top of page

The God in Words and Feelings

This is another one I wrote back in 2016. And again, I can't help but feel that largely due to my reading of Victor Davis Hanson, I nailed it. Enjoy, or don't. You are still free to do so.

When thinking about God and worship practices within the US political spectrum, one tends to associate those types of beliefs with persons of right leaning persuasions. I would say most people associate religion, Christianity specifically with Conservatives more so than Liberals. However the left does have a God, and in their mind it is the most powerful thing ever conceived. Every other religion’s God pales in comparison to what the left worships… words and feelings. There is nothing more powerful today than a word that can elicit an unfavorable feeling to a modern day liberal and when that is your God, I do believe the glue has failed because words and feelings can be trendy, not timeless, and a God with fluidity is a dangerous one with a set of rules and standards void of structure – and this is coming from a man who is not religious in the least.

Think of all the phrases the left puts their faith in to thwart or produce behavior: “Establishment bans guns on these premises,” “drug free school zone,” “hate speech,” “safe space,” “sanctuary city,” “white privilege,” “black lives matter,” “me too,” “time’s up,” “fascist/bigot/racist/xenophobe/islamaphobe/sexist/chauvinist/etc,” the list could go on for a week and a day. The point is that every word or phrase the left clings to is something, like how a lot of the Christian conservatives feel toward the bible, that is meant to be absorbed as the final say with absolutely no argument. Now, some of their favorite phrases need no arguing. Black lives do matter. No decent human being should be against a woman’s right to not be assaulted – sexually or physically - or taken advantage of. But who in their right mind thinks that a sign reading “gun free zone” will prevent someone hell bent on using a gun for malicious purposes from walking into a gun free zone??? It will however prevent a responsible person with morals and integrity from bringing their quite possibly legal gun into that gun free zone, completely negating the purpose of the sign’s intent – to stop someone from harming people with a gun, which brings up the formula to liberalism that someone much smarter than I alerted me to a little while back that I will delve into shortly.

The Left literally worships words. They have to. There’s no other explanation for how a safe space could become a legitimate thought in someone’s unrealistic mind. A safe space is the product of believing words are so powerful that an area is needed where you could not possibly be upset by another’s speech. And that by designating a “safe space” it will in turn keep offensive opinions on the other side of that imaginary boundary, as if it were a barbed wire fence displaying the flesh and eyeballs, hopefully the lips, teeth and tongues of mean people that thought for one second they had the right to disagree with the group think being vomited inside that PC area. That brings us to feelings.

The consequences of hurtful words are hurt feelings and that is something that simply cannot be tolerated by today’s Left. A person’s feelings are so revered and worshiped by the Left that there are calls by some to reconsider the importance of what this entire country was founded upon, the First Amendment. “Well if someone is going to have their feelings hurt by another person’s words than we have to start thinking about banning certain words.” Hate speech - and as the same friend who clued me into the formula to liberalism once said, “What is this hate speech I keep hearing about? There’s no such thing as hate speech. It’s called free speech. There may be free speech that is hateful, but there’s no such thing as hate speech.”

How is it that we’ve gotten to a place where a person’s feelings are so delicate and important that unraveling the Constitution is the solution to a bad day? I’ll tell you how - the worshiping, the deity like status placed upon something as simple as words and feelings. I’ve always joked about the former lead singer of Pantera being our Lord and Savior and in my younger years I can say without much doubt that had I been faced with the opportunity to hang out with him or briefly meet him after a show or even use a urinal shortly after he did I possibly would have committed some unsavory acts to make any one of those a reality. When you place a crushing amount of importance and power in something that probably doesn’t deserve it, the situation seems ripe for behavior that will likely be viewed as insane and or destructive to those around you, in the Left’s current case, an entire country.

The formula to liberalism was described by the earlier mentioned person as where the second argument negates the first. I laughed when he said it because it’s funny, but in the weeks and months after hearing it I realized that it can be applied to so many beliefs held by the left. The example used was the Sanctuary City disasterpiece and it’s spot on. He said something along the lines of – the Left wants SanctuaryCities and open borders. They want people to be able to flow back and forth across the southern US, uninhibited and they want those that are here illegally to be protected from deportation by remaining in a city that won’t cooperate with Federal agents. So they don’t want a wall along the southern border but in essence they want an imaginary wall around cities with sanctuary status. My guess is that if liberals could snap their fingers and have a physical wall put up around San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Minneapolis/St. Paul and others they’d snap their fingers 400 times to keep ICE agents out. The second argument negates the first.

The Me Too movement and gender as fluid is another display of contradiction I feel. As I said earlier, every woman (every person) has the right to live life unaffected by sexual harassment. The Me Too movement is almost entirely being pushed by females blaming men for these atrocious acts and I’m quite sure that an overwhelming majority of sexual assaults are committed by males toward females. Now lets throw in the idea that a person’s gender is as easily changed as the oil on my immaculate 2007 Mercury Grand Marquis (it has a funnel built in so all the oil gets collected and directed in a nice smooth stream right into the pan when you unscrew the filter!). If the Me Too movement is being powered forward by tons of celebrity females who also feel gender is fluid and males are mostly to blame, but a person’s biological make up is just an insignificant semantic talked about in circles by old, uncool (Greg Gutfeld) right wingers that just don’t understand the enlightened progressive crowd then doesn’t the whole foundation of their argument start to fall apart a little, or at least show a crack or two? If an argument is almost solely based on two distinct and different subjects, with one pitted against the other, but a secondary argument from the same people says those two subjects are interchangeable with some even saying there’s no difference between the two, to me the second argument is completely negating the first. I might be crazy though. I was told as much when I claimed The Great Southern Trendkill was Pantera’s best album in an article that was published by an online magazine in the Twin Cities of Minnesota, and boy, oh boy, did they give some great counter arguments such as, “oh great, another effing D-bag telling us why a band is so great, just shut the eff up already,” and “you know how you know this guy isn’t a Pantera fan, he thinks TGSTK is their best album.” I mean, how does one even answer that? Let me be clear, this is a critique of “gender fluidity” and not Me Too. But I think the fact remains that these two societal movements are somewhat at odds with each other. For the Me Too movement to be largely driven by women toward men, you kind of need there to be two stationary genders, not the possibility for someone to be a man one day a woman the next. For one gender to be pushing a movement on another, don’t we need two defined genders?

