Posted on

Fairness Killed Freedom

A Letter from 2030: The Ghost of Socialism Haunts New York and It’s Coming For the Rest of America

“Socialism is group A taking from group B against their will and giving it to group C.” -Milton Friedman.

Someone found a letter in a time machine from New York City, NY in 2030. Here are the contents.

Dear Emily,

You remember how hopeful we were?

When Mayor Mamdani ran on that “People-powered solution for New York” platform, I truly believed he’d make New York fair again. I was tired of seeing billionaires in penthouses while single moms worked two jobs just to afford groceries. His speeches made me feel seen. Like we were finally going to fix everything broken in this city. I voted for him with pride. I marched, I posted, I argued with anyone who dared to question the new way forward. I was sure we were on the right side of history. Now, five years later, I hardly recognize the place I defended.

The Promised City

  • He told us we’d have “housing for all.”
  • He told us no one would go hungry, that the rich would “finally pay their fair share.”
  • He told us we’d “reimagine safety” and “heal the divisions” of capitalism.

It sounded so moral. So compassionate. And maybe that’s why it worked. Who wants to sound cruel? Who wants to say no to fairness?

But fairness, I’ve learned, is not the same as freedom. And when you trade the second for the first, you end up with neither.

A City Without Beauty

I walk down Broadway now and it feels like the color’s been drained out of everything. The lights still flash, but the signs all say the same thing: “Support the Collective. Consume Equally.” Every restaurant serves nearly identical meals. “Price parity laws,” they called it. No more “overpriced” food. But when everything costs the same, everything tastes the same too.

When Justice Became Control

The first thing that went wrong was the “Wealth Reallocation Tax.” It hit anyone making more than $1 million a year. At first, we cheered, “Make them pay!”

But they didn’t pay. They left. The businesses that employed half the city closed or moved to Florida, Texas, and Tennessee (as you know). The tax base crumbled.

I used to mock people who warned this would happen. I said they were paranoid. But here we are, standing in line for our “monthly energy allowance,” waiting hours for the subway that rarely comes. Living in buildings where the heat only works when the local council remembers to authorize it.

The New Schools

My daughter used to dream of becoming a scientist. Now her school has no science lab. The teacher says “STEM perpetuates hierarchies of knowledge and oppresses women.”

They don’t give grades anymore, just collective performance reports. The kids are told to help each other equally, which means no one bothers to excel. “Ambition is a capitalist illusion,” the posters say. I once thought this was progress. I called it equitable education. Now I see it for what it is:

  • The flattening of potential.
  • The annihilation of upward mobility.
  • The dismantling of motivation.

Faith and Family Forgotten

Churches still stand, but they’re Community Hubs now. Places for Civic Reflection. Crosses and icons are banned because they divide.

Families are treated as private hoarders of privilege. The city offers Shared Childcare Programs where kids are encouraged to broaden their perspectives by spending more time with state mentors than their own parents. When I asked if I could homeschool, they warned me that unregulated education undermines social cohesion. I used to think government would be a safety net. I never thought it would become a cage. They warned me about the tyranny of it. I just never thought it was possible.

The New York I Miss

The hardest part is remembering what it felt like before. The noise, the competition, the struggle. Yes, it was tough. But it was alive. You could walk into a coffee shop with a dream, a laptop, and a little courage, and maybe, just maybe, build something that changed your life. Now:

  • Dreams are treated like threats.
  • Innovation is selfish.
  • Success is suspicious.

They told us we were building equality. But equality built on envy becomes tyranny. And tyranny doesn’t kick down your door with a gun, it hands you

  • a form to sign
  • a ration card to collect
  • a slogan to repeat.

My Regret

I wish I could say I didn’t know. But the truth is, I did. Somewhere deep down, I felt the unease. That creeping sense that giving government more power was a dangerous kind of faith.

But we were tired. We wanted someone to fix it all for us. We mistook dependency for compassion. And by the time we realized what we’d given up, it was too late to take it back.

A Plea to Those Who Still Can

Emily, I realize millions fled our state to go to your state, much like the 7 million that fled Venezuela in 2015. But please don’t let them sell you the same lie in Tennessee.

They’ll tell you it’s about justice. About fairness. About the “common good.” But watch carefully. Every time they say “We’re all in this together,” what they really mean is “You’re in it, but we’re in charge.”

If you ever come visit, I’ll take you to Times Square, or what’s left of it. The mayor renamed it “The People’s Plaza.” The billboards now flash one message in unison: “Unity Through Equality.” And in the crowd below, no one argues anymore. No one competes. No one dreams. Just quiet obedience. The price we paid for fairness.

Yours regretfully,
Daniel
Former believer in a better New York.

My Notes

This story is fiction, for now. But every idea in it echoes something real. The slow erosion of freedom, the replacement of family with state, and the moral confusion that calls dependency justice. The installment of “poor vs rich” will create more class division, leading to resentment and polarization like we’ve yet to see. Oppressed vs oppressor. Sound familiar?

Five Reasons Socialism (and Communism) Fails

  1. Human Nature: People naturally seek to improve their own lives. Forced equality kills motivation and innovation.
  2. Economic Inefficiency: Without profit incentive, resources are misallocated, leading to shortages and waste.
  3. Concentration of Power: Centralized control leads inevitably to tyranny. Those in charge do not wither away but tighten their grip.
  4. Moral Vacuum: Both ideologies tend to replace faith, family, and community with allegiance to the state. This removes societal cohesion of moral conduct. There is no barometer. Only the state says what is right and wrong now.
  5. Erosion of Freedom: To maintain control, socialist and communist regimes suppress speech, religion, and political dissent.

We must remember that Karl Marx envisioned socialism as the best and most natural transition from capitalism to communism. Communism was always the end goal of socialism. We must also remember the only true deterrent is the American family. The family is the last line of defense against total control. When the state replaces parents, faith, and initiative, society becomes weak, easy to rule, but impossible to restore. Guard your family. Guard your freedom. Because once you lose them, there’s no mayor, no movement, and no miracle that can bring them back.

Stay Free GP!

Grainger

Posted on

The Forgotten Half

A Book Review: “Of Boys and Men” By Richard Reeves

In case you missed some recent articles:

Richard Reeves’ Of Boys and Men enters into a cultural conversation that has long been muted, if not actively resisted… the struggles of men and boys in modern society. The book, in many ways, is revolutionary for its willingness to state the obvious. There is a crisis among males. Educationally. Psychologically. Socially. Reeves’ arguments invite both appreciation and scrutiny, particularly when viewed through a psychological lens. While he successfully highlights the scope of the crisis, his solutions raise important questions about the interplay of biology, culture, and politics in male development. Here, I propose both praise and criticism of this book.

Institutionalized Developmental Delay

Reeves begins with education, pointing to staggering trends that show boys falling behind at nearly every level of schooling. Fewer men enroll in and graduate from college. They remain at the highest risk of dropping out compared to any other measurable group. Some of this decline has been masked by well-intentioned initiatives aimed at supporting women in higher education. But Reeves notes the imbalance of scholarships and assistance programs that overwhelmingly (and sometimes only) target women.

A particularly striking statistic is that 23% of boys are categorized as having a developmental disability. This label is almost statistically impossible. The deeper question is whether the educational system itself is maladapted to the developmental trajectory of boys. In other words, is it really the boys who are delayed, or the institutions failing to accommodate the normal variations in male development? Reeves and I share the sentiment that it is the educational system that is “delayed.” Developmental psychology shows that boys, on average, mature later in self-regulation, impulse control, and executive function. A rigid, one-size-fits-all educational model pathologizes these differences rather than supporting them.

I love the “redshirting” idea. Reeves’ practical recommendation that boys should be “redshirted”, or held back a year before starting school, aligns with this developmental reality. It recognizes that maturity is less about chronological age and more about calibrating behavior to fit social demands. Psychologist Erik Erikson once described adolescence as the crucible where identity and role confusion collide. Boys may simply need more time in that crucible, and institutions must adapt rather than expect conformity to artificially compressed timelines.

