selfish, being honest about your selfishness is closer to love than the “my child is special” love our society holds up as virtue. Even if you’re trying to hurt the other person, being honest that you are trying to hurt them will at least protect you both from the fake restorations that churches call forgiveness. And with both of them, you would also be honest that you lack virtue, which might make you consider that you should strive towards virtue, which would lead to selflessness and true forgiveness.

All of this is a choice. It’s not based on emotions, and it’s not trying to manipulate your own emotions. It’s a constant choice on how you will act on those emotions. Love is an action word.

Why Rape Is Funny

I was riding in a car with a friend I hadn’t seen in several years. He spontaneously says, “I raped a girl once.” I break out laughing. He tells me about how she didn’t really want it and kept asking him to stop. I continue laughing.

Almost everyone I’ve told this story to has laughed. But really, it shouldn’t be funny. It’s one thing to make a joke about Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd. But in this case, it’s a real human who was genuinely hurt. He probably emotionally wrecked her for life. (For what it’s worth, she later came back for more sex to convince herself she wasn’t actually raped.)

I think part of the humor in this story is how blunt and spontaneous he said it. There’s shock humor in it.

More than that, though, rape is funny because we aren’t allowed to joke about rape. Same reason Daniel Tosh’s seventh grade racism and sexism is funny. Same reason profanity is funny if it’s timed right.

And somewhat related to why people wave the rebel flag or wear swastikas. Gavin McInnes said,

They don’t want to keep the Confederate flag because they’re proud of slavery. They want to keep it because you said they can’t.

I usually try not to trash talk ROK, but I’m still upset they cut one of my best jokes. I’m putting it here because I haven’t found another place for it, and I’m trying to be less vulgar in general. Granted, I stole it from the Full House Reviewed website on the sidebar, so I can’t be too anger. But a joke this good needs to be shared with the world.

One of my early articles (the public library has ROK blocked, so I can’t look it up) says something about how nothing makes a woman’s snatch dry up faster than a man being submissive.

Except that’s not what I wrote. I wrote, “Nothing makes a woman’s boner go soft than…” But the editor at the time had no sense of humor and frankly wasn’t that great of a writer. There were several lines of mine he ruined. He was surprisingly actually pretty intelligent once you got talking to him.

The image of a woman having a boner. Yeah, it’s juvenile and maybe not that funny. I died laughing when I first read it on FHR, where it was used to describe baby Michelle being attracted to another baby in her play group. That’s all kinds of vulgar, and frankly it’s pretty cheap humor. Nothing terribly clever in it. Just raw crassness.

And it’s funny because, despite all the supposed sexual liberation over the last century, we live in even more of a puritanical, closeted up climate.

Rape is funny precisely because it’s not supposed to be.

rape jokes

Rosa Parks, A Selfish SJW

Rosa Parks, hero of the people. She didn’t want to sit in the back of the bus because it was demeaning. Or because she was too tired to walk. Public schools are vague on whether it was for principles or practicality. But anyway, with one simple sit, she launched the civil rights movement and proved it wasn’t nice to kill black people for no reason.

What a load of horse shit. Do people really believe this?

First, think about what’s not said in the story. How long was the bus held up? Two minutes? Two hours? We were never told.

There were other people on the bus. Maybe they had somewhere important to go. Many probably thought the segregation rules were unfair and didn’t care where blacks sit. Why were they punished for someone else’s bad law?

Was Parks arrested or did the bus just continue on? How long was she in jail for? Was she really the first black person to ever sit in the wrong section of the bus?

Well let’s see what Wikipedia says.

At the time, Parks was secretary of the Montgomery chapter of the NAACP. She had recently attended the Highlander Folk School, a Tennessee center for training activists for workers’ rights and racial equality. She acted as a private citizen “tired of giving in”. Although widely honored in later years, she also suffered for her act; she was fired from her job as a seamstress in a local department store, and received death threats for years afterwards.

Shortly after the boycott, she moved to Detroit, where she briefly found similar work. From 1965 to 1988 she served as secretary and receptionist to John Conyers, an African-American US Representative. She was also active in the Black Power movement and the support of political prisoners in the US.

So she was a plant. A professional activist who stirred the pot just to stir, not because she was an oppressed worker. I seem to remember reading somewhere that they chose her over two other women to be the poster child of the movement.

