Posted on

Jesus Targeted Hearts, Not Systems

The Truth About Lies About Jesus

I know, I know. I said I wouldn’t write any more religious posts because too many religious people major on minors and miss the forest for the trees. But I saw a piece recently where a writer attempted to show us just how smart he was and exercise a moral authority that apparently he possesses and everyone else just sits in awe, awaiting his every wise word on how centuries of information derived from ancient texts should be viewed the way he says it should, in spite of the historical accuracy of said ancient texts, or you are simply wrong. (I’ve purposely chosen not to include his article, so he doesn’t get unnecessarily digitally doxed).

It always fascinates me how people spend so much time attempting to tear down mountains of archaeological evidence, lived experience, and structure that has clearly benefited society. This happens when people attack religion, and especially Christianity. I say especially, because it is the religion that is the most attacked in America.

I won’t go too deep here on this, but three major discoveries of ancient scrolls surfaced over time, each older than the previous finds. Each time, they were identical. This is almost impossible to achieve outside of authenticity. Scholars who specialize in ancient manuscripts don’t dispute the core documents used to assemble the Bible. The best resource I know for this information is Wes Huff. Moving on.

In this newest hit piece, the first problem I notice is the overwhelming desire to use the word Palestinian yet claim to be giving us a history lesson at the same time. Palestinian wasn’t a word used often in biblical times. It’s not a region. Not an ethnicity. Regardless, let’s glean from his “Four points of brilliance.”

#1. Jesus Wasn’t White.

“What most white Christians conveniently forget is that the real Jesus of Nazareth looked nothing like those Renaissance paintings.”

Who is most? No one believes he was. I literally know of no one that believes for one second that Jesus was “white.” He was Jewish. The idea that some may consider him white is pulling from, very possibly, one of the smallest samples in survey history. The only people claiming others say this are indulging in the very tired race baiting that permeates liberal white women.

#2. Jesus Was Political.

“You have to be especially ignorant of basic historical facts to believe that Jesus—who was literally executed by the state as a political threat under a placard reading ‘King of the Jews’—wasn’t political.”

The crucifixion was illegal. Neither the Romans nor the Jewish authorities actually had a solid legal case against Jesus. Nothing that justified an execution. Many expected him to lead a revolutionary style governmental revolt, but his teachings consistently pushed away from political insurrection. He instructed them to respect the government. His only real intersection with political authority was confronting the Pharisees, who had aligned themselves with Roman power to protect their religious structure, cultural traditions, and the limited individualism and autonomy they still retained.

“He proclaimed good news to the poor and liberation to the oppressed.”

Yes. To the individual.

“He warned the first would be last and the last would be first.”

Calling the individual to humble himself.

“He told parables of masters being overthrown by servants, kings being challenged, wealthy being cast down while hungry were fed.”

The aim was to cultivate humility. To remind the person that, apart from Christ, their standing is no greater than that of the beggar, and that wealth should remain a servant rather than a master.

“He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey in a deliberate parody of Roman imperial processions.”

This was prophesied in Zechariah 9:9 approximately 500 years before Jesus was here.

The four examples given under #2 were all directed to the individual. Never a systemic enterprise. His message challenged hearts, not institutions.

#3 His Message Wasn’t About Heaven or Afterlife.

“Recognize that the Bible is not a historically accurate transcript of what Jesus said

(Admittedly, this is very difficult for most people who have been brainwashed to believe almost from birth that the Bible is “the word of God” with no mistakes and practically a fourth member of the trinity).”

Brainwashed? Brainwashed to believe 2 Timothy 3:16.

Then he says,

“Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, liberate the oppressed, forgive debts, redistribute wealth.”

Nope. Redistributed wealth was never near his lips. And even if it were interpreted that way, His message challenged hearts, not institutions.

Jesus’ message about money wasn’t complicated. Many religious leaders in his time were corrupt, working with Roman authorities to protect their hierarchical power and status. They treated wealth like proof of spiritual favor. Jesus didn’t condemn wealth itself, he warned, either you govern money, or it governs you. His criticism was aimed at people, like the Pharisees, who were controlled by money.

Maybe my favorite part of this segment in the piece was the dismissal of validity due to the fact that John wrote his letters around 70 A.D. (Actually, he said 70 years after Jesus’ death. That’s not true. It was approximaely 35 years after). This was when they knew it had all been completed. Not when they believe he wrote it. But let’s assume “oh wise one” is right. We have texts on Alexander the Great. The first known writings about his life happened over 250 years after his death. But we believe it as undeniable truth. The inconsistency is astounding.

#4 Jesus Wasn’t Divine.

“This is the big one—and is probably most difficult for modern Christians to accept. The historical Jesus, the man who walked the earth 2,000 years—never actually claimed to be divine. That’s an invention of his later followers.”

This is the biggest reach. But it again denies the validity of 2 Timothy 3:16. This is to dismiss the expression of the trinity, the claim that got him killed, and the more than 300 prophecies from the Old Testament that he fulfilled. If Jesus was not divine, we are all doomed. I guess, “I am the way, the truth, the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” just slipped his mind.

Why It Matters

“It made Jesus into an object of worship, a ticket to heaven, a way to escape this world.”

No, it actually drew a line in the sand, called people up, demanded people do not give in to desires, pointed to a narrow road, gave hope to the hopeless, and solidified exactly why Jesus was here.

What this writer did was cherry pick the visions of the anointed, the intellectuals (who surely have no agenda of their own) and justified every carnal move and every principal they think writers in the Bible “just got wrong.”

This is how dangerous it is to be governed by our feelings. We will find things that aren’t there.

“The lies Christians tell about Jesus—that he was white, apolitical, focused on the afterlife, and divine—aren’t innocent mistakes. They’re a systematic reconstruction designed to make Jesus safe for power.”

“This afterlife-obsessed Christianity has served power perfectly throughout history.”

The reduction to power is the part that’s intellectually dishonest. As if the only motivation one could have for staying out of politics was for power. This is truly paradoxical to common sense playing out right in front of us. Many, if not most, get in to politics for power, not avoid it.

Growth Over Feelings

But why would someone take such pride in deconstructing the Christian faith using fallacies and feelings over centuries of fact? Because it doesn’t line up with the way he feels. It doesn’t just say, “Do exactly what you want. Your truth is superior to the truth.”

It calls you toward a peaceful life. Towards delayed gratification. To invest in the next generation. To be a person of moral character. Integrity. Consistency. This fosters personal growth. And that’s difficult and messy. When beliefs clash with personal preference, reinterpretation becomes tempting.

Ok, I’m done with this. It will likely call out every religious zealot that sits around all day thinking about whether Susan went all the way in (because we saw her hand sticking out) or if we need to schedule another baptism. Sheesh. I’m tired thinking about that.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

The Freedom of Limits

Less Echoes, More Challenges

This isn’t one of those articles that brings research, data, science, into the discussion. This one is the eyeball test. What I see, what is working, and what’s not working.

Back Story

When I began officiating college basketball, it was primarily due to how poorly basketball was being officiated. I set out to show it was possible to work hard and be a good referee. I quickly garnered a reputation for, “That’s one of the good ones.” As if to suggest this is rare.