Social Decline and Family Instability

Beyond the classroom, Reeves highlights how boys and men are disproportionately harmed by family breakdown. In 1970, just 11% of births in the U.S. occurred outside of marriage. Today that number stands at 40%. The psychological consequences are profound. Children raised without stable father involvement face increased risks of behavioral problems, school failure, and emotional instability.

Importantly, Reeves distinguishes between race and gender in discussions of intergenerational mobility. While black and white women raised in poor families experience similar rates of upward intergenerational mobility, the same is not true for men. Revealing that the struggle is fundamentally male, and less racial. This observation forces a reframing of inequality. Many of the struggles chalked up to racial disparities are in fact gendered and disproportionately affect boys. The family unit, when fractured, appears to hit men the hardest, possibly because male identity is often more externally anchored, shaped by roles, responsibilities, and expectations that dissolve when fathers are absent.

Despair, Suicide, and the Meaning Crisis

Perhaps the most chilling aspect of Reeves’ book is his treatment of despair. Male deaths from despair (suicide and overdose) are 3x higher than female. While male deaths from suicide alone are 4x hgher than female. Men account for 70% of opioid deaths in the United States. In suicide attempt notes, words like “useless” and “worthless” are repeated with haunting regularity. These are not just personal tragedies, they are societal symptoms.

Psychologically, despair emerges when meaning collapses. Viktor Frankl, the psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor, argued that humans can endure almost any suffering if they retain a sense of purpose, echoing the sentiments of Nietzsche. Men who perceive themselves as unnecessary, whether socially, economically, or relationally, are particularly vulnerable. The erosion of traditional male roles (provider, protector, leader) leaves many men lost. Reeves’ book resonates as a warning. Neglecting the psychological needs of boys leads to men who no longer see themselves as essential to the fabric of society.

Biology, Masculinity, and the Politics of Pathology

Reeves is careful to address the biological underpinnings of masculinity. Testosterone, he notes, does not trigger aggression but amplifies it. This distinction matters. Aggression itself is not pathological. It is a natural drive that, when tempered, becomes assertiveness, competitiveness, and protective strength. The problem is not masculinity, per se, but the inability to regulate and channel masculine impulses into socially constructive forms.

Reeves criticizes the American Psychological Association (APA), which has published guidelines that largely ignore male realities while emphasizing female experiences. This reflects a broader cultural trend. Natural aspects of masculinity are pathologized, particularly on the political left, which often denies biological sex differences in favor of purely social explanations. From a psychological standpoint, denying biology is not only unscientific but harmful. To help boys and men, we must recognize their biological realities rather than pretending they do not exist.

Where Reeves Misses the Mark

While Reeves is strong in diagnosis, his prescriptions falter in later chapters. In his attempt to “balance” criticism between left and right, he ends up diminishing legitimate concerns. For instance, he offers a dismissive opinion of Jordan Peterson’s work on social hierarchies and gendered career preferences, despite strong empirical backing. He offers no empirical refutation. Only opinion.

Reeves suggests that men and women would choose diffrent careers if the stigma were deceased. His interpretation of the Su and Rounds1 study doesn’t hold up against other research. For instance, one study that shows that in more egalitarian societies, gender differences in occupational preferences actually widen.2 And another study that found that in very egalitarian communities, when controlling for education, occupational class position, age, social and family status, and income, differences among genders were vastly different.3 In other words, freedom reveals difference rather than erasing it.

Given the statistical likelihood of gender preferences in more egalitarian nations, we can’t dismiss this but maybe we can capitalize on the individuals in each gender that cease to represent the majority and lean on this faction to help close certain gender job-force gaps. Men high in neuroticism, who are also high in empathy, would do well in HEAL jobs. Like women who are more practical and less prone to neuroticism would do well in STEM jobs. Though the majority will not prefer these, those who will can help bring nuance to these occupations.

Reeves also entertains the idea of equality of outcome, which is an inherently socialist notion that undermines individual merit and autonomy. Quoting Margaret Mead as an authority on gender equality may not be the best idea, given that contemporary psychology and economics have moved far beyond Mead’s cultural anthropology. Equality of outcome is not only impractical but psychologically corrosive, as it requires group A remove something from group B without their consent, and give it to group C. That will never work in America.

The Role of Government: Help or Hindrance?

You already know the answer to this. But Reeves goes on to advocate for policy solutions such as legislating more male teachers and expanding paid parental leave. While well-intentioned, these proposals risk repeating the failures of affirmative action. Institutionalizing discrimination in the name of equity. Psychologically, boys need mentors and role models. Mandating male teachers through policy undermines organic, voluntary solutions. Similarly, paid leave initiatives, while attractive on the surface, raise serious economic questions. Reeves never explains how such programs would be sustainably funded, leaving taxpayers to shoulder the burden.

The deeper problem is that government has historically failed to solve cultural and psychological crises. The federal government will never be a viable solution to any problem in our country, outside of national security, federal banking, and housing the homeless. They have proven through history, time and again, to be the worst solution to any problem. The crisis of boys and men is rooted in family, community, and culture. These are arenas where government intervention tends to distort rather than heal. Psychologically, meaning is cultivated locally through fathers, teachers, mentors, and peers. Not bureaucratic decrees.

Toward a Psychological Renewal of Manhood

Despite disagreements, Reeves deserves recognition as one of the few public voices daring to raise the alarm about the plight of boys and men. He’s a pioneer. A revolutionary. His book contributes to a conversation that is long overdue. To move forward, psychology offers several points of guidance:

  • Boys must be given time and space to mature without being pathologized.
  • Masculinity must be acknowledged as biologically grounded and potentially virtuous, not inherently toxic.
  • Family stability is critical. Without fathers, boys face developmental deficits that no government program can repair.
  • Despair is not simply a matter of economics but of meaning. Men must be shown that they are needed.

Reeves reminds us that the boy is always present within the man. Psychological maturity means the boy is still alive within us but is no longer in charge. He’s tempered, integrated, and directed toward purpose. Our challenge, as a culture, is to stop treating that boy as defective and start guiding him toward manhood.

Conclusion

Reeves’ Of Boys and Men is a bold and necessary work, one that illuminates the depth of the male crisis with clarity and urgency. Where he falters is in solutions. Reeves too often yields to fashionable political narratives or relies on government prescriptions. But in identifying the problem, Reeves has accomplished something vital. He has given voice to the silent epidemic of male despair and decline. Psychologically, the task ahead is monumental. Create a society that nurtures boys into men who are not just functional but flourishing.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Manhood is Broken and the Fix is 500 Years Old

To Fix Him, We Must Remember Him

A bit about the writers first.

D.J. Houtz is an author, specializing in short stories, poetry and the spoken word. As he states, “I consider myself a modern day renaissance man. I write, I paint, I craft. I am willing to craft, I am willing to learn, I am willing to discuss.” He holds a certification in Musical Theatre Performance from the American Musical and Dramatic Academy & Conservatory of the Performing Arts in New York City.

Grainger holds a B.S. in Psychology and is currently earning his Master’s in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at Liberty University. He is currently nationally certified in nutrition, wellness, and professional life coaching. He’s an active men’s ministry leader and pastoral counselor with over 6 years of experience, currently seeing clients in both faith-based and clinical settings.

Together they share a love for the arts as well as the vital strengths that man present to society. This is a co-authored call to action for redefinition of what it means to be a man.

During a recent conversation, I had a friend tell me that what appears to be the largest void, change, gap, in the proper comprehensive definition of manhood, had been solved centuries ago. In other words, to solve the future epidemic of what it means to be a man, one need only to look back. I’ll let D.J. Houtz tell you himself.