“Suffered for her act” with such sacrifices of losing a job and receiving death threats. That’s like a typical month for me. Big fucking deal. I’m sure a major metropolitan city like Montgomery had plenty of seamstress jobs. It’s a real skill that’s not easily replaceable. Even in today’s sweatshop retail world, you can make very decent money with sewing skills.

Notice how unspecific the death threats are. It’s like today how feminists will claim they received “hundreds of death threats on the internet” when it’s just some teenager on Twitter rage-typing.

Then she moved to Detroit to cause more problems.

Although Parks’ autobiography recounts early memories of the kindness of white strangers, she could not ignore the racism of her society. When the Ku Klux Klan marched down the street in front of their house, Parks recalls her grandfather guarding the front door with a shotgun. The Montgomery Industrial School, founded and staffed by white northerners for black children, was burned twice by arsonists. Its faculty was ostracized by the white community. […] Parks worked as a housekeeper and seamstress for Clifford and Virginia Durr, a white couple. Politically liberal, the Durrs became her friends. They encouraged—and eventually helped sponsor—Parks in the summer of 1955 to attend the Highlander Folk School, an education center for activism in workers’ rights and racial equality in Monteagle, Tennessee.

And is there any recognition in our popular mythology for the kindness these whites showed to blacks? Shouldn’t they be the real heroes of the story, since they had the most to lose? No, of course not. Only black lives matter.

In December 1943, Parks became active in the civil rights movement, joined the Montgomery chapter of the NAACP, and was elected secretary at a time when this was considered a woman’s job. […] She worked for the local NAACP leader Edgar Nixon, even though he maintained that “Women don’t need to be nowhere but in the kitchen.” When Parks asked, “Well, what about me?”, he replied: “I need a secretary and you are a good one.”


Even I think that’s a little too sexist.

People often forget this, but the idea of black advocacy organizations and feminists working towards the same goals is a very recent partnership.

Although never a member of the Communist Party, she attended meetings with her husband. The notorious Scottsboro case had been brought to prominence by the Communist Party.

No surprise there. The Civil Rights Movement probably started off noble, but it was quickly subverted. Had Martin Luther King lived a few more years, his communist sympathies and whore-mongering would have been made more public, and he wouldn’t be such a national treasure.

And remember, at this time the Communist Party was as Soviet as the mosque down the road being funded by Saudi oil money.

Now for the famous arrest. Just look at her smug mug shot. She loves the thrill of being arrested. This was totally planned. Her white friend mentioned above, Clifford Durr, was her lawyer. His wife, Virginia, was close friends with Eleanor Roosevelt and sister-in-law to former klansman Supreme Court justice Hugo Black. (Though in the 20s, the klan was more of an anti-Catholic pyramid scheme than the race terrorism we commonly think of it as.) The arrest happened just four days after she attended a meeting about Emett Till.


So what happened is there was a white bus driver named James Blake. Parks claimed that in 1943 he left her standing outside in the rain after paying her fare (because blacks had to pay at the front and then re-enter through the back), but of course there’s no evidence of that beyond her own claims. And why would she lie? It’s not like she had something to achieve.

On December 1, 1955, she refuses to move on Blake’s bus in order to make room for a white passenger. So he had her arrested for breaking the law. And yeah, it was a terrible law that should have never existed. And no, I don’t buy the excuse that “he was just doing his job”. Blake shouldn’t have asked her to get up.

But Parks knew she was breaking the law. You can’t break the law in protest and then whine about the consequences. It’s like these antifa kids who show up at right-wing events (or a presidential inauguration), try to murder people, and then get indignant when they are in jail. You can see the poisonous spirit of today’s activism as hagiographic imitation of the civil rights movement. But the original civil rights movement wasn’t saintly — it was communist subversion trying to burn down society.

She spent the afternoon in jail, and Clifford Durr and Edgar Nixon bailed her out that evening.

Parks did not originate the idea of protesting segregation with a bus sit-in. Those preceding her included Bayard Rustin in 1942, Irene Morgan in 1946, Lillie Mae Bradford in 1951, Sarah Louise Keys in 1952, and the members of the ultimately successful Browder v. Gayle 1956 lawsuit (Claudette Colvin, Aurelia Browder, Susie McDonald, and Mary Louise Smith) who were arrested in Montgomery for not giving up their bus seats months before Parks.