Fast forward. Many years later, I’m serving in a pastoral counseling role at my church when my wife says, “You should consider doing this for a living.” That sparked a desire to understand where the industry was. It didn’t take long to understand that this industry was ideologically captured by group-think minions that dare you to present facts and refuse to test the ideas they espouse proudly.

  • Affirm at all costs
  • Validate anything and everything
  • Make them feel seen and heard so they return
  • Don’t challenge them or they will end their own lives and you will be the reason why

This all made no sense to me. If counseling becomes solely a space for affirmation without thoughtful challenge, its value diminishes. Effective therapy involves both validation and constructive confrontation. Helping clients examine assumptions, recognize blind spots, and consider alternative perspectives rather than simply reinforcing existing beliefs.

But that’s just it, we have moved beyond the ability to think critically, but rather homogenously. It’s an incessant drilling of like-minded, echo-chambered mobs with pitchforks daring others to get in their way. “If they believe they’re a microwave, you better find the popcorn button!” But there’s a problem, it simply doesn’t work.

Therapeutic Madness

I recently read an article that made me almost come out of my chair and yell in excitement at the screen, “Yes! That’s what I’m saying!” Skye Sclera’s primary point was how therapy seems to be ideologically homogenous and in denial that another perspective exists. When therapy becomes this rooted in groupthink, it reduces its quantitative reach. And when clinicians struggle to establish clear behavioral limits, clients may interpret this as implicit permission for unrestricted behavioral choices, including those that may be maladaptive or harmful. It’s like a menu that has way too many options. You’re not impressed, you’re overstimulated. That’s because there’s liberty in limits. But good luck telling the therapeutic community that.

The Outcry

Lately, there have been an influx of mothers entering our office making this statement, “I heard you had a man here that talks to teenage boys and knows how to make the rest of our lives more peaceful. Well, I need this guy to see my son. Because he is wreaking havoc on our home and something has to change!” The last five mothers who entered saying this, I accepted as clients. Here are some examples:

New Dad

One comes in, looking everywhere but in my eyes. Talks at me instead of to me. We begin talking about how he ended up in my office (most of my clients are court-ordered). As he states why, I quickly see that this young man doesn’t have a man in his life telling him how to and how not to act in public. So I ask. Nope. No man. So I lean in. “You want to be exactly like your father who is sitting in a prison cell? No? Then you should start acting like a real man. You have a baby on the way. Do you wish to be the dad you never had? Yeah? Then you will need to start acting like a man. So far, you resemble a little boy who argues and fights his way through everything. Men discuss. Men care. Men protect and provide but also nurture and love. You are on your way to being cellmates with your dad if you don’t do something different!” He clearly needed to hear this. Because his mom told him he didn’t have to go to therapy if he didn’t want to. Yet he chose to continue.

Little Boy Syndrome

Another one came in looking down and away, steady RBF. Made it clear he didn’t want any part of this. Again, I leaned in. “Sounds like you wanted to be treated like a man.” He nods yes. “Then you should start acting like one. Men don’t look down when they’re talking to people. Men don’t cuss their mothers. Men don’t sit back and wait for good things to happen. They make good things happen. They initiate. They help. They make everyone’s life around them better because they’re in it. Little boys cause more problems. And you’re causing more problems for your family.”

This particular young man goes back to court. His mother tells the judge about our conversations. Leaves it to the young man where to go for therapy. He says he wants to see me because I’m “different.”

What makes me different? I fully believe it’s because I don’t let them stay where they are.

“Who you are isn’t nearly as important as who you could be. And who you could be isn’t here. So let’s go find him.”

Mom’s Despair

A mother comes in with her arms open. “The last 5 therapists I saw didn’t understand. They validate my son’s anger outbursts. Affirm his rudeness and violent tirades. They say that we must let him feel his emotions fully. Am I going crazy or does that sound like a bad idea?” I then spoke about how young men need structure that’s not sugar-coated but blunt and forward directed. I told her that I believed his previous therapists were trying to exorcise the masculine out of him, assuming that was the demon within, and installing a feminine chip would solve everything. But it won’t.

As I told her some of the strategies I use on teenage boys, she began to cry. But they were tears of joy. For the first time, she encountered feedback that resonated with psychological clarity. Rather than vague reassurance, she heard a formulation grounded in behavioral principles. I spoke of the benefits of structured incentives, consistent boundaries, and predictable consequences. At the same time, supporting his development likely requires a balanced approach. Allowing meaningful autonomy while maintaining appropriate parental guidance rather than granting full control. No one had ever expressed the need for him to be called up, not out.

Quenching the Thirst Using Limits

What I hear is an outcry from both mothers and young men for something real and not ideological. Something that beckons to evolutionary psychology. Something that is a calling card to their given biology. That it’s ok to be masculine. It’s ok to be tough. It’s ok to be angry. It’s ok to be confused. And it’s ok to express emotion.

It’s as if they have been wandering in a desert and someone just gave them a drink of cold water.

This must be how Jordan Peterson felt when he realized how many men were responding to his call to stand up straight, put on your best clothes, look a man in the eye, make your bed, and treat yourself like someone you’re responsible for. I’ve seen many interviews when people ask him to acknowledge this influence and he is reduced to tears. Now I know why. It’s sadness knowing that all they needed was fundamental encouragement to revolutionize their lives mixed with the pure joy of seeing it come to fruition.

I’m seeing it now. Every day. We don’t need more therapists who just nod and validate everything. We need more who actually challenge people. Therapists willing to call out what’s broken and call people up to something better. Ones who aren’t afraid to say the uncomfortable, unpopular truths that actually change lives. Because drowning clients in feelings while ignoring reality isn’t compassion, it’s avoidance. And whether the field admits it or not, a lot of people are starving for someone who will finally be honest with them. But if you ask a therapist, they’ll say these clients are misguided and haven’t found their “true self.” Yes they have. And now I’m normalizing their true self with structure and boundaries. And the evidence is right before me. There’s freedom in limits.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Single Awareness Day

Why Being You and Working On You Are Both Good

This is for my single friends.

When I was single I celebrated the hatred of Valentine’s Day. Literally got with other miserable young men and drank to the hatred of Valentine’s Day. I’m still not excited about the marketing pressure to make purchases you shouldn’t in order to meet cultural norms. It’s worse in dating than marriage. But still awful.

Here are some things I wish I knew when I was younger.

Why Do You Get Married?

If you marry because you love them, you’ll divorce them because you don’t love them. Love cannot and will not be a sustaining factor in marriage. It must be commitment. Commitment when it’s hard, messy, gross, frustrating, and truly no fun.

The work gets you through the tough times and makes the good times better than they have ever been.

Note: For Christians, you must marry someone solely because you believe God put this person in your path on purpose. What God put together let no man separate.

Marital Problems

Martial problems are rarely marital problems. They’re almost always singleness problems that never got dealt with.

Deal with you. Make you better. A partner won’t transform you. They will just exacerbate what’s already there. So put yourself in the strongest position possible before expecting success. Your relationship will never be successful if either of you are still broken.