Houtz

The Unraveling of the Self-Made Man

Man, manhood, manpower. Historically speaking “Man” has been defined as a mix of both biological and social roles. But when has the image of man shifted? When has it been less acceptable to hide your emotions and play the more dominant role?

From the caveman up until the biblical times, man had two roles, provide and defend. Go out to gather resources to help your family and community but be able to defend your people at costs when the time comes. In the times of chivalry, the ideal image of the man was the Knight. Abiding by vows and promises to your king or suffer the consequence of dishonor. The renaissance man, the peak of the image of men in society, in my opinion, was the well-rounded. He was the swordsman, the craftsman, the painter, the poet. He was emotional, dominant, faithful. Not just the one trick show but the jack of all trades. Even if he wasn’t the master of everything, he was that go-to man to get anything done. Man was independent.

A great shift happened during a major time in history. The industrial revolution. This global movement to more efficient and stable manufacturing process was only the start of the downfall of the image of man. As major events across the world sparked war and terror, the man was left as just a shell of its former glory. Man now needed to be a part of a group, club, or movement to be heard. The feeling of independence was now just a thought on paper. Without realizing it, the ability to think and do for yourself was being taken away. As technology advances, many more manifestations of the independence of man were being stripped.

Modern day, we are all guilty of using screens for different purposes. But a major role in the downfall has been using these screens to do for you what you could have done yourself. In the article “Masculinity at the End of History”, Matthew Gasda made an incredible point.

“Today, male adolescence largely lacks that primitive, self-organizing spontaneity.”

By using the instant gratification of being online, we lose the very fundamental bit that made us man. Gasda went on to say,

“American manhood has essentially become schizophrenic: historically determined on one hand and socially deconstructed and defenestrated on the other. Unless American masculinity can historicize itself, it will remain in a state of non-crisis, unable to claim the meaningful, productive aspects of its heritage and unable to explain how it got to where it is.”

We are no longer doing things ourselves. Our images are more of comparison rather than independence. We’ve lost the ability to bond with fellow man. Society and technology has been making it more difficult for this image of man to have independence. We’ve turned into a race of wanting to do better because it makes you look better rather than to do better, which results in being a better person. I firmly believe we, as man, need to stop looking at a screen for comparison or gratification and start looking at a mirror for reflection and independent thinking.

Grainger

The Death of the Well-Rounded Man

I am convinced Houtz is onto something. In the article, Gasda maintains that in crisis, man is useful:

“Masculinity is desperate for a crisis. It is docile, unsure, and formless. At most, it is at the germinal phase of crisis, lacking a catalytic agent to propel it to its full-blown state, which at least can be registered and reckoned with. After all, crisis implies that something is happening, that something is at stake. The uncatalyzed proto-crisis, or the noncrisis, of American masculinity is repressed, unexpressed, yet omnipresent.”

Men were increasingly defined by their professions rather than their ability to embody a wide-ranging cultural literacy. Where once the ideal was to be well-rounded, the emerging economy rewarded being highly skilled at a single trade or technical field. Practicality overtook polish.

The world wars accelerated this shift. Millions of men returned from battle with a new sense of masculinity rooted in survival, hard work, and providing for families. After such trauma, pursuits like poetry or painting could seem frivolous, even indulgent. Strength, reliability, and productivity replaced artistry as the cultural expectations of men. By the 1950s, the American man was often pictured in a gray flannel suit, devoted to his career, his paycheck, and his role as provider, not as a patron of the arts.

This narrowing of culture deepened with the rise of mass media and consumer culture. Men were encouraged to show expertise in sports, cars, or business, but far less often in literature or music. The arts were increasingly feminized in American imagination. Ballet and painting were “for women,” while sports and mechanical skills were “for men.” The well-rounded Renaissance ideal, once admired, now felt distant.

In today’s digital age, specialization has only intensified. The pressure to achieve in specific careers or niches leaves little time for cultivating broader cultural or artistic skills. Men may know every statistic about their favorite sports team or every nuance of a software language, but far fewer could discuss a symphony, compose a poem, or sketch a landscape.

In losing the total man, we replaced it with, “Real men don’t cry” and “I don’t need anyone’s help. I got this by myself.” Both are patently false claims. It’s a balance. I talk about that here: Emotional Homeostasis.

This dichotomy reflects today’s struggle among men. To be emotionally intelligent, men must pull towards the totality and wholeness that is man, not merely the one-trick pony of “Look at all my cars.” The self-made man, complete with nuanced, well-rounded culture, has been replaced by the expert, the technician, the narrowly competent worker. As Houtz noted, the real man, the comprehensive man, as Jason Wilson calls it, has left the building.

We stand at a crossroads. If we want men to be equally valued in love and in labor, admired for their minds as much as their drive, we must return to what once made them whole. The pursuit of science, the appreciation of art, the reading of literature, the making of music, and the wrestling with philosophy. They are the lifeblood of true masculine depth, and without them, manhood itself withers.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

The Forgotten Half

A Book Review: “Of Boys and Men” By Richard Reeves

Richard Reeves’ Of Boys and Men enters into a cultural conversation that has long been muted, if not actively resisted… the struggles of men and boys in modern society. The book, in many ways, is revolutionary for its willingness to state the obvious. There is a crisis among males. Educationally. Psychologically. Socially. Reeves’ arguments invite both appreciation and scrutiny, particularly when viewed through a psychological lens. While he successfully highlights the scope of the crisis, his solutions raise important questions about the interplay of biology, culture, and politics in male development. Here, I propose both praise and criticism of this book.

Institutionalized Developmental Delay

Reeves begins with education, pointing to staggering trends that show boys falling behind at nearly every level of schooling. Fewer men enroll in and graduate from college. They remain at the highest risk of dropping out compared to any other measurable group. Some of this decline has been masked by well-intentioned initiatives aimed at supporting women in higher education. But Reeves notes the imbalance of scholarships and assistance programs that overwhelmingly (and sometimes only) target women.

A particularly striking statistic is that 23% of boys are categorized as having a developmental disability. This label is almost statistically impossible. The deeper question is whether the educational system itself is maladapted to the developmental trajectory of boys. In other words, is it really the boys who are delayed, or the institutions failing to accommodate the normal variations in male development? Reeves and I share the sentiment that it is the educational system that is “delayed.” Developmental psychology shows that boys, on average, mature later in self-regulation, impulse control, and executive function. A rigid, one-size-fits-all educational model pathologizes these differences rather than supporting them.

I love the “redshirting” idea. Reeves’ practical recommendation that boys should be “redshirted”, or held back a year before starting school, aligns with this developmental reality. It recognizes that maturity is less about chronological age and more about calibrating behavior to fit social demands. Psychologist Erik Erikson once described adolescence as the crucible where identity and role confusion collide. Boys may simply need more time in that crucible, and institutions must adapt rather than expect conformity to artificially compressed timelines.

Social Decline and Family Instability

Beyond the classroom, Reeves highlights how boys and men are disproportionately harmed by family breakdown. In 1970, just 11% of births in the U.S. occurred outside of marriage. Today that number stands at 40%. The psychological consequences are profound. Children raised without stable father involvement face increased risks of behavioral problems, school failure, and emotional instability.

Importantly, Reeves distinguishes between race and gender in discussions of intergenerational mobility. While black and white women raised in poor families experience similar rates of upward intergenerational mobility, the same is not true for men. Revealing that the struggle is fundamentally male, and less racial. This observation forces a reframing of inequality. Many of the struggles chalked up to racial disparities are in fact gendered and disproportionately affect boys. The family unit, when fractured, appears to hit men the hardest, possibly because male identity is often more externally anchored, shaped by roles, responsibilities, and expectations that dissolve when fathers are absent.

Despair, Suicide, and the Meaning Crisis

Perhaps the most chilling aspect of Reeves’ book is his treatment of despair. Male deaths from despair (suicide and overdose) are 3x higher than female. While male deaths from suicide alone are 4x hgher than female. Men account for 70% of opioid deaths in the United States. In suicide attempt notes, words like “useless” and “worthless” are repeated with haunting regularity. These are not just personal tragedies, they are societal symptoms.