Another crack in the myth. Parks wasn’t an innovator. She was just doing what the men around her told her to do. After all, it wouldn’t be nearly as sympathetic of a story if a young man was asked to move seats. No, it had to be a middle aged woman coming home from her manual labor job.

On Sunday, December 4, 1955, plans for the Montgomery Bus Boycott were announced at black churches in the area, and a front-page article in the Montgomery Advertiser helped spread the word. At a church rally that night, those attending agreed unanimously to continue the boycott until they were treated with the level of courtesy they expected, until black drivers were hired, and until seating in the middle of the bus was handled on a first-come basis.

Another secret about black society. Their churches are extremely political. Oftentimes more so than religious. And the religious is often prosperity gospel. After all, if their churches really were so traditionally Christian, blacks wouldn’t vote Democrat so heavily and they wouldn’t have so many broken families and they certainly wouldn’t keep Planned Parenthood so wealthy.

I totally understand wanting a basic level of human dignity, but they also agitated for affirmative action hiring practices. They wanted to steal a job from a more qualified person. Surely branding theft and intimidation as virtues in its foundational mythology wouldn’t have horrible effects on the black community fifty years later, yes?

The next day [December 5], Parks was tried on charges of disorderly conduct and violating a local ordinance. The trial lasted 30 minutes. After being found guilty and fined $10, plus $4 in court costs, Parks appealed her conviction and formally challenged the legality of racial segregation.

There’s nothing in this on how long it took to arrest her (and thus how long the other passengers were held up). A Google search only answers how long she was in jail as its suggested question. I would make the guess that it took half an hour for a police officer to arrive. It’s not like they had cell phones then.

Maybe a man’s wife was dying in the hospital. Maybe someone had just worked fourteen hours in a factory and had to wake up in another eight. Maybe a mother’s children were hungry and restless and she was having trouble calming them down. Maybe someone was on the way to an important job interview and was going to miss it.

Did any of that matter to Parks? Was this really the only way to organize a boycott? She couldn’t have used one of the other people arrested as a mascot?

And assuming her earlier story about Blake is true (she claimed that she made a point to avoid him after the 1943 incident), you know she picked him on purpose to punish him. She didn’t just accidentally get on his bus like she claimed.

But we never hear his side of the story. I couldn’t find any interviews with him. His Wikipedia page just has a small quote where he’s giving the “I’m just doing my job” excuse.

On the day of Parks’ trial — December 5, 1955 — the WPC distributed the 35,000 leaflets. The handbill read,

“We are … asking every Negro to stay off the buses Monday in protest of the arrest and trial … You can afford to stay out of school for one day. If you work, take a cab, or walk. But please, children and grown-ups, don’t ride the bus at all on Monday. Please stay off the buses Monday.”

That’s it? Just one day? I thought the Montgomery Bus Boycott was something long term that would really hit their wallet. What they did is as meaningless as all the Mexicans staying home from work for a day. It’s like when teachers stay home from work to protest their benefits being cut, and as a result kids get to stay home for a day and the men in society who do real work for a living roll their eyes.

Parks was considered the ideal plaintiff for a test case against city and state segregation laws, as she was seen as a responsible, mature woman with a good reputation. She was securely married and employed, was regarded as possessing a quiet and dignified demeanor, and was politically savvy. King said that Parks was regarded as “one of the finest citizens of Montgomery—not one of the finest Negro citizens, but one of the finest citizens of Montgomery.”

She had a little bit of white and Indian ancestry. That slight softening of the African features goes a long way. Politics is all about optics.

The hottest black woman ever was Nedra Talley of the Ronettes. She had white and Cherokee ancestry, and it all mixed together to form this exotic but familiar look.

In the end, black residents of Montgomery continued the boycott for 381 days. Dozens of public buses stood idle for months, severely damaging the bus transit company’s finances, until the city repealed its law requiring segregation on public buses following the US Supreme Court ruling in Browder v. Gayle that it was unconstitutional.

Bait and switch. They promised the boycott would only be one day and then guilted them into committing.

But I can’t really criticize them on this. They should have boycotted the bus long before. And a one-day boycott doesn’t accomplish anything.

What you don’t hear about is the number of sympathetic whites who boycotted the bus. I’m sure there were plenty. Or perhaps there were almost none. Why don’t we hear how whites reacted? It was their city too. Don’t white lives matter?