Single Is a Whole Number

You aren’t a fraction of a person when you’re single. You aren’t second rate. Inferior. Missing out on life. You’re single. Some choose to stay single their whole lives. Some don’t. But if you’re someone who wishes you weren’t single, it’s ok. You won’t be forever. Just for now. If you rush, it will be a mistake.

What You Emit, You Attract

I had a daughter that at age 13 was posting sports bra pictures on Instagram. I sat her down and asked her what type of guy will like that post. She thought about it, and with honesty, said, “Boys that only care about one thing.” Yup.

“What kind of boy would respond to a post where you have a cute outfit on holding a cup of coffee and a Bible?” She said, “The marrying kind.” Yup.

The presentation you deliver into the world will equal the response you receive. If you give thot vibes, you will get thots in your DMs. If you give classy vibes, you’ll get classy in your DMs. Work on your presentation. And be the person you want.

Familiarity

There was a study done at Yale involving 3-month-old to 7-month-old babies. The experiment involved three phases: Good vs bad, same vs different, the first two combined.

Infant Morality

In the experiment, they performed a puppet show for the babies. A gray bunny was trying to open a box but was struggling. Along came an orange bunny and helped him finish opening the box. Next, while the gray bunny was trying to open the box, a blue bunny came along and abruptly shut the box door so the gray bunny couldn’t open it. They then presented the two bunnies for the infant to choose. Over 70% of the time they chose the good bunny.

Taste Buds Rule

Next, they presented two types of food. Cheerios and Golden Grahams. The baby selected. Then the green bunny chose the same food they chose, while the purple bunny chose the other food and saying they didn’t like the food the baby chose. Again, they were tasked to choose a bunny. Over 70% chose the bunny who chose the same food.

A Fork in the Road

Lastly, they took the green and purple bunny and placed them in the first scenario. The green bunny who chose the same food as the baby was the bad bunny (no, not the Super Bowl guy) who slammed the box down. The purple bunny who chose a different food was the good bunny. They were at a crossroads. Do they choose the good bunny who chose a different food or the bad bunny who chose the same food? The majority chose the bad bunny who chose the same food. Familiarity took priority over morality.

Be intentional in choosing the right person, not the familiar person. This explains why people choose abusive partners. I had a client in my office last week. First session. She tells me her ex-husband was abusive and she just broke up with an abusive man. I asked her how often her dad abused her. She just started sobbing. She had yet to mention her dad. She didn’t have to. She found what was familiar.

It’s why people go back to spouses that abuse them. It’s familiar. And I get why. New is scary. It’s unchartered territory. It’s unknown. It’s just much easier to go back to what we already know, even if what we know is not good for us. This is why we must surround ourselves with the right people who will support us in this transition out of what’s familiar and into what’s best.

DO NOT settle for familiar. In fact, don’t settle at all. You’re worth more. See your value the same way you value others.

Lastly, when you do find a partner, don’t make Valentine’s Day such a big deal. It’s just another way retailers found to market our emotions. I treat my wife like she’s a queen every single day of our lives. Therefore, when Valentine’s Day gets here, it’s just another day.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

I Forgive You

The Burden That Affects Only One

I have written about forgiveness before, but in response to an article and a cultural event that took place. You can see that HERE. This time, I want to make it personal. Because it is. Here’s my story. Try your best to respond to the call to action at the end.

I forgive you. Yeah you, the one who told me you would place me under investigation so that I would leave the company because you didn’t want any white people there.

I forgive you. Yeah you, the one who told me I would not get the job though I was most qualified because I was a white male.

I forgive you. Yeah you, the one who told me that the only way I’d ever be a good therapist was if I were to become a woman.

I forgive you. Yeah you, the one who went behind me, told outright lies, and got me removed from the band because you wanted full credit for any future success of that artist.

Aas far as I know, each one of those individuals above are still alive. But if they were deceased, it wouldn’t change the statement. I forgive them. Why?

Forgiveness is an internal dialogue. Though it is expressed externally. Forgiveness is you drawing a hard line in your own mind and body. This wound does not get unlimited access to my life. The injury happened, but it doesn’t get to run the system anymore. You’re telling your nervous system to stand down, telling your thoughts to stop orbiting the damage, and reclaiming the bandwidth that pain once consumed. From that point forward, you’re not drifting in reaction, you’re moving with intention. Focus replaces fixation. Direction replaces rumination. And your future stops being negotiated by your past.

My Experience

I was working at a large corporation. I had risen to the top 5 in the entire company in sales. I was being celebrated by many in the company that were not in my area. Meanwhile, in my area, there was a black woman that sat me down and told me a harsh truth. I had applied for a supervisor position leading a sales team. She said that she did not want me to get the supervisor’s position.

As a result, I did not get it. She told me it was because she wanted her black female friends to get it because we need more “diversity.” Diversity had come to be known as non-white. She said, and I quote, “The last thing this company needs is more white men telling black people what to do.” Another supervisor’s position became available. I applied again. This time, someone above her stated that being top 5 in the company means something and that he was giving me a shot. But I had to work for “her.” As soon as I got the job, she told me that she would see to it that I’m no longer there.

She had opened an investigation into another supervisor, a mixed male. Again stating that we need more females in the company. Shortly thereafter, she opened one on me, completely inventing infractions. My coworker sweat through it and hung on. I did not. I moved on.

I was in another industry. I went to the boss and discussed getting hired for certain positions. He plainly told me that we need more black people and that I would not get the job, “So don’t even bother applying.” I was more qualified and had more experience. It did not matter.

I’ve already written about this, but basically, I was in class and told that in order to be a good therapist, you have to be a woman. If you’re a man, you have to be feminine. You can’t be masculine in any way. But being a straight white Christian male made it impossible to be a good therapist and that I needed to rethink my career choices.

Each of these individuals left a mark on me. It stung. Each of these individuals was in a place of authority and, by default, I looked up to them. Each said what they said because they knew there were no repercussions. Being racist or sexists was perfectly acceptable as long as it was against white males. And I’m not the lawsuit type. I like the path of least resistance.

Fortunately, I’m surrounded by wise men and women. And these wise individuals encouraged me to see it for what it was; a power grab rooted in ideological homogeny centered around group think that has placed blinders over their eyes to the possibility that someone could disagree with them and be right. So I forgave them.

How Do You Know When You’ve Forgiven Them?

You know forgiveness has actually happened when their name stops having power over your nervous system. It comes up, a familiar scenario resurfaces, and there’s no spike. No heat. No internal recoil. Just neutrality.

My wife had to forgive her ex-husband and her father for years of harm. Today, when they’re mentioned, she doesn’t relive the story. She simply says she hopes and prays they’ve changed. That’s the difference. Forgiveness isn’t sentimental, it’s neurological. The person who once hijacked your emotions no longer lives rent free in your head. Their name becomes just a sound, not a trigger. And in that moment, you realize something radical. You’re no longer reacting. You’re choosing

Studies

There are studies showing a link between forgiveness and physical health. One such meta-analysis (Lee & Enright, 2019) showed forgiveness having a positive effect on the sympathetic nervous system, endocrine production, brain activity, blood pressure, cholesterol, and the immune system (N = 58,531, r = 0.14, p < 0.001).