Psychologically, despair emerges when meaning collapses. Viktor Frankl, the psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor, argued that humans can endure almost any suffering if they retain a sense of purpose, echoing the sentiments of Nietzsche. Men who perceive themselves as unnecessary, whether socially, economically, or relationally, are particularly vulnerable. The erosion of traditional male roles (provider, protector, leader) leaves many men lost. Reeves’ book resonates as a warning. Neglecting the psychological needs of boys leads to men who no longer see themselves as essential to the fabric of society.

Biology, Masculinity, and the Politics of Pathology

Reeves is careful to address the biological underpinnings of masculinity. Testosterone, he notes, does not trigger aggression but amplifies it. This distinction matters. Aggression itself is not pathological. It is a natural drive that, when tempered, becomes assertiveness, competitiveness, and protective strength. The problem is not masculinity, per se, but the inability to regulate and channel masculine impulses into socially constructive forms.

Reeves criticizes the American Psychological Association (APA), which has published guidelines that largely ignore male realities while emphasizing female experiences. This reflects a broader cultural trend. Natural aspects of masculinity are pathologized, particularly on the political left, which often denies biological sex differences in favor of purely social explanations. From a psychological standpoint, denying biology is not only unscientific but harmful. To help boys and men, we must recognize their biological realities rather than pretending they do not exist.

Where Reeves Misses the Mark

While Reeves is strong in diagnosis, his prescriptions falter in later chapters. In his attempt to “balance” criticism between left and right, he ends up diminishing legitimate concerns. For instance, he offers a dismissive opinion of Jordan Peterson’s work on social hierarchies and gendered career preferences, despite strong empirical backing. He offers no empirical refutation. Only opinion.

Reeves suggests that men and women would choose diffrent careers if the stigma were deceased. His interpretation of the Su and Rounds1 study doesn’t hold up against other research. For instance, one study that shows that in more egalitarian societies, gender differences in occupational preferences actually widen.2 And another study that found that in very egalitarian communities, when controlling for education, occupational class position, age, social and family status, and income, differences among genders were vastly different.3 In other words, freedom reveals difference rather than erasing it.

Given the statistical likelihood of gender preferences in more egalitarian nations, we can’t dismiss this but maybe we can capitalize on the individuals in each gender that cease to represent the majority and lean on this faction to help close certain gender job-force gaps. Men high in neuroticism, who are also high in empathy, would do well in HEAL jobs. Like women who are more practical and less prone to neuroticism would do well in STEM jobs. Though the majority will not prefer these, those who will can help bring nuance to these occupations.

Reeves also entertains the idea of equality of outcome, which is an inherently socialist notion that undermines individual merit and autonomy. Quoting Margaret Mead as an authority on gender equality may not be the best idea, given that contemporary psychology and economics have moved far beyond Mead’s cultural anthropology. Equality of outcome is not only impractical but psychologically corrosive, as it requires group A remove something from group B without their consent, and give it to group C. That will never work in America.

The Role of Government: Help or Hindrance?

You already know the answer to this. But Reeves goes on to advocate for policy solutions such as legislating more male teachers and expanding paid parental leave. While well-intentioned, these proposals risk repeating the failures of affirmative action. Institutionalizing discrimination in the name of equity. Psychologically, boys need mentors and role models. Mandating male teachers through policy undermines organic, voluntary solutions. Similarly, paid leave initiatives, while attractive on the surface, raise serious economic questions. Reeves never explains how such programs would be sustainably funded, leaving taxpayers to shoulder the burden.

The deeper problem is that government has historically failed to solve cultural and psychological crises. The federal government will never be a viable solution to any problem in our country, outside of national security, federal banking, and housing the homeless. They have proven through history, time and again, to be the worst solution to any problem. The crisis of boys and men is rooted in family, community, and culture. These are arenas where government intervention tends to distort rather than heal. Psychologically, meaning is cultivated locally through fathers, teachers, mentors, and peers. Not bureaucratic decrees.

Toward a Psychological Renewal of Manhood

Despite disagreements, Reeves deserves recognition as one of the few public voices daring to raise the alarm about the plight of boys and men. He’s a pioneer. A revolutionary. His book contributes to a conversation that is long overdue. To move forward, psychology offers several points of guidance:

  • Boys must be given time and space to mature without being pathologized.
  • Masculinity must be acknowledged as biologically grounded and potentially virtuous, not inherently toxic.
  • Family stability is critical. Without fathers, boys face developmental deficits that no government program can repair.
  • Despair is not simply a matter of economics but of meaning. Men must be shown that they are needed.

Reeves reminds us that the boy is always present within the man. Psychological maturity means the boy is still alive within us but is no longer in charge. He’s tempered, integrated, and directed toward purpose. Our challenge, as a culture, is to stop treating that boy as defective and start guiding him toward manhood.

Conclusion

Reeves’ Of Boys and Men is a bold and necessary work, one that illuminates the depth of the male crisis with clarity and urgency. Where he falters is in solutions. Reeves too often yields to fashionable political narratives or relies on government prescriptions. But in identifying the problem, Reeves has accomplished something vital. He has given voice to the silent epidemic of male despair and decline. Psychologically, the task ahead is monumental. Create a society that nurtures boys into men who are not just functional but flourishing.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

1 Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and Things, Women and People. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 859–884. 10.1037/a0017364

2 Falk, A., & Hermle, J. (2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science, 362(6412)

3 Bihagen, E., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2000). Culture consumption in Sweden: The stability of gender differences. Poetics, 27, 327–349

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Buy Me a Beer
Posted on

Another Disorder Habituating Drugs: A.D.H.D.

When Normal Behavior Becomes Diagnosis

I recently read an article on how ADHD is underdiagnosed. I won’t share the article or author, for obvious reasons. I’m not interested in putting this guy in the line of fire. He’s doing genuine work, with the goal of helping. And as Michael from Passion Pit recently stated, we can disagree with respect, especially if someone is genuinely trying to help those suffering. To be clear, I am not a psychiatrist nor a psychologist. I am a mental health counselor. This is the perspective from which I write.

The author said he would address:

  • How science proves underdiagnoses
  • Why ADHD is more prevalent now
  • Concerns about medication for treatment of ADHD

What I Can Agree On

Some of what he laid out made sense and is likely to be true. For instance, he stated ADHD is 74% heritable. I have no reason to doubt that. This places the heritability of ADHD almost as high as height (80%) and much higher than depression (35%-40%). He gave stats on stimulants, both the lack of findings that they are terrible for you and what happens when some don’t take them. For the most part, I can understand and buy this. This still lines up with a recent article I read that states it is possible for ADHD to be real and true, but to also be overdiagnosed.

The Author’s Diagnosis of Underdiagnosis

He continued with “science” that “proves” ADHD is underdiagnosed. I was left wanting. For instance, he relied on Adderall to determine diagnose prevalence. He said that 41 million Adderall prescriptions were written in 2023, severly lower than those diagnosed. He stated that 8.8% of adults had ADHD. Then linked a CDC report that showed that 8.8% of girls between the ages of 3-17 had ADHD. The latest data we have on adults diagnosed with ADHD is 6%, or 15.5M adults. There are approximately 31 million girls between the ages of 3-17 in America. 8.8% of that is 2.7 million. Let’s take the 15% of boys diagnosed (which I highly question this validity), which is 5.4. million boys. Combine that with the 2.7 million girls, and the 15.5 million adults. That’s 23.6 million people diagnosed.

Therefore, 41 million Adderall prescriptions is severely higher than diagnosis. But let’s assume he means that the 41 million is total but that one person gets 12 prescriptions per year (as he alludes to in his piece), which is also doubtful because they write refills into the prescriptions, not new prescriptions. Then it’s 3.4 million people of the 23.6 million diagnosed with ADHD who are taking Adderall.