Again, notice the root of today’s riot culture. The boycott only happened after a single figure was arrested. That single figure was promoted to victim-hero status. In the same way, it takes only unarmed thug to be shot by the cops for word to spread all around the ghetto that it’s time to loot the liquor store.

And it’s important that it’s just one thug and not two or ten. Three’s a crowd. The more faces you have, the less specific they get. A movement needs a face and a name to follow. You can’t have unnamed masses. That’s just a statistic. One face with a name gives it a human element.

King wrote in his 1958 book Stride Toward Freedom that Parks’ arrest was the catalyst rather than the cause of the protest: “The cause lay deep in the record of similar injustices.” He wrote, “Actually, no one can understand the action of Mrs. Parks unless he realizes that eventually the cup of endurance runs over, and the human personality cries out, ‘I can take it no longer.'”

A communist black pastor-activist twisting scripture to advance a political agenda. No wonder the Democrats love him so much.

Parks moved away soon after. She started a speaking tour, though she and her husband had trouble finding work. In 1957 she moved to Detroit. I’m going to do another post on Detroit later, but shortly before the 1967 riot, Detroit was rated as one of the most racially progressive cities and had the highest standard of living for blacks in the country (and hence probably the world). The city didn’t immediate empty out after the riot. What happened was after the riot the politicians doubled down on the progressivism and tried to appease the rioters. Within a decade it became the arson capital of America.

In later years Parks became friends with her hero Malcolm X. She was a supporter of the Black Panther school in Oakland, and served on the Board of Advocates of Planned Parenthood. She was a vocal supporter of reparations and was admired by race terrorist Nelson Mandela.

In 1994 she was attacked in her Detroit home by a negro thug. Parks moved to a secure high rise apartment building to protect her from more negro thugs whom she helped have the right to vote and ride the bus and eat at whatever restaurant they want. The white founder of Little Caesar’s Pizza and Detroit patriot, Mike Ilitch, paid for her living expenses for the next several years. Which, honestly, I’ll have to admire him for.

The good news, at least, is that she never procreated.

Blair’s Five Favorite Albums

These are in no particular order. Also, these aren’t necessarily what I listen to the most. My music tastes change every three months or so.

First, the honorable mentions:

Brand New — The God And Devil Are Raging Inside Me

Various Artists — Song of The Hills: Instrumental Appalachian Classics

Bob Wayne — Outlaw Carnie

Kris Kristofferson — 16 Biggest Hits

Dillard and Clark — Fantastic Expedition and Through The Morning, Through The Night, generally marketed on a single disc.

And Brahms was the greatest classical composer. Charles Schultz actually thought so too, but he made Schroeder idolize Beethoven because he’s more well known. Look up his fourth symphony. It reminds me of the video game Fable.

1. The Beach Boys — Pet Sounds

I wrote about this previously on ROK.

When I first got this album at the age of 23, I listened to it 40 times in the first 48 hours. It was what I had been looking for in the Beatles for ten years but could never find. It is absolutely the single greatest album ever. I don’t know how there aren’t more people who have obsessed over Brian Wilson like I have.

Here it is in 8-bit version, just because the original is easy enough to find. By no means equal to the original, but it’s a fun alternative.

For more Beach Boys, I would recommend Sunflower, Surf’s Up, and Holland.

2. Lynyrd Skynyrd — The Complete Muscle Shoals Album

Within a few months, I went from completely hating Lynyrd Skynyrd to turning into a die hard fan. This was as radical as going from a militant atheist to an Independent Baptist.

Before they hit it big, over-produced their records, and played up the cringe-worthy southern pandering, Lynyrd Skynyrd produced an unreleased double album in northwestern Alabama. About half the tracks have drummer Rickey Medlocke, who was far better than Bob Burns and Artimus Pyle. He also wrote and sang six of the tracks, which are easily among the best the band ever did. There’s a lot of interesting history with the album, which I won’t go into here.

There are two songs in particular worth pointing out.

An early version of “Freebird.” There’s no slide guitar and organ, which I think was a positive omission. The ballad section naturally flows into the solo. The solo doesn’t take seven minutes. It has a beginning, middle and end, like a story. The whole song is much more organic and doesn’t feel like radio fodder. And you have Medlocke killing it on drums.