Your Turn

Who do you need to forgive? Your story is likely much worse than mine. Murder. Rape. Molestation. Sex trafficking. Domestic violence. Psychological abuse. Malevolently turning the children against you. The list goes on and on. People do awful things at times.

You may be asking, “Why should I forgive them? They don’t deserve that.” And you would be right. They don’t. I don’t deserve the forgiveness I receive either. And neither do you. That’s why.

So I’ll ask again, who do you need to forgive? Don’t wait. Don’t put it off. Forgive them today, tonight. Even if you don’t have a way to tell them. Forgive them. Tell someone that you’ve done so. You will begin to feel a weight lifted off of your shoulders. Peace is achievable. But not with unforgiveness lurking in the background.

To my Christian brothers and sisters. Forgiving is not an option. It is a command. We are able to forgive others because God forgave us. Remember, we didn’t deserve the forgiveness God extended, no one does. So forgive.

One last time, Who Do You Need to Forgive?

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

Lee, Y., & Enright, R. D. (2019). A meta-analysis of the association between forgiveness of others and physical health. Psychology & Health, 34(5), 626–643. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2018.1554185

Posted on

Information Correctly Examined

The Hidden Truth Behind Emotional Headlines

I realize it is uncharacteristic for me to jump into the legal realm, but my criminal justice minor comes out of hiding in certain situations, particularly if the law is being ignored or misrepresented. Knowing the facts behind any situation, juxtaposing those facts against the emission of information, and seeing clear and obvious incongruencies will cause me to write something like this. As a result, we will pause the 3-part series on men valuing marriage and interrupt the regularly schedule program for an important update.

We can all agree that the current crisis of illegal immigration, enforcement of such, and the violent protests that are taking place have captured America, at least in the short-term. We can also agree that loss of life is terrible, regardless of the circumstances. These were human beings coming to the rescue of other human beings (at least in their eyes, this was their intention). These are pure motives. Respectable. Honorable (sort of). But as Thomas Sowell once said, the only thing that made him realize Marxism was the wrong way to go was… Facts. And this is precisely where this story takes a turn, the facts.

Legal facts

Is the current operation lawful under the U.S. Constitution?

  • In Article I, it states that Congress is to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. From this, SCOTUS has inferred national sovereignty over borders.
  • In Article II, the executive branch is given authority to enforce such laws using entities available to it, such as ICE and DHS.
  • Because the courts have determined that immigration enforcement is a civil function and not criminal, immigration laws do not fall under Article III.

When did SCOTUS decide that?

It is vital that the public understand the clear distinction the courts have made between civil enforcement and criminal enforcement. If it were criminal enforcement, then Article III would come into play, granting rights to counsel, speedy trial, jury trial, etc. This is not needed for civil enforcement. Therefore:

  • ICE does not need to provide criminal-level due process.
  • Immigration courts are administrative courts, not Article III courts.
  • Standards of proof are lower.
  • Detention can occur pending proceedings.

The Recent Cases

Now that we have legal facts, let’s break down the facts from this lens for just a couple of recent cases (The Renee Good case is HERE).

Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias

This gentleman was being pursued by ICE for being in the U.S. illegally. Arias also had warrants for multiple criminal offenses. Upon realizing that he was being pursued, Arias fled his vehicle, leaving his son alone in the vehicle. The officers then helped the small child stay warm, provided him food, and sought to reunite him with family. Upon taking the child to a family residence, they refused to open the door and take this child in. Therefore, he has now been rejected by both his father and other family members. ICE then detains Arias, who then agrees to reunite with the child. They are placed in a residential facility together awaiting immigration trial.

When reading the facts, I don’t see detainment of a child, bait, deception on the part of ICE. I see a lawful federal operation.

Alex Pretti

This gentleman attended a protest with a camera and a pistol on his side. ICE agents were there to arrest a different individual. So far, Pretti had been peacefully protesting with a camera in hand. Upon attempting to arrest the targeted individual, Mr. Pretti ceased being peaceful and physically interfered with the arrest. This resulted in an attempt to detain Mr. Pretti for his actions, to which he physically resisted. While agents were attempting to detain him, another agent removed Pretti’s pistol and walked away. Immediately following this, Pretti reaches for his pistol, that he thought was still there, to avoid detainment using lethal force. Neither Pretti nor the agents knew that the pistol had been removed, based on both subsequent actions. ICE agents, believing there to be a pistol, fired shots.

Again, this is a simple case of someone violently interfering with a lawful federal operation, resisting arrest, and attempting to fire shots at an ICE agent. This is sad. Unfortunate. Needless. Preventable. Some say the administration should give ICE a break for a while and let the fury die down. And maybe they’re right. But when they attempt to do their job again, will someone physically attempt to interfere? Will someone hurt the ICE agents who are doing their job? Will someone else lose a loved one? How does culpability rest with those doing their lawful job in the face of unlawful mobs?

All loss is sad. Good’s loss is sad. Pretti’s loss is sad. And you may read this thinking, “This is so wrong!” And maybe you’re right. The solution to these tragedies is quite simple.

Solutions

Exercise your First Amendment right to peacefully protest. Peacefully means:

  • Do not block the road with your body or a vehicle.
  • Do not use your vehicle as a weapon.
  • Do not become physically involved with an ICE agent doing his/her job.
  • If you legally possess a weapon, do not reach for it at any time while being detained.
  • Protest with your right to vote

Hold your local leadership accountable for exacerbating anger by not allowing local authorities to assist ICE while fueling anger and division. Local leadership holds at least as much culpability for these tragedies as the individuals themselves for exercising poor judgment.

I am in full support of your right to detest the current administration.

I am in full support of your right to hate what ICE is doing.

I am in full support of your right to peacefully protest.

I cannot support physical interference with lawful federal operations. Either we have laws with consequences, or we have no laws.

So, do you still feel the same now as you did when answering the poll question?

Now, can we get back to talking about how much I love my wife?!

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

The Lies of Unconstraint

When Feelings Replace Law, Tragedy Follows

Renee Good

Before we get into this, anyone who knows me knows that I do not take loss of life casually. I do not like it, nor do I celebrate it. This is a tragic situation any way you look at it. I truly have sympathy for someone going through what Good’s wife is going through, as well as the witnesses to such a traumatic event. Prayers are up.

Having said that, this case is difficult, but somewhat predictable. It involves what Thomas Sowell calls the Conflict of Visions. In this book, Sowell refers to two primary ways of looking at the world. Unconstrained and constrained visions.

Unconstrained Vision:

In the unconstrained vision, people are viewed as capable of perfection. Institutions make people evil. People should collectively gather to make each other perfect. When perfection isn’t achieved, it’s because there is a systemic evil preventing this perfection from being achieved rather than fixed human limit.

Constrained Vision:

The constrained vision says that people are imperfect. Perfection will never be achieved. Individuals must work to be the best version of themselves, thus leading to a better society. We must acknowledge and accept that we will never be perfect and must embrace liberty inside of boundaries. Because people are self-interested and imperfect, no system can eliminate trade-offs or achieve ideal outcomes. Social stability depends on traditions, rules, incentives, and limits that restrain human behavior rather than transform it. Progress comes through managing imperfection, not overcoming it.