Ok, that’s lower. But this doesn’t account for other medications used and behavioral treatment. And to suggest that behavioral treatment isn’t enough is patently false, I can tell you from personal experience. So we’re left wondering, is it one prescription, 4, 6, or 12 prescriptions? Most are 90-day refills. By that math, it would mean that almost half of those diagnosed with ADHD are taking Adderall. So that’s “severly low?” They all must be taking adderall to be considered normal?

But this is where it all takes a severe turn for me. He never addressed:

  • Suppression of science
  • Increase in prevalence
  • Means of calculating underdiagnosis other than Adderall

Supression of Science

It is pretty widely known that the freedom of science is under attack. More and more reports come out each year of studies that get suppressed when they fail to meet a predictable, Marxist ideology (Soh, 2020). If the study, in any way, misaligns with identity ideology, regardless of the fact that these are objective findings, the study is suppressed, and the authors are cancelled and sometimes fired. Just ask James Nuzzo. As an unfortunate result, it is becoming increasingly difficult to trust science is presenting all angles of an issue.

Increase of Prevalence

Next, this article, nor any article I’ve ever read has accounted for the sharp and distinct increase in diagnoses in the last 25 years, and especially in the last 10 years. The only explanation is “we missed it all this time.” Which does not hold up. So in 1998, 6.9% of children were diagnosed with ADHD, and in 2023, over 12% of children were diagnosed with ADHD. It doubled because we just “missed it” all this time? Or did it double because in 1994, the DSM-IV broadened the diagnosis for ADHD, which coincidentally sent a few pharma reps to Cabo on a private plane. I know, anecdotal and not causation. I get it. But the coincidence is remarkable. And much more plausible than “we just missed it.”

Underdiagnosed or Overmedicated?

Here’s another part missing from the “underdiagnosed” club. Even if they’re right, medication isn’t always the answer, and is a problematic solution on its best day. My bonus son came to me the other night and out of the blue said, “You know, I feel like I still have ADHD, but I know how to handle it, keep the symptoms at bay, and control my impulses now after all of the things you’ve taught me. I feel… normal” You know what this says? That it isn’t merely neurological, and maybe not even mostly neurological. It is behavioral. Which means the solution is often behavioral. So what did I teach him? I’ll give you two examples.

Example 1:

When I came into his life, he was 8. When he had something to say, he’d start yelling it in the next room as he was approaching the room he knew his mother was in. I consistently stopped him in his tracks, made him go back into the other room and reenter the room, quietly looking to see if anyone was already talking, refrain from interrupting if they are, and restate what he wanted to say. It took nearly 2 years for this to take hold of him. But he eventually got it. We created a new standard, consistently required him to meet this standard, and over time, he did. They’re Capable!

Example 2:

My bonus daughter has a 4 year old son who simply “can’t sit still.” So he and I, along with another daughter are at a restaurant. He gets on top of something and I tell him to get down. He looked at me like, “who are you?” I tell him again. He still doesn’t get down. I go pick him up, carry him to my seat, and sit him next to me. I tell him he’s not getting up again. He states his disapproval. I set a consequence if he continues. He stops… for 20 MINUTES STRAIGHT! We sat calmly and had a typical conversation. This means, he was capable, but he was never held to this standard. The food comes out, he’s fine and starts telling me how much he loves cheese. I said, “Don’t we all, my man!” They’re Capable!

Conclusion

I am open-minded. I am willing to learn. And I want to be challenged. But if the best you have is that the usage of Adderall is the “scientific proof” of underdiagnosis, forgive me if I’m not convinced. In my experience, both as a father and my clinical experience, behavioral adaptations to most symptoms indicative of societal ADHD still work better than medication. I know because I’ve witnessed it and treated it, personally. I’d now like to get back to talking about things like how pineapple should never be put on pizza.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

Soh, D. (2020). The end of gender: debunking the myths about sex and identity in our society (First Threshold Editions hardcover edition. ed.).

Posted on

The Gospel of Fake Compassion

A Sermon On the Mount of Ideology, Where Truth is Blasphemy

In case you missed recent articles:

A former priest, a struggling comedian, and a delusional writer with diagnosed TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) walked into a bar. Bartender said, “Hey Father Nathan Monk!”

Who is that, you might ask? It’s not important. What is also not important is the truth, apparently. The only thing that matters is the nauseating eagerness to vomit out convenient lies. As long as the lies wrap everyone in a soft blanket of false comfort. As long as no one’s feelings are ruffled. Unless, of course, they dare to think differently. Then cruelty becomes a virtue. Then it’s open season. The same people preaching love, acceptance, and kindness sharpen their knives the moment disagreement enters the room. That’s who Father Nathan Monk is. “Empathy” is one-sided. It only resides with the in-group. And if you prefer facts over feelings, then you, my friend, are the out-group. Welcome to the circus. Let me show you around.

Highlights From One of His Recent Posts:

Empathy

So, you might be sitting here watching folks shrug off the death of another and saying, “How can you lack empathy? How can you lack understanding?” And I am asking you the very same question. How can you lack empathy and understanding for those whom he harmed?

I would even go so far as to say that having such empathy is good in a sense, it means you aren’t as vile as he, a man who couldn’t find empathy at all for anyone, and actually demeaned empathy as weakness.

Empathy is dangerous. That was his stance. That is my stance. That is psychologist Paul Bloom’s stance. That is Jesse Prinz’s stance, the professor of philosophy at the City University of New York. Empathy can never play a role in decision making. Especially major decisions, like policy. See what I mean here, here, and here. This isn’t new.

Charlie Kirk spent his life vilifying people.

Wrong. He said, “When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence. That’s when civil war happens.” He vilified ideas and policies, never people.

He turned their parents and siblings against them.

Another lie. What he actually said: “If You Don’t Fear Your Parents, You Don’t Fear God! Honor your parents.” – Kirk

Gender

He made using the restroom a battleground.

Kirk was in no such business. He refused to bow to the Marxist ideology that compels speech. He refused to repeat a lie that sex is not biological, there are more than two genders, and that kids, who can’t figure out how to tie their own shoes should be able to choose their gender and begin mutilating their body.

Race

He called Black people less than human.

There is zero evidence of this quote. The closest you’ll find is: “If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us … You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.”

In context, what he was saying was that affirmative action, which directly and openly discriminates against white people and Asians, was the only way they could have gotten into college, based on their own admissions. Another way I know this wasn’t about race was because he was referring to democrats. He did not refer to Carol Swain, Candace Owen, or Kimberly Klacik. Why? Because they were republicans. This was not about race to him. It was about discrimination. Against whites and Asians.

2A

In the wake of school shootings, he told parents that their children dying in the hallways was a necessary casualty of protecting the Second Amendment.

Not even close. Here’s the full quote:

I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.

In context, he said that we, as a society, have made decisions on cost-benefit analysis; cost vs. reward. Every year, 50,000 people die in car accidents. We have decided that those 50,000 deaths are worth the cost to receive the benefit of having vehicles at our disposal to enhance our lives. One life is too many, but we know there will be car deaths, yet we still don’t ban cars. The same can be said of guns. There will be no such era of zero deaths from guns. We have decided that some deaths are worth the cost of the benefit of being able to protect ourselves. First against a tyrannical government. Next against people who wouldn’t abide by a gun law under any circumstance.

Words ≠ Violence

-He fomented young people to become violent so that he could hide behind his words and demand nuance

-Countless people have lost their lives to the violent rhetoric of Charlie Kirk

-Charlie Kirk was a White Christian Nationalist who promoted hate and violence

Can we acknowledge that the word countless immediately comes with a fact-check symbol. Especially when the number is actually zero. Words are not violence. If words are violence, then violence is a valid, acceptable, and necessary means to suppress such words. Therefore, words ≠ violence. If words are violence, then correlation = causation. But it’s not. Plenty of people hear things that upset them and don’t shoot a guy for it. This means that some are capable of self-control and others aren’t. Which means this is an internal human condition. Not some axiomatic call to action.