The second is Medlocke’s own “The Seasons.” If that doesn’t make you put away your (somewhat justified) Lynyrd Skynyrd hatred, I don’t know what will.

It’s also worth noting that, whatever flaws they had in their famous years, they had one of the best rock n roll piano players ever, Billy Powell, who is easily equal to Freddie Mercury and Jerry Lee Lewis. (Elton John and Billy Joel are painfully over-rated.) Billy Powell alone makes their later music worth listening to. On this album, though, he only appears on two tracks.

3. The Rolling Stones — Let It Bleed

Closing out the decade in December 1969 with an album commentating on the failure of the optimism. Lyrics are about rape and murder in the streets, casual cocaine use (instead of LSD), and how, ultimately, you can’t always get what you want. This album defined the decade. I included a long thing about it at the end of my first book.

4. Cherlene

The soundtrack from season five of Archer. Normally when a tv show puts out an album, they halfway do it because they know the fans won’t care. However, the people behind Archer pulled out the stops and made one of the greatest collections of rockabilly covers possible.

I hate how they ended it though. They finish with Drivin & Cryin’s “Straight to Hell” (my theme song) and then have various characters from the show say, “Holy shit snacks.” Which, first of all, was never a funny line in the show. But more than that, you have this heavy song ending a fairly heavy album, and you end it with something that juvenile.

5. Mick Jagger — Goddess In The Doorway

What is there to say? If you ever thought Mick Jagger was just an idiot singer living off his bandmates’ talents, here’s the proof otherwise. Yes, a few songs are busts, but they are easily compensated by other tracks like “Visions of Paradise”, “God Gave Me Everything I Want”, and “Don’t Call Me Up”. This is the album Jagger was always supposed to make. There’s an aged maturity in it that his baby boomer fans would never let him express with the Rolling Stones. In the process, he created something far better than anything the Rolling Stones ever produced. It’s almost spiritual, in an extremely loose definition of the word.

An all-star cast of guests include Bono, Pete Townshend, Lenny Kravitz, Rob Thomas, and other people whom I should probably care about. Actually the only one of those I care about is Pete Townshend. I don’t really dislike U2, but they are massively over-rated and somewhat annoying. After Hillary lost, Bono put out a statement that they are delaying their upcoming album Songs of Experience to reflect the surprise. A few years ago they released Songs of Innocence, and within three years they go to Experience? How pretentious is that? And a political election in a country you don’t live in goes the way you weren’t expecting, so you have to put the world on hold to brood over your emotions?

But enough about people I dislike (because hatred and resentment requires actual emotions, and I refuse to waste those on U2). One day in the near future, Mick Jagger will die, and all the millennials on Facebook will pretend to be fans. And then I’m going to throw a chair.

Does Morality Come From God?

There are exactly two dialogues of Plato worth reading. The Symposium and Euthyphro. The first summarizes Platonic thought in brief without taking up 40 pages, and it gives a good picture of aristocratic Athens at its height. The second summarizes Socrates.

I actually don’t like Socrates. Like Plato, Socrates was a godless Democrat. Socrates sought to tear down society, but he didn’t offer anything to build it back up with. In one of them — I think the Meno — he eliminates two choices in a binary philosophical question and then the dialogue just ends. Later in The Republic, Socrates (or more likely, Plato) offers up the solution to how to rebuild society, in what is a horrible dystopia described as paradise.

Anyway, Euthyphro. The titular character is a pagan priest. It’s important to remember that Greek philosophy was a reaction against paganism, much how British Enlightenment philosophy was a reaction against Christianity.

Socrates asks Euthyphro if a moral exists because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is moral. If the former is true, then morality is subjective. Perhaps the gods could command rape or murder, but surely we wouldn’t support that. If it is the latter, then there is a force higher than the gods, and therefore the gods aren’t really gods.

Argue with enough atheists on the internet, and you’ll come across this. Usually they over-simplify it even more than I just did, because atheists tend to not be very intelligent people. Or they just all but block-quote it from Wikipedia, as though dry logic will win just be looking logicy.

atheism meme


It’s important to remember that Socrates is arguing against paganism, not Christianity. What is paganism? Just the competitors to Christianity that lost, right?

No. I want to do a full post on paganism in the future, but for now, we’ll say that pagan morality is a simple exchange. The Romans called it the pax deorum — peace of the gods. If I give Zeus two sheep, he will make my crops grow.