This case puts these visions on display. There are three topics I’d like to cover here:

  1. Assumption of superiority
  2. The inability to draw a line
  3. The humanity of both the officer and driver of the car.

Assumption of Superiority

Another great book by Thomas Sowell was, The Vision of the Anointed. The book characterizes the “Anointed” as a class of elite intellectuals who, having generously conferred upon themselves superior moral insight, conclude that they are better qualified to make decisions for individuals than those individuals are to make for themselves. These superior beings have decided that if they say it, then it must be true. And if you disagree, then you must be braindead, heartless, or outright evil. As a result, if they claim a moral high ground on any given issue, you must get out of the way because they know what you don’t. Why? Because they said so.

Wokal’s piece on leftist prerogative covers this and is spot on. These elites yell “I’m a doctor” and we are all to relinquish all rules, laws, and civil engagement. We just allow the tyranny of the fringe to step in as the arbiter of all things right. There’s no discourse required, no facts, no data, just “I’m in charge, move!” The end.

Where is the Line?

Another problem is drawing the line. The problem is when you ask to draw a line, you won’t get one on the far left. It’s a result of the unconstrained vision. There are no boundaries.

For instance, it was “Let people love who they want. Love is love.” This, in some countries, has become, “Minor attracted persons have desires and children are capable of the full range of love we have to offer. Love is love.”

Where is the line? Where do we say enough? At what point is it too far?

When I ask those on the right, they are rather quick to draw that line. Sometimes too quick. But on the left, I rarely get a straight answer.

So is violating the law willingly too far? Some claim Martin Luther King Jr. violated the law. He did so peacefully. Never by striking a law enforcement official with a vehicle.

“But Jesus violated the law?” Only Jewish law, that he fulfilled. Not the law of the land, which was Roman law. So no, he didn’t violate the law (In fact, part of the point of the crucifixion being so critical was that it was an illegal execution).

I’m still looking for the line. The line that says, though it’s sad that someone lost their life in an altercation, the primary culpability has to reside with the person initiating a violent altercation.

The line has to be that using a vehicle to both stop and strike someone has to be… TOO FAR.

The Humanity

Another aspect of this is the life that was lost. There’s so much sadness surrounding this. She was told it is perfectly ok, good, acceptable, and even noble, to protest a group of children that don’t exist. She was told that telling anyone to leave our country for any reason is bad. Again, it’s the feeling one has about a single life superseding the betterment of society as a whole, that has agreed to a set of laws that we are all to live by.

Let’s talk about humanity. Let’s talk about the 33 stitches the same ICE agent received after being dragged by a car recently. This event causes PTSD. Maybe, he was quick to act based on that. You could make the argument that given the possible PTSD he should not have been working in this stressful environment. That’s fair. But if you drive your car towards me and I have my pistol, I will shoot to save my life also.

Facts

Then there are the facts laid out by Daniel Carr:

  • Blocking the road is illegal. In this case, it is also interfering with a federal operation.
  • The officer on the passenger side walks to the driver’s side to detain the driver for such unlawful actions.
  • The driver accelerates and strikes an officer with the front left of her car.
  • The officer, believing his life was at risk, shoots three shots. Much less than typical in a scenario like this (If you want to know why when they fire, they shoot multiple shots, go spend a day with them). These shots are protected and expected both by Minnesota law and federal law.

Preceding Lies

It is sad that there is a life gone. What’s truly sad is that someone has lied to her and told her:

  • It’s justified to stop federal agents from removing illegal Somali non-citizens who are draining financial resources from the government in a fraud scam.
  • She was told that feeling a certain way justifies solving it using violent means without consequences.
  • She was told that public policy must match how she felt at any given time and we all need to just “get out of the doctor’s way.”

Masculinity didn’t cause this.

Patriarchy didn’t cause this.

Misogyny didn’t cause this.

Lies caused this. Refusal to follow the laws that have been drawn and agreed upon by society caused this.

Unfortunately, this situation falls into the predictable “feelings vs. public policy.” Just because it feels right, doesn’t mean it is right. And as I’ve said before, feelings and public policy can both be good and still not match.

I fully support one’s right to protest legally, which means peacefully, according to the First Amendment. MLK did that. Jesus did that. Renee did not. To me, the saddest part of the story (after the death of a human) is that Renee was fed enough lies that she was willing to put her life on the line for children that didn’t exist, leaving her own child motherless in the wake. I will tell the truth, even and especially when it hurts. The alternative is much worse. And the truth is, this could have been avoided by not believing and following every emotional plea one hears.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

How Perspective Shapes Determinism Through Compatibilism

The Free Will Debate

L-R, Socrates, Descartes, Daniel Dennett

This is in response to a 3–part series written by Dr. Steve Stewart-Williams. This post is a bit more philosophical than usual. I’m not smart enough to have real philosophical conversations, but I can converse on the subject of free will and how it applies to our everyday lives. Please know that this is written from the perspective of a Christian. So my angle is often from my belief, both intellectually and experientially, in the Judaic God.

We are in the process of looking for a house to buy. If you have ever done this, you know the next statement. It has been tumultuous to say the least. The ups and downs of buying a home is not for the weak of heart. In the midst of it, my wife takes a deep breath and says, “God already knows what house we will end up getting, He already knows what we desire, and He already knows what He desires for us, which is greater than we could imagine.” This was her way of coping with the stress.

This sparked a thought, just how much of this should we hold on to? Is it true that God already knows? The answer is yes. And here lies the biggest question: If God already knows, does this mean we are determined in our choices? Because if He already knows, this suggests determinism. But if we are determined to act, why wouldn’t we act solely in our own best interest, forsaking all others? Good question. Let’s tackle it.

Determinism vs. Libertarian Free Will

Dr Steve Stewart-Williams (SSW) addressed this issue in a robust 3-part series. First he tackled the issue of determinism, and more specifically, hard determinism vs soft determinism. Hard determinism can be viewed as the reluctance to accept anything as reality and that we are all merely in a sub-reality playing parts in another’s game. I’d like to leave that right where it is. Soft determinism (compatibilism) offers something more closely identifiable in that free will and determinism are compatible. This is in slight conflict with libertarian free will in that libertarian free will strictly rejects determinism and rest solely on the idea that we choose.

Definitions:

  • Determinism: everything we do is already determined.
  • Libertarian Free Will: rejecting determinism. we have the ability to choose.
  • Compatibilism: freedom doesn’t require that our actions are somehow neither caused nor random. It requires only that our actions flow from our conscious desires, intentions, and reasoning processes. On this view, we have free will as long as we’re not unreasonably coerced or constrained by outside forces.

Dr. SSW briefly addressed the idea of mind versus matter and how this argument is not the same as the free will argument. And that’s true. I still think it’s a good place to start. Descartes was an early dualist. But he wasn’t the first.