Quick Conclusion on the Right

In the aftermath of his death, the Christian Nationalists were quick, without any proof, to lay blame at the feet of the trans community

This part is true. Christians, republicans, conservatives everywhere jumped to this conclusion that the trans community had something to do with this. That, by itself, was reckless and reduces creditability. However, they were right. Even so, they were right too soon. The shooter was in a relationship with a trans female (a dude- for those of us who struggle with double negatives). And this could end up being something as simple as a man (a cowardly boy, really) defending his love. But the jump was irresponsible. Valid point.

Monk goes on to discuss Trump’s comments at Kirk’s memorial. Donald Trump? Why are we bringing a dumb, irresponsible comment by Trump into this? TDS at its finest.

UK or US?

It is already happening now in other parts of the world. The mere attempt to protest is landing folks in handcuffs. We are watching our fundamental rights being stripped away from us.

Here he says “other parts of the world” followed by “we” are watching rights being stripped from “us.” So is it us or other parts of the world? Other parts. It’s not happening here. So he must be UK-identifying. Maybe he’s Transnational.

What is happening in UK and Australia will not be happening here. If it does, it will be because they figured out a way to disarm every gun-owning citizen in the country. Good luck. We have the 2nd amendment for this very reason. To resist a tyrannical government.

Freedom of Speech

I need you to understand that what I have written here today will likely be read at my own sentencing someday, when they justify ripping me away from my children simply because I wrote words, asked questions, and openly challenged the narrative of my government.

I am begging you to do this now, because very soon, those voices will be silenced, and the only thing that you will be able to hear is propaganda being pumped by the mechanisms created and endorsed by the man you are demanding that they mourn.

I will fight and die for his right, your right, anyone’s right to say these things in open discourse. I will stand against suppressed and compelled speech at any turn. This will never be a thing in this country. Not without a fight they’ll never forget. Having said that, this statement is merely fear-porn. Meant to stoke an emotion that cannot be backed by evidence. Nothing more. Do better.

They have lacked empathy at every moment from Columbine to Sandy Hook, but are now feigning shock that no one can mourn the wicked.

First, I’d hardly call 22 million people “no one.” The difference here is that Kirk was killed because of his beliefs. What he said. The spoken word. And when that child aimed his gun, he was aiming at viewpoint diversity. He was aiming at the right to free speech. He was aiming at every Christian and every white person that is tired of being the subject of blatant racism, mockery, and discrimination in the name of “progress.” This makes the claims of comparing this to school shootings baseless.

Immigration

Listen to the hurt and pain and reality from those whom Charlie Kirk wished to see deported, arrested, and executed.

On record, Kirk is quoted as saying that people who are here illegally and committed crimes should be deported. Read that again. Here illegally and committed a crime. This is why empathy is so dangerous. This is the same emotion that led people to fall in love with Ted Bundy and others like him. When you’re empathizing with someone, you put on blinders, apply a spotlight, and shut out the rest of the world, including good judgment and common sense. And here it is on display. We are empathizing with those who are here illegally and committed a crime over those who are here legally and have not committed crimes. That’s as close to insanity as one can get without saying that sex is not biological.

Unilateral Violence?

Make no mistake, they will suddenly find the motivation to stop violence. But they will use violence to do so.

Here are some names of those who used violence in the name of justified retribution:

  • Tyler Robinson – Kirk’s killer. Dating one with Gender Dysphoria (F64.0)
  • Robert Westman – Minnesota Christian school shooter. Suffered from Gender Dysphoria (F64.0)
  • Audrey Hale – Nashville Christian school shooter. Suffered from Gender Dysphoria (F64.0)
  • Thomas Crooks – Attempted assassination of Trump. Likely suffered from a schizotypal disorder or MDD.

Conclusion

As you see here, feelings have bulldozed facts into submission. The facts are plain: Kirk said aloud what countless Americans quietly believed. He wanted fairness. He wanted an honest, level playing field. No racial handouts. No college admissions based on anything other than merit. That’s not unreasonable. And it’s not new. Thomas Sowell has been saying it for decades.

Kirk wanted freedom from compelled speech. The right not to parrot rhetoric he didn’t believe. He stood by the science of sex and biology. Truths humanity has understood, validated, and lived by for centuries.

Yes, Kirk stumbled. He went about it clumsily, made mistakes, and sometimes undercut his own cause. But to twist that into “he called for violence,” or “he encouraged racism,” or “he was fine with children dying”? That’s not just dishonest, it’s malicious. On a generous day, it’s intellectual cowardice. On a darker day, it reeks of Cluster B theatrics, psychotic distortion, and a sadistic Marxist project that thrives on smearing rather than understanding.

Name-calling is always easier than introspection. It takes no courage to sneer, but it takes discipline to ask: Where might I be wrong? or Where might another perspective be just as valid? Some can’t manage that. They can’t fathom why the whole world doesn’t fall in line with their view. So they elevate feelings above facts, emotion above evidence. Forgetting that policy is meant to serve the majority, not the loudest 1% screaming from the rooftops.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Buy Me a Beer
Posted on

Silencing Kimmel Means Silencing You

When Private Companies Do the Government’s Dirty Work

Joe Rogan & Jimmy Kimmel

This is a mini-post addressing Kimmel’s suspension and return to ABC.

When you read this list, what do you think of?

  • Joe Rogan
  • Ted Cruz
  • Clay travis
  • Ben Shapiro
  • Candace Owen
  • Tim Dillon
  • Andrew Schulz
  • Rand Paul
  • Mitch McConnell

I can guess your thoughts:

  1. Conservative. You’d be right about all except 1.
  2. Republican. You’d be right about all except 2.
  3. Politically motivated. You’d be right about all except 3.

You ready? They all condemned the suspension of Kimmel and praised his return. Wait… why?

I could not, for the life of me, understand why people on the right were happy Kimmel got suspended. It made no sense.

After watching Roseanne get the ax, Gina Carano get bounced over a tweet, and Trump get banned from Twitter. And millions of verified shadow-banning conservative posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram all through Covid.

If this is on your memory, why, for the love of the man down by the river, would you enjoy Kimmel’s removal for speech? This is exactly what you used to get fired up about.

The primary reason that list of people stood in solidarity about this issue is because they remember. If the FCC has that kind of control, we are all doomed. Unfortunately, this isn’t new.

There have been a few Supreme Court cases involving private companies acting on behalf of the government, but one of the more important ones happened to be in my area. Brentwood high school, in Brentwood, TN, sued the TSSAA, the primary governing body for high school athletics in Tennessee. They sued declaring that the TSSAA had acted on behalf, or in place of, the government. This case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and Brentwood High won.

The ruling was that the TSSAA had acted on behalf of the government, thereby removing its protections as a private company and becoming subject to government regulations and policies.

What does this have to do with anything? When Twitter, FB, and IG were removing conservative posts, we now know they were doing so at the request of the federal government. Which makes them acting on behalf of the government and subject to first amendment protections of citizens.

Meaning, they can be sued for violating First Amendment rights.

So this concept isn’t new. The government keeps trying to dip its feet in the private domain masking as private companies that do their bidding. And it’s usually aimed at conservatives. But this time it hit Kimmel. Here’s the problem, if they are willing to take out Kimmel, you’re next. Regardless of your political affiliation.

You better hope the federal government doesn’t continue to be in the speech suppression business. Because if you open a history book, you’ll see where this ends up. And it’s catastrophic.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

The is a free publication. But if you really enjoyed this post and want to support our work, I would enjoy a good craft beer after writing an article. Thanks!