So Euthyphro is doing his good deed — in this case, prosecuting his father for murder — because he believes that that is what will put him in good standing with the gods. If you do good, you receive good. It’s karmic. Like all religion, paganism tries to squeeze order out of a fundamentally chaotic world.

The casual student of Greek mythology knows that the gods are rather fickle. They don’t have a universal morality, and they act like spoiled children. They are glorified humans with super powers. And in the Hesiodic genealogy of the gods, the world was formed out of impersonal, amorphous forces like Chaos, Love, and The Abyss.


This is not how the Christian God works. The Christian God is the Source of everything. He is the primordial Force, and though He is perhaps amorphous, He is not impersonal. Even using the word “He” to describe Him is faulty, because the binary between male and female is something He created. But He isn’t an “it”, because in English the neuter pronoun signifies a lack of personhood.

What is morality? Morality is an extension of who God is. Christian love is being towards others as God is towards others.

Could God have decreed rape to be moral? No. Because rape is not arbitrarily wrong. It is fundamentally wrong.

So is the moral against rape higher than God? No. Because the moral against rape extends out of God. Morality is an extension of God. To be moral is to participate in God’s nature. You are in imitation of God.

What about all the laws in Exodus and Leviticus? That’s rather subjective, yes? Does that extend out of God?

No. That was a ceremonial law intended to preserve the knowledge of God until the fullness of time when He could come and redeem man. Those ceremonial laws included some fundamental morals closely intertwined in.

Part of the ceremonial law works around foreseeable problems in society. This is why it seems like the Mosaic law tolerates polygamy or forced marriage. The Mosaic law doesn’t try to create the perfect society — it tries to create an orderly society that balances justice and mercy.


And now we have to talk about forced marriage in the Mosaic law. The above link explains a lot but isn’t complete. It’s important to remember that the ancient world was radically different from ours, so you cannot take the Mosaic law at face value and filter it through our modern values.

In the past non-believers have thrown these problematic rapey verses at me, and of course I jump in defending it without doing the right research, which always ends out terrible. Much of Old Testament morality is difficult to understand at face value, and it’s best to just answer, “I don’t know” than to try to explain it. Otherwise you sound like you think rape is a good thing.

Fortunately for you, dear reader, I’ve learned my lesson and expanded my understanding. [Somewhere in here is a joke about how I would make an amazing atheist because I know the Bible so well.]

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (Brenton):

And if when thou goest out to war against thine enemies, the Lord thy God should deliver them into thine hands, and thou shouldest take their spoil, and shouldest see among the spoil a woman beautiful in countenance, and shouldest desire her, and take her to thyself for a wife, and shouldest bring her within thine house: then shalt thou shave her head, and pare her nails; and shalt take away her garments of captivity from off her, and she shall abide in thine house, and shall bewail her father and mother the days of a month; and afterwards thou shalt go in to her and dwell with her, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be if thou do not delight in her, thou shalt send her out free; and she shall not by any means be sold for money, thou shalt not treat her contemptuously, because thou hast humbled her.

On the surface, this is terrible. I think, though, that God is trying to avoid the common practice of just raping the woman on the battlefield and letting her die. He is saying that if you insist on taking her in, then you should at give her a mourning period and then treat her like a proper wife. You can’t treat her like a common slave. You’ve already wrecked her life enough.

Look, it’s not a great situation. I don’t perfectly understand the Bible. But it’s better than gang raping her and moving on. Or the girl starving in the ruined village. All things considered, this is the best case scenario for a young female in a recently conquered city.

Let’s look at another. Deuteronomy 22:28-29:

And if any one should find a young virgin who has not been betrothed, and should force her and lie with her, and be found, the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the damsel fifty silver didrachms, and she shall be his wife, because he has humbled her; he shall never be able to put her away.

I feel like there’s another passage that says the father can refuse the woman to marry the rapist, but I can’t find it. So we’ll work with this.

In the ancient world, it was very difficult for a woman who was not a virgin to get married, especially if she didn’t come from money. Rape was not merely emotionally crippling her — you were financially and socially crippling her for the rest of her life.