  • Pythagoras (6th century BCE) already hinted at a distinction between the soul and the body.
  • Plato argued that the soul belongs to the realm of unchanging Forms (truth, justice, beauty) while the body is part of the mutable, deceptive physical world.
  • Aristotle wasn’t so separatist in his view. The soul (psyche) and body (matter) were distinct but not really separate.
  • Descartes built dualism into the scientific framework. Physicalists later formed in rebuttal to his theory of substance dualism.
  • Carl Jung eventually highlighted such dualism in modern psychology. He also introduced the idea of spirituality as a result of his dualistic views. We are more than the matter that can be measured. We are made up of physical matter as well as archetypes and collective unconscious, structures in the psyche, disctinct from brain matter. This gives rise to my perspective on this issue.

Compatibilism

In part 2, he tackles compatibilism head on. Dr SSW writes:

Most compatibilists and most hard determinists agree on all the important facts. They agree that contra-causal free will is impossible; they agree that people frequently act voluntarily and without coercion; and they agree that it’s often useful to hold people responsible for their actions. The only real disagreement is about how to define free will. And that’s not very interesting.

Compatibilism strikes me as the most convincing view. It echoes the repeated disputes among early psychologists who tried to crown a single master key to the mind. Some swore by behaviorism, others by the machinery of the brain. Still others by conditioning or by self-understanding. One camp invoked genetics as destiny. Another pointed to the shaping power of environment. The trouble is that each holds a fragment of the truth. To all, I say, Yes!. The same pattern shows up in debates about free will. Certain moments in our lives are shaped by forces that run deeper than conscious choice. Such as our DNA, the temperamental leanings we inherit, the quiet impulses that orient us long before deliberation begins. In those moments, our decisions feel tethered to determinism.

Yet the outcomes of our choices unfold plainly before us, reminding us that we do in fact deliberate. We act from a conscious center, selecting what seems meaningful or right in the moment as we understand it. This is the footing on which we ground the very idea of holding someone responsible for what they do. Compatibilism makes the most sense to me.

Moralism

In part 3, Dr SSW dives into the moral argument. He writes:

If we don’t have free will, we can’t hold people responsible for their behavior.

If free will is an illusion, why bother being good?

If our behavior is determined, then rewards and punishments might influence people’s future actions. If it’s not – if it’s simply random – then they can’t. So, rather than undermining accountability, determinism seems to be the only hope for accountability.

Upon the treatment of criminals, he quotes Joshua Greene and Jonathan Cohen:

Free will as we ordinarily understand it is an illusion generated by our cognitive architecture. Retributivist notions of criminal responsibility ultimately depend on this illusion, and, if we are lucky, they will give way to consequentialist ones, thus radically transforming our approach to criminal justice. At this time, the law deals firmly but mercifully with individuals whose behavior is obviously the product of forces that are ultimately beyond their control. Someday, the law may treat all convicted criminals this way. That is, humanely.

My response here is, first, it is not obvious that criminal behavior is beyond their control. Secondly, I’m for restorative justice in almost every case. However, there are those that are more of a liability to society than a contributor. At that point, what’s best for the entire society may not be great for that individual. This is another arena where we must separate our feelings from that of good public policy. Feelings and policy are capable of both being good simultaneously and still not match.

Life Application

Lastly, he quoted Rousseau as saying:

I may think that I have rationally demonstrated my will is not free, but I can never succeed in believing or living as if this were so.

This is where the argument takes a severe turn for me. Because the free will argument dabbles into the conversation of objectivity vs subjectivity. If everything is determined, then everything seems to be subjective. And if everything is subjective, we have no gauge towards meaningful interactions.

Here is an excerpt from my new book, What is a Man:

[The reality in this argument has two places of interest. Verbiage and perspective.

Verbiage

In verbiage, we find that many believe that everything is subjective. No two people agree on absolutely everything. Therefore, there cannot be an objective set of values and morals. But the verbiage is off. The term objective morality never says that two people must agree on everything. It merely states that values and morals can exist outside of individual opinion. So, for example, there are no cultures in which you can steal someone’s property and it be widely accepted. It is objectively wrong to harm another human (outside of defense). I once read some philosophy on this subject and saw two good points of view. First, let’s look at slavery. While there are still areas of slavery in the world today, no one will openly state that it is a good thing or a moral thing to be a slave owner. Everyone inherently knows it is wrong.

Therefore, the objective morality around slavery exists. And if it exists anywhere, then it exists. It is the common-sense theory. There are certain common-sense areas where there is objective morality. Another point of view is that when two people disagree over something, it is something subjective. Some say Peyton Manning is the greatest quarterback of all time. Others would argue that he is not. This is a subjective principle. However, Peyton having won two Super Bowls is an objective principle. We can argue over whether he’s the greatest quarterback of all time, but we won’t argue over whether he won Super Bowls. This notion alone brings about the reality of an objective morality. If we can’t steal without causing harm, and we can’t enslave without causing harm, and we won’t argue over this being immoral, then it is based on an objective morality.

Perspective

The other place of interest is perspective. This one is as simple as the first. If you have the perspective that there is no possibility of an objective morality, then there is nothing to stop you from taking what you want and doing what you want without limitations on your behavior. You have no guide, no standard, no measuring stick. Nothing is off limits. This will inevitably produce strife, recklessness, chaos, pain, heartache, and suffering of all sorts. Anyone that’s lived for any amount of adulthood time knows this. Therefore, the perspective must be that there is a standard by which we all live. There must be an objective morality. Or at least there must be the perspective of an objective morality. The only real question for many is where this objective morality would derive from. My favorite psychologist once said, “I live as though there is a God.”

As Christians, we believe this objective morality comes from God and God’s word to us. But again, there is this perspective thing that creeps its head into the church. For instance, Calvinism. Calvinism is deterministic in the belief that God already knows everything, everything has already been determined, and your life is a predicted outcome of circumstances and events that will not change God’s predetermined mind as to who enters the kingdom of heaven. The premise was that one should live hoping to be that soul. There is a case to be made that this is factually true. However, the problem with this line of thinking is obvious. If your perspective is that God has already chosen who enters heaven, then it doesn’t matter how you live. There again, you find yourself having no limitations on your behavior, leading you right back down that hole of despair and brokenness.]

This is where the entire argument lies for me. Our perspective, and its effect on the quality of our lives. Dr. SSW noted a study where they found that when consequence was removed, people were nudged toward selfish, greedy, and unethical behavior. He noted that the study was flawed, but I think the point stands.

This can be viewed from the original sin lens. It’s now in our nature to do harm, wrong, bad. Therefore, if we are nudged in a manner that removes consequence, we dive towards selfish ambition. The tenets of God’s teachings are to deny our nature and take on His nature. This is what leads us to a more peaceful life and helps those around us thrive as well. Without this directive, our nature leads us in a path contradictory to our innate goals.

Conclusion

In the end, the perspective we carry shapes the arc of our lives. The question becomes how to use what we understand to grow into a sounder, steadier version of ourselves over time. When a perspective begins to wound us or those within our reach, it’s a signal that the lens itself needs changing. Perhaps God already knows the full story, but I don’t. Living as though I do only blurs my judgment. Whatever is fixed lies outside my grasp. What I can influence is how I meet the moment before me.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Responsibility: A Solution No Policy Can Write

The Lie of Structural Salvation

In my book, What is a Man, I leaned heavily on men to be the man they were designed to be, fathers, husbands of but one wife. Be the man that works hard for his family, comes home to a faithful wife, and serves her in every way. One who finds out his girlfriend is pregnant, and doesn’t run away, but runs towards. At least part of the solution to the abortion issue, in my estimation, is men sticking around and not leaving their ladies feeling helpless and alone. We could get into all the other reasons, which I won’t, so don’t try. But a large portion of the problem stems from men not being men.