Buy Me a Beer
Posted on

Forgiveness is a Decision

This is a response to a recent article by Aly Dee: The Gospel of Cowardice: How Cheap Forgiveness Weakens the Church

Just my thoughts:

There is a lot of good stuff here. Particularly the “Turn the other cheek” part. It was a power shift. By turning the other cheek in that era, you shifted power from the aggressor to you without doing much. The aggressor was left with a dilemma, strike with the “unclean” hand (left hand) or open hand, which implied equality in status. Or nothing and show weakness. One slight move shifted the entire dynamic.

Strength under control is also a good theme here. A man should be capable of danger and wise enough to know when to and not to use it.

I’d like to provide a little nuance here on two main points.

  1. Evangelical Protestantism
  2. Forgiveness

Evangelical Protestantism

“Evangelical Protestantism is the worst form of Christianity available today.”

This is hardly accurate. But when speaking in absolutes, accuracy is rarely found. It’s hard to call a movement that is bringing people to Christ by the thousands that had given up all hope in being forgiven for the atrocities they’d committed in their life the “worst form of Christianity available today.” The worst place for deep spiritual growth? Maybe.

But remember, the people that who are entering these domains often believe, truly believe, there is no hope for them. They believe they have made entirely too many serious mistakes to be forgiven by a perfect God. Not realizing it is in His perfection where the ability to forgive resides. They enter at the request of someone they know, believing there is no way God can love them. Then they hear otherwise and everything changes. I cannot possibly tag them with “worst.” Not even close.

I’d dare say the worst form of Christianity today are the denominations being willfully blind to obvious scriptural instruction for the sake of identity over merit and making sure no one’s feelings are hurt. Starting with the Presbyterian church. That’s the worst form. Absolute false prophets dressed in robes adorned with crosses.

Forgiveness

“Forgiveness isn’t really something reasonable to foist on someone mourning a fresh assassination, whether it be Charlie Kirk’s widow or American Christians who have been persecuted and attacked by Leftists for nearly a decade.”

I totally agree that it isn’t reasonable to push forgiveness onto someone in pain. I also believe that while it isn’t reasonable, it is possible. Because it is a choice. When Erika Kirk chose to forgive her husband’s killer, a few things happened and a few things didn’t happen.

What didn’t happen:

  • She didn’t forget
  • She didn’t accept this guy into her life or public discourse
  • She didn’t stop hurting

What did happen:

  • She removed the weight of justice from her shoulders onto her creator. It’s natural for us to want justice and harbor anger. She relinquished that.
  • Forgiveness spread like wildfire
  • Tim Allen forgave his father for the first time
  • Thousands were driven to Christ as a result.

“I have found that the greater the offense, the harder it is for a person to reach forgiveness.”

I agree that, in one sense, the greater the offense, the longer it takes to embody human forgiveness. But in another sense, not really. Why? Forgiveness is not a feeling. It’s not an emotion. It’s a decision. Divine forgiveness is what we are called to, which we can’t fully understand. Therefore, we need to act on it before we fully understand it. Often in scripture, God called his people to act first and understand later. He understood that action drives behavior.

The story of Moses is one. Three times, Moses is in the presence of God and comes back to deliver God’s word. Two of them, the people state in response, “We will obey.” The last time, they said, “We will obey and then we will understand.” Erika’s choice was a decision. Not a feeling. She chose to act now and heal as she goes.

So I think there’s a balance, which seems to be the undercurrent of Aly’s post, which I respect and appreciate. We can forgive and not restore. They’re not the same. Letting go of the sting while ensuring we don’t lay down and accept evil as normative can be attained.

Lastly, the reason I know we will never be the UK? They’re facing these struggles for a reason. The same reason we once triumphed against overwhelming odds. This country was not built on submission. From the very beginning, we fought as if survival itself was on the line. That spirit, born in the Revolutionary War when an outnumbered people refused to bow, still runs in our DNA. We fight for what we know is right, in the face of cultural deviance. This is why we’re seeing revival, now led by Gen Z!

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Gen Z’s Breaking Point

When Sanity Snaps Back

Recently, Dr. Keith Campbell laid out the plausibility of the Strauss and Howe generational theory and where we are sitting currently as a society (I highly recommend following Dr.

W. Keith Campbell. He’s a distinguished social psychologist, the good kind, who often points out zeitgeist applications from the social lens).

I linked Dr. Campbell’s Substack post, but the short version is, there are four “turnings” in a generational cycle that last approximately 80-100 years:

  1. High: 1st turning. Institutions become strong. More uniformity and solidarity. Think post WWII.
  2. Awakening: 2nd turning. Push back against institutions. Greater individualism. Typically accompanied by an increased spiritualism and cultural change. Think of the cultural revolution of the 1960s and 1970s.
  3. Unraveling: 3rd turning. Strong distrust of institutions. Fragmented culture. Think of the shift from the 1980s to the early 2000s.
  4. Crisis: 4th turning. Societal upheaval. Unity around survival.

Throughout history, when things turned, the turning was led by the younger generation. Here are some examples.

When The Younger Generation Steps In

  • Post-1960s Backlash: After the cultural revolutions of the 1960s and early 1970s (civil rights, antiwar protests, sexual liberation), a significant segment of the younger generation in the late 1970s and 1980s shifted toward more conservative values. Many became disillusioned with counterculture excesses, instead prioritizing family, law and order, and what they saw as a return to traditional values. This shift fueled the rise of the “Reagan Revolution” and the Moral Majority movement.
  • Victorian Reaction: After the upheaval of the Enlightenment and Romantic eras, full of radical politics, individual expression, and challenges to traditional authority, the Victorian generation turned sharply toward discipline, propriety, and family values. Emphasis on the nuclear family and social order echoed throughout society.
  • Interwar Period: In Europe, after the chaos of World War I, some young people rejected the liberalism and experimentation of the early 20th century. They gravitated toward movements that emphasized national strength, order, and family stability. Some of these movements took darker turns, but the pattern of rejecting “decadence” in favor of tradition and authority was clear.
  • Silent Generation: Coming of age after WWII, the Silent Generation in the U.S. largely rejected radical experimentation in favor of conformity, stability, and family life. They emphasized career, law, and traditional family structures, especially after the upheavals of the Great Depression and global conflict. Their focus on suburban family life and “the rules” is an example of a generational pivot back to order.

Cultural Disillusionment

You have to ask yourself, why are the Gen Zs upset about Kirk’s passing? Why do they care? I don’t remember caring about politics when I was their age. So why now? Perhaps it’s

  • The numerous people saying that men can play in women’s sports.
  • Or watching mentally ill classmates bring a kitty litter box to school.
  • Or seeing that there’s more mental health awareness than ever before in our history, and their classmates are still un-aliving themselves at alarming rates.

Whatever is currently being tried is not working.

Maybe they reached a tipping point. They watched what clearly appeared to be insane. But the adults were saying it was normal. So they trusted them. Until they didn’t. Something in them clicked. They realized, that’s not anywhere near normal. The 17-year-old boy attending his sister’s volleyball game watched a boy claiming to be a girl take over the game… one too many times. They saw one too many kitty litter boxes at a high school.

They have moved from confusion to certainty that authority figures are wrong. They grew up being told to trust the experts, the administrators, the professionals. But then they saw reality contradict the narrative, whether in sports, classrooms, or mental health. The more the grownups insisted, “this is normal,” the louder something inside them whispered, “No, it’s not.” That inner voice is where revolutions begin.

The Turn

They’re responding to a cycle where truth feels like it’s been sacrificed on the altar of feelings, and the pendulum is swinging back. They see that hyper-emphasis on sensitivity and victimhood hasn’t reduced suffering (suicide rates & depression) but has increased it. So they pivot toward strength, family, and reality-based living. Every generation reaches a breaking point with the culture it inherits. For Gen Z, it’s the moment they realized that more “awareness” hasn’t made their friends less suicidal, that endless sensitivity hasn’t made their schools safer, that pretending doesn’t make something true. They’re not cynical about truth, they’re hungry for it. And they’re tired of this “normative” zeitgeist. To them, there’s nothing normative about it.