Keep in mind that feminism can only exist in a safe, prosperous society. Practically speaking, it was unsafe for women to be out alone. She couldn’t just get a job waiting tables or whatever. People take it for granted today that women can support themselves, but this is near impossible for most of human history. Society just isn’t normally set up that way. You can’t do away with human nature by marching in the streets and changing laws — that can only happen with a massive surplus of resources.

So in our above hypothetical, a man totally ruins this girl’s life. Therefore, he should be made to bear the cost. Instead of receiving a dowry, he has to pay one to the father. He has to take the girl into his house and support her for life regardless of how he feels about her afterward. He can never cease supporting her no matter how badly she behaves. And while polygamy was not explicitly forbidden, it was somewhat rare and restricted, especially among the lower classes, so the man would likely be stuck with this bitter, resentful woman as his sole wife. A man’s wife is a reflection of who he is, and so the woman would be a reflection on what a shameful person he is.

Again, not a great situation. Actually, it’s a terrible situation. But all things considered, it’s the best case scenario for the woman. And perhaps the consequences would be enough to deter rape.

What Kind Of Lyrics Are The Most Morally Dangerous?

The amazing thing about Post Modern Jukebox is that they take these totally vapid pop songs and create something beautiful out of them. Many of these songs I’ve never heard until PMJ did a cover of it.

PMJ says a lot about our society. For one thing, it shows how our music has totally degraded to electronic sounds. Everything is bass, drums, and something vague that you can’t identify changing chords. We don’t have real music anymore. PMJ shows that just be rearranging them into classic American styles that have been long lost. And the sudden growth in popularity has shown that, indeed, Americans are sick of the cheap, easy garbage on the radio.


In the originals of these top 40 pop songs no one above the age of 14 listens to, the vapidity of the music fits the lyrics. Put into rich live piano band arrangements, the awfulness of the lyrics shines through. The above video is pretty representative, though perhaps just a little extreme.

Popular music has always been somewhat crass. Johnny Cash had an early song about how he made terrible grades in all his classes in high school but if he had gotten marks for loving in the dark then he would have made straight As in love.


Which is pretty overt. And you would never have a song today that sings about slave rape like the Rolling Stones did.

Still, there’s a different character to today’s music. It’s pornographic, sure, but there’s another element to it. Perhaps it just feels fake? Like that’s not how life is supposed to work but the singer desperately wishes it did. You can feel a lack of life experience in today’s music.

I’ve yet to figure out what the difference is with today’s lyrics. My theory on the plasticity of modern music may be the unifying element between the porn songs of Katy Perry and the nice guy I can’t breathe without you songs of John Legend. Both are unrealistic, and if you pursue the prescribed path, then you will ruin your life.

Except popular music has always had the element of the latter. Case in point, Elvis Presley’s “Kentucky Rain”, which hit #16 in America in early 1970:


A man wakes up and finds his girlfriend/wife missing from bed, so he walks through the countryside of Kentucky desperately trying to talk her into staying with him.

You and I take it for granted that this is painfully blue pill beta behavior (yeah, yeah, I realize those terms are dated and ruined by the internet). But most people don’t. A 15-year-old hears enough songs like that (and reads Harry Potter) and decides that this is what true love looks like. Surely it will work out if you just beg enough. True love is meant to be!

The last fifty years are full of songs like that. And because there’s nothing explicitly sexual in it, Christians ignored them. The danger in them is really subtle. A lot of people think that it’s sweet and sentimental, not self-destructive.

Meanwhile, they focused on things like Bob Dylan’s 1969 #1 “Lay Lady Lay”, which here is an alternative version from an earlier date in the 1976 tour that gave us the amazing live album Hard Rain:


Totally overt. Nothing subtle about it. I don’t know if there was moral outrage about it at the time, but I remember reading something from Focus On The Family about it several years ago, so it counts.

The thing with blatant fornication is, you either think it’s morally permissible or morally wrong. There’s not really a gray area. If you have a solid Christian foundation, you can enjoy the song without being influenced by the worldview. You know exactly what you’re getting.

That’s not the case with the John Lennon type songs about how the girl I’m currently banging is my entire world and I could never survive life without her so I’ll do anything to make sure she continues putting up with my desperate, paranoid behavior.

Therefore, I propose that “Rude” by MAGIC! is far more dangerous to our society than the Katy Perry song at the top.


Read More: Music Reflects Society: Why We Have No Great Love Songs Anymore