Solutions

Like this issue, the issue of solutions to societal problems has a similar twist. No one disagrees that certain things are worse than they’ve ever been. In some cases, things are better than they’ve ever been, but this can be argued. But on the subject of problems, the Monday-morning quarterbacks are quick to diagnose. With the best of them.

  • Sects of society are greedy.
  • There are too many poor people in America.
  • Inequality is at its worst.
  • Homelessness must be eradicated.

Macro

But we all fall short on solutions. Many, including the great Richard Reeves, look to public policy for solutions. This is where, much like covid, the cure is worse than the disease. Public policy can only be written, voted, and executed by the government. The government regulates behavior under conditions of conflict. When policy becomes our primary solution, we have missed the entire point! What is being framed as a structural deficit is often a developmental one. Covid taught us that, though history taught us that many times over.

The government does not produce meaning, attachment, competence, or character. Actually, the government does not produce anything. It cannot model responsibility or cultivate resilience. Its function is governance, not formation. And psychologically speaking, entities designed to manage conflict trend towards tyranny, not growth. When we outsource solutions to the state, we bypass the family, the community, and the individual psyche, which is where the actual work of human flourishing occurs. Problems of the human condition cannot be legislated into health, they must be developed into it.

Micro

So what is a viable solution? People. Hearts. Discipline. Perseverance. Resilience. Work. Compassion. Self-sacrifice.

Where it really gets off course is bringing Jesus into it. I hear it all the time.

“If you don’t show compassion to the poor, then you’re not following Jesus.”

And on the surface, that’s true.

We love to use the teachings of Jesus to influence public policy. Except he wanted nothing to do with public policy.

“Give to Caesar what’s Caesar’s. Give to God what’s Gods.”

“But wait? He said take care of the poor. He said if someone asks you to go one mile, you go two. He said if someone asks you for your shirt, give them your jacket too. Jesus was interested in sociology.”

Almost. He was interested in people. But from the individual out, not from society in.

Sociologically, problems are viewed as societal, affecting individuals along the way. If the societal issue gets resolved, the individual will be better. The problem with this line of thinking is, what if the institution or system never figures it out? Then we are completely dependent on the system to rectify our shortcomings in life. When we view problems as individual issues, from the inside out, then we are capable of flourishing regardless of systemic fractures.

The apostle Paul wrote this regularly. He consistently wrote about how he could be jailed, but not silenced. They could try to break his spirit, but they would not succeed. Viewing his problem sociologically, he would’ve fallen to extreme despair. Hope remained alive in the idea that he had autonomy, even in chains.

Individual > Government

My contention is that Jesus said the things he said, addressed the things he addressed, to the individual, not the society. He was not instructing the government to feed the poor. He was instructing us to do it. He didn’t tell the government to help those in need, he instructed us as individuals to do so.

Any reliance on a system, institution, or government, is relying on an outside entity to ensure your own personal well-being. It assumes that meaning, safety, and order can be outsourced to an external structure rather than cultivated through agency, virtue, and responsibility. History shows an extended rebuttal to that assumption. Systems do not love, institutions do not sacrifice, and governments do not exist to make individuals whole. They manage, they regulate, they constrain.

When we treat these abstractions as guarantors of our inner stability, we confuse governance with guidance and authority with wisdom. The result is predictable disappointment. Such entities fail us not because they are corrupt in every instance, but because they were never designed to fulfill existential needs.

This is where I lean on the church. If the government is not to be that, then we are. This applies more pressure, but it’s pressure for which we have received mercy and grace. If we fail, the government steps in.

So the ball is in our court. Step up, or watch tyranny take over.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Overcorrection

Imbalance Empowers Extremes

In Case You Missed Some Recent Articles:

I recently read a great article concerning the plight of boys and young men. It hit home because I’m dealing with this issue in my own family. My oldest bonus son is a self-made millionaire. He’s extremely intelligent, hard worker, and pretty positive guy. He also has almost zero theory of mind. He’s not narcissistic. Just completely unaware there are other people in the world. Therefore, his only logical arguments are online. Then, in his attempt to persuade me into his web of conspiracies, he was met with facts, reason, and experience that he didn’t expect. Then he resorted to, “You just don’t know, you haven’t been educated on the issues.” To which I retorted with education. Now he either steers clear of me or listens intently.

He’s convinced that:

  • Israel (the country, not people or religion) is the reason for all global woes.
  • Nick Fuentes is a brilliant mind speaking for his generation.
  • Charlie Kirk’s death was an entire conspiracy.

He sounds like a male Candace Owen. But Wokal Distance laid this idea out well.

The Path of Thomas Sowell

How we arrived here is similar to the path Thomas Sowell took. When Sowell looked at the issues in the world and primarily in America, it appeared that the rich had taken from the poor, namely the black poor. This had to be dealt with. And to Sowell, the solution was Marxism. The utopian delight. Manage all production. Control all means. Then distribute fairly. To him, it made sense. To Sowell, it was the only alternative presented. And that is precisely where we are. With no alternatives, the course of action is overcorrection. And overcorrection looks like Fuentes, Tate, and Alex Jones. And until someone finds societal homeostasis, they will continue to rise.

These young men, like my bonus son, are looking for an alternative and no one is presenting one. They see that the government is too big. They see that woke-ology doesn’t work, it only stifles businesses. They see that worrying about everyone’s feelings incessantly drives mental health cases up and progress down. But so far, the only solutions presented are the existing ones. Capitalism! No, socialism! No, democratic socialism! (Note that the only one of those three that hasn’t killed millions is capitalism).

Gynocentricism

But maybe more importantly, Wokal points out that the gynocentric zeitgeist we find ourselves in is the real culprit. My wife noticed this recently at a church gathering. We were having a small group gathering and some women kept making comments that displayed beliefs centered on ideas that masculinity, men, and male spaces are inherently malevolent. She almost couldn’t believe her ears. She hears this rhetoric all the time at the high school where she teaches, but not in a church in the Bible belt.

Generational Theory

In Wokal’s post, there’s mention of a catastrophic distrust of institutions. This lines up with the Strauss and Howe Generational Theory. In this theory, it posits that we go through four societal (or generational) turns. The distrust of institutions began the 3rd turn around the early 1980s. We have been in the 4th turn for a while now. This is marked by societal upheaval. Survival. They rolling over stones to find the answer, even if the stone hurts someone along the way. The good news, we should be returning to the 1st turn in the next five years, according to theory.

I mentioned in my post, Gen Z’s Breaking Point, that we have a new group of young men who are over the nonsense they’re being forced to accept. Most of the GenZ men I see are still making sense, common sense. But the ones overcorrecting are grasping onto guys like Fuentes as the lesser of all evils.