The Martyred Catalyst

Maybe someone like Kirk poured fuel on an ember that they didn’t even realize they had. Maybe Kirk, like Peterson, called them up to greatness, and it registered deep in their souls. The message resonates not because it’s novel, but because it validates the quiet suspicion that they weren’t crazy after all. When Kirk spoke, Gen Z didn’t just hear an argument, they heard confirmation of what they’d already seen but were afraid to say. That validation turns private doubt into public conviction. It transforms a scattered sense of “something’s off” into a shared movement.

It appears the Fourth Turning is reaching its end. And Gen Z isn’t sitting this one out, they’re saddling up. Ready to drag truth back into the public square. History says the First Turning, the rebuilding, the High, waits just a few years down the road. But before we get there, the storm will rage stronger. Institutions will shake, lies will scream louder, and the pressure will test everyone. And that’s exactly why Gen Z matters.

When you see them stand up against insanity, when they refuse to bow to nonsense, don’t just nod in approval. Cheer them on. Thank them. They are the ones who will carve order out of chaos, who will carry family, faith, and reality into the next era. They’ve seen the madness, and they’re not buying it anymore. Gen Z will be the ones to plant their feet, guard the family, and make normal great again.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Mind-Molders and Life-Savers

It’s Where We Draw the Line

Excuse me for another pop-up post, but the newest events called for it.

If you weren’t aware of the absolute institutional ideological Marxist capture before this week, you’re aware now. It is nothing short of Cluster B-infused moral decay. But before we get too deep, let’s clarify.

Free Speech

I am a free speech advocate. I disagree with almost everything Harry Sisson ever says. But I will openly defend his right to say it. I believe people say hateful, hurtful, and harmful things on the internet. Hiding behind their keyboard shield like the snakes behind comedy and tragedy masks. But I fully believe in their right to say it. In fact, I want them to say it. So we can all see who the tyrants are. Who the psychopaths are. Who the Cluster-B RCT candidates are. I want you to speak so I know what is out there.

Thanks for reading Tidbits of Audacity! Subscribe for free to receive new posts every Tuesday.

Following the election of Trump, a shift began to take place. People all over the political spectrum were beginning to agree that the far left had gone too far. We had to find normalcy. Peaceful dialogue. Common sense. Biology needed to mean something, especially in sports. Merit meant something, especially in the workplace. With the assassination of Charlie Kirk, not only did that sentiment not soften, it just got louder.

L: Haley Kreidel— Nashville 911 emergency dispatcher; R: Laura Sosh-Lightsy— MTSU Assistant Dean

Death Celebration

There’s a zombie-style apocalypse of people celebrating the death of one man who stood for civil discourse without violence. Reread that sentence and let that sink in. As

Lou Perez said so well,

“I have come across people who believe that

  1. It’s OK to murder you if you express opinions they disagree with and
  2. You should not be able to own a gun to defend yourself against people who believe it’s OK to murder you for expressing opinions they disagree with.”

I did not agree with everything Kirk said, nor how he said it. But I agreed with the fact that we should have more civil discourse without violence.

I am not a fan of “cancel culture.” Never have been. Never will be. People should not lose their jobs over comments made. For years, people have been losing their jobs over saying something pro-American or pro-Western. For instance, schoolteacher Warren Smith conducted a Socratic thought experiment with a student. When he suggested that the student think through facts before assuming and claiming that J.K. Rowling was hateful, and after the student came to his own realization through, what counseling calls Motivational Interviewing, Smith was fired. This should have never happened.

Exceptions To the Rule

However, there are clear exceptions to this concept. One basic exception is economic. If you own a business or provide a product and speak in contradiction to your clientele, expect to be cancelled. Ask Tractor Supply, Harley-Davidson, or the Dixie Chicks. It’s simply not a good business move.

But maybe the more important example is professions where you are either a mind-molder or a life-saver. Educators, first responders, therapists, just to name a few. More recently, here’s a list of professionals who are mind-molders or life-savers and have been removed from their position:

  • Toledo fire and rescue firefighter, “Wish the guy was a better shot…”
  • Nashville 911 dispatcher
  • Assistant Dean of Students, Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU, where I am proud alum)
  • Teacher, Greenville County School District, South Carolina
  • Executive Assistant to Vice Chancellor of Development, University of Mississippi (Ole Miss)
  • Staffer at Ole Miss

Life-Savers

Now ask yourself, if your life was on the line, would you want to worry about dying due to a MAGA hat or Harris/Walz T-shirt? Think of it this way. A firefighter in Toledo rushes into a building, sees a man bleeding out and has the chance to save him. When he sees the MAGA hat, he thinks to himself, “One less scumbag.” Then “fails to stop the bleeding.” Comments about being happy a man died for his beliefs make it entirely plausible someone would do this on the job. Or how about the dispatcher in Nashville?

  • Dispatcher (D) 911, what’s your emergency?
  • Person (P) someone is trying to break into my house screaming something about my Trump flag on my porch!
  • D: Ok. Stay on the line and we will get someone there.
  • Then the dispatcher thinks, “Another MAGA down!” And simply doesn’t send anyone out but pretends she does. Or waits so long, the assailant enters and kills them.

Mind-Molders

The other side is mind-molders. I firmly believe that any educator who trains a person what to think, rather than how to think, should not be educating anyone. There is simply no place for that. This includes teaching someone that they should be republican, democrat, conservative, or liberal. Educators should not be teaching anyone that they should espouse these ideals, but rather that they should learn how to see all sides and explore these ideals. For instance, if you believe it was OK for Kirk to die because he was homophobic or transphobic, do you also feel this way about the Palestinians? Because they are very open concerning their stance on these issues. That is exploring all sides.

Or my industry— counselors, coaches, and therapists. I firmly believe if you say something publicly acknowledging the desire for another’s death, you should lose your license. How can you claim to care for people, advocate for people, and help people achieve stated goals if you are calling for the death of those you don’t agree with? It goes against every code of ethics in the industry. Which one’s you ask? Let’s look at a fellow Substacker’s comments— who happens to be a therapist.

Listen, these MFkrs call for the death of INNOCENT humans on the DAILY.

I will start calling for THEIRS. We don’t have to be some f*ing version of “peaceful”. WE ARE AT WAR.

Or

IT IS OK TO CELEBRATE THE DEMISE OF NAZIS

IT IS OK TO LAUGH AT POWERFUL KARMA

IT IS OK TO ADMIT YOU HAVE ZERO FEELINGS ABOUT MURDERED FASCISTS

IT IS OK TO TELL PEOPLE TO SHUT THE F**K UP WITH THEIR SELF RIGHTEOUS BULLS**T

Directly from the mouth of a therapist. Here are some codes she violated:

  • A.4.b. Personal Values. Counselors are aware of—and avoid imposing—their own values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. A statement wishing death on someone clearly shows imposition of personal values, and is inconsistent with respect for client autonomy
  • A.4.a. Avoiding Harm. Counselors act to avoid harming their clients, trainees, and research participants and to minimize or to remedy unavoidable or unanticipated harm. Publicly calling for someone’s death is a form of speech that may create an unsafe, hostile, or discriminatory environment for clients with different views.
  • C.5. Nondiscrimination. Counselors do not condone or engage in discrimination against clients, students, or supervisees based on political affiliation, beliefs, or ideology.
  • NASW 6.04 Social and Political Action. She obliterated this one.

So yeah, I firmly agree with the investigations, unpaid leave, loss of license, and firing of these individuals that show little to no human decency. I don’t want this type of moral infection to be in mind-molders or to have an impact on life and death. Go be a politician. They say hateful things every day and no one cares.

Stay Classy GP! (In the face of classlessness)

Grainger