Keeping with the gender fluidity theme, my line of work is another area very much ingrained to the Left that presents a wondrous example of contradiction. I am a union ironworker, and while I love what I do and can see how our union performs some important deeds to ensure members are not taken advantage of by companies, they certainly seem to have not thought a particular movement through or are desperately hoping some or many of us don’t decide to play them for their oversight.

In my 6 years of iron work, I’ve never once heard of the Union Hall using our money (as in the union dues collected from our paychecks) to donate toward any political candidate other than a Democrat. Democrats that are surely in support of a person’s right to decide if their gender does not match their sex, this is Minnesota after all, one of the most progressively liberal states in the country. I believe in the not too distant future there will be an attempt to push all motor vehicles off the streets of Minneapolis in favor of single speed bicycles with obnoxiously fat tires, unicycles carrying puke inducing hipsters with iguanas named Albert (likely in honor of Al Franken, that loony-toon creep) perched atop their annoying shoulders and pedestrians walking errantly through stop lights that no longer serve a purpose while Facebook Live records their sanctimonious rants on how environmentally conscious they are since a polluting vehicle is no longer their mode of transport yet forgetting the iPhone inches from their face got to their hand by gasoline, diesel, oil and a slew of other needed “polluters” to make life convenient and give them a platform for their word vomit.

So what if a whole horde of male ironworkers started deciding that they identified as female. What if they started identifying as a black female, because there’s also a movement to allow people to identify with a different race from their biological? See, while the vast majority of ironworkers are white males, they are also the bottom of the barrel when it comes to importance on certain jobs - jobs that need to meet minority requirements. I personally have been the victim of a few layoffs while minorities were kept that knew far less than I did and were not as useful. In one case, I spent an entire job teaching a female apprentice how to “throw deck” the way that company wanted it done. I gave her props to foremen when asked how she was doing because she was a beast and put the guy that came out on the same day as she did to absolute shame. When the work slowed in the fall I was told they couldn’t use me for a month while she stayed employed. Just a few months later in February, when work slowed again I was laid off while she was kept. Instances like this are the nature of this career but I know for a fact that while she was a very good worker, she was more useful than me from time to time on jobs that helped the company out because they had a minority.

So what would the Hall do if white male ironworkers started filing into the Union in droves saying they wanted all the BAs (Business Associates – those who send you out on jobs if you get one through the Union Hall and not a direct call from a company you’ve previously worked for) to know that they now identify as females of color? I’ll tell you what the Hall would do, they would call a meeting and collectively say to themselves, “we’re effed,” except they would use the real F word and use it probably 15 times in 2 – 3 short sentences.

In summary, the Union uses money from our paychecks to endorse and donate to nothing but democrats running for office that in turn favor movements and policies that would throw a giant wrench into the Union’s operations if enough members of the union started using the movement to their advantage, honestly or not.

Possibly the most egregious example of hypocritical liberal lunacy and in lock-step with my Union’s theorized conundrum: affirmative action… reverse discrimination or “positive discrimination” as Google refers to it (there, in the uber left leaning modern day Skynet’s definition is an oxymoron and stunning display of Liberalism. I was unaware that there was a good version of discrimination). In spirit, “we demand equality for everyone, and in that equality will we make sure certain groups of people are more important than others.” “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” The Left wants us living on the freakin’ Animal Farm! Look at the call to tear down or rename anything associated with the Confederacy or slavery. I believe the saying is something along the lines of history doomed to repeat itself when you refuse to acknowledge it, not “erase the past and the future will be perfect,” that story has already been written and it’s called 1984, and it ain’t a happy one. But the Liberal solution always seems to be an Orwellian one, where history is scrubbed in a way to reflect whatever current wave of PC trends are prevailing and to make sure any blemishes on the Democratic side of history now read as heroic and bravely rebellious against a tyrant that opposed their courageous movements.

So how does one side intelligibly argue with another when the boundaries constantly change, when the rules are never consistent, when one side has fixed and timeless morals to check themselves against while the other bases their beliefs on what is trending on Twitter and Facebook or a disconnected Hollywood actress and her preachings from the award podium or what activism makes a person feel good about themselves that week regardless of the impact on society at large? I believe we’re at a breaking point and certain discussions are increasingly no longer possible. The Left is on the verge of going so far off the cliff that it’s becoming impossible to debate. “Impeach 45!!!” So then you get Pence? Something tells me liberals will like that administration on par with a kick to the crotch. But that’s the point, there’s no logic or reason coming from that side these days. All I have to do is listen to a handful of my own family members to remind me of how unhinged that side has become. And these are highly educated, successful, intelligent people. To quote The Sage of Los Angeles, The Great Elderski, the unmatched right wing mind of Larry Elder, “conservatives view liberals as well intentioned but misguided. Liberals view conservatives as really bad people.” Really bad people who strive to ruin the day of a poor, unsuspecting leftie victim by committing sacrilege within the liberal faith by a nasty word hell bent on a hurt feeling. Plain and simple – the Left’s glue on reality has failed.

11 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page