The Rise of Peterson

One more excellent point made in the article by Wokal was that Jordan Peterson rose to fame on the position that men are good, needed, and capable of responsibility, protection, and production. He told men to stand up straight. Make your bed. Be early to interviews. Negotiate early and often. Treat yourself like someone you’re responsible for helping. Men gravitated to the call. Peterson was calling them up, not calling them out.

Then Peterson fell ill. This left a void, a void that Tate and Fuentes saw could be filled with an overcorrection of masculinity, conspiracy theories, and righteous anger at the wrong things and people. They swooped in with promises of a better future. But overcorrections always dissolve, they never sustain.

Solutions

There are many possible solutions to this crisis. One real solution is to stop apologizing for what it means to be a man and start insisting on it. One should be capable of danger but wise enough to know when to use it. Not reckless, not violent, but formidable. A man should be the strongest person at this father’s funeral, but willing to express emotions when grief hits. A man handles the crisis first. He stabilizes the chaos. Then, when the threat has passed, he becomes gentle, attentive, and emotionally present for his wife and children. Jason Wilson calls this “The man the moment demands,” and he’s right. What we’ve done instead is shame men into paralysis, telling them their strength is suspect and their masculinity is dangerous unless constantly restrained.

We must be willing to tell men and boys that it’s ok to be a man. That it’s not just ok to be masculine, it’s necessary! Strength is good. Roughness has a place. Humor matters. So does restraint, vulnerability, emotional expression, and clear communication with our wives and children. This is not a contradiction. It’s balance. It’s psychological regulation. It’s Emotional Homeostasis. With this, we must stand against the gynocentric narrative that feminine is the only way forward. It’s one way forward. Masculine is also the way forward. When you suppress one and moralize the other, you don’t get a healthy society. You get confusion, weakness, resentment, and instability. A society that refuses to cultivate strong men is not compassionate. It is reckless. And it is setting itself up to be overwhelmed by the very chaos it pretends to manage.

Gynocentricism has created the very men it fears. There’s a rise in men, but the wrong men. Chaos is recruiting, and it’s becoming successful. We have taught boys to hate themselves, then wonder why they flock to the extreme opposition. Disoriented men are easy targets. Empowered men are unstoppable.

If we want our boys to see Fuentes and Tate for what they really are, vultures thriving on click-bait, contrarians with no real solutions, insecurity hiding behind the masculine façade, we must show them what it means to be a man.

I know a guy who wrote a book about this very subject. Maybe you know him too.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

The Miracle on Your Street

Fantasy and Imagination are Developmental, Not Detrimental

This post is a response and perspective on a post by Dr. Laura Dimler, PhD. In her article, she lays out belief in figures such as Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny, and the developmental research concerning such beliefs. I simply want to give my take as this is something I see in the counseling room.

I always believed that it was a terrible idea to instruct children from the beginning that there is no Santa clause. To disallow any fantasy playing out in their minds about Santa, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny seemed malevolent to me. Though I’m not sure it’s malevolent, it is condescending, elitist, and neglectful to their children to remove an important part of child development. Having believed it, that didn’t mean there was any evidence for it (not that I always need evidence beyond my own eyes).

The movie “Miracle on 34th Street” covers this topic. The child is taught by her mother to be realistic and not believe in fairy tales. The mother believed this would harm the child to find out it was all a lie. As the story goes, a miracle happens. I won’t spoil the rest, for those who haven’t seen it. Great movie.

Why Do Parents Do This?

But I have encountered many parents who have chosen to do just this, tell their kids from day one there is no Santa. Or Tooth Fairy. Or Easter Bunny. I believe there are reasons for this:

  • The parents condescendingly believe their kid and their parenting are better than most others.
  • The parent is afraid of being the bad guy when their kid finds out it’s a lie.
  • The parent underestimates the benefit of imagination, fantasy, and creativity that dwells in the belief in such characters like Santa.

Condescending

There are many parents that simply think their kid can do no wrong. Subsequently, their kids can do no wrong because they are such good parents. Their kids would never bully, never be mean, never say anything societally unacceptable. Thus, their kids are above silly traditions that glorify fairy tales above reason. Their kids are just too smart for that. And it’s because they are too smart for that. An unfortunate result of this is the need for the child to tell everyone he knows so they too can avoid confusion. They bring this informaoitn to school and that evening a myriad of difficult conversations are taking place that become more of a letdown than simply allowing the child to learn naturally.

Afraid

Too many parents today are more friends than parents to their children. They are afraid of being seen as the bad guy if their kids find out Santa may not be real. This can only come about if they are basically worshipping their children and refusing to parent them but rather be their friend. This is so incredibly harmful to children. Trust me, I see the fruit almost every day. Those kids are “future clients.”

Underestimation

Sometimes, as parents, we underestimate kids’ ability to adjust and learn with enthusiasm. We assume their reaction will be the same as ours. We struggle to remember what it was like to be a kid. How such magic carried on with them throughout life.

I just read my favorite child development researcher’s take on this subject, and it clicked. For the record, the following words are my views only and may not necessarily represent the views of Dr. Laura Dimler. This is just me talking. So please do not harass her.

Let’s start with this quote from the article:

“Belief in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny (or any other cultural fantastical figure) is not a failure to understand reality. It’s a developmentally normal outcome of how children learn to coordinate imagination with evidence.“

So this appears to me to be natural. Not a willing lie. Research shows that when the child moves within Jean Piaget’s stages of cognitive development from the preoperational stage (ages 2-7) to concrete operations (ages 7-12), they begin to apply causal reasoning which informs their belief system of reality vs fantasy. Prior to this full transition, there are studies that show children as young as 6 years old can differentiate “impossible” characteristics that should not apply to us but only to these fantasy characters, like flying or disappearing.

Dr. Dimler notes that during the preoperational stage, children remain capable of attributing natural and realistic explanations unless they are specifically told of the pretend mechanisms in place.

But my favorite part of the article was when she noted that children do not experience this colossal letdown effect that parents think they do. Research shows they experience a neutral or positive effect, as if to be proud they figured it out. This is because the discovery is gradual, not immediate. They piece clues together over time and make a landmark discovery, which boosts their confidence.

My Experiences – Home & Work

I can remember when I found out. I felt smart. Clever. Almost like I outsmarted my parents by catching them. It was fun. Unfortunately, my little brother is 3 years younger than me and he figured it out at the same time because he asked me questions approximately every 3 seconds of our lives and followed me while peeking out of our room to watch our parents put toys under the tree.

In the counseling room, when a parent asks about this subject, I have, before now, said, “Just let them be kids.” But didn’t really have ammunition to back that theory. It was common sense. Dr. Dimler provided such evidence in this article, though that may not have been her intention. Again, these are my thoughts, not necessarily hers.

Conclusion

Children develop naturally through imagination and fantasy. When we deny them that, we deny them the opportunity to hone skills they will use throughout their life. As Dr. Dimler noted, we continue to apply the skills in areas such as believing in luck. It is not “responsible” of you to deny your child the experience of believing in Santa, or the elf on the shelf. It is asocial deviance. Misanthropic contrarianism.

Such fantastical belief is a natural part of development. Let them have their own Miracle on 34th Street. What miracle? The miracle of child development.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger