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

NYC’s Gateway Drug to Communism

You Can Ignore History, But it Will Still Send You the Bill

Woke up, had an omelet, cup of coffee, and realized, I chose every bit of that. That freedom is under attack in front of our very eyes.

How did we get to a place where we are having to remind people the disastrous outcomes of socialism? Primarily because the newer generations did not learn about the ills of the socialism. They learned about how awesome it is. They apparently left out the part where it has yet to work anywhere in the world at any time in history. Pretty big thing to leave out. And they’re afraid to admit the connection between socialism and communism.

There are two primary issues I want to discuss here so that we understand that socialism is the gateway drug to communism and why so many are concerned that New York has embraced communism:

  1. Socialism and communism are almost interchangeable
  2. Understanding New York’s own history with socialism.

Let’s briefly take a look at the differences and similarities between socialism and communism.

Differences

Definition

  • Socialism: an economic and political theory where the community or state owns and controls the means of production, such as industries and natural resources, rather than private individuals or companies. The central idea is that this collective ownership will lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth and a more egalitarian society, with an emphasis on cooperation and social welfare.
  • Communism: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war, aiming for a stateless, classless society and leading to a societal system in which all property is publicly owned, and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. (You can find the differences here, but you have to squint).

Government role

  • Socialism: The state plays a central role in regulating or owning industries.
  • Communism: The state is meant to eventually “wither away,” leaving no private property, class distinctions, or government at all. (So they regulate their way into total domination, got it)

Economic Role

  • Socialism: Redistribution of wealth to reduce inequality.
  • Communism: Total equality. No private ownership, no classes, no money. (distinct but the same result; reduce inequality means total equality)

Transition Stage

  • Socialism: Marx viewed socialism as the transitional phase between capitalism and full communism.
  • Communism: Communism is the final goal after socialism’s “temporary” government control. (so socialism is the gateway drug for communism, got it)

Similarities

Despite their subtle theoretical distinctions, both systems share several key principles and outcomes:

  • Collective Ownership: Both reject private ownership of the means of production.
  • Class Struggle Narrative: Both view history as a struggle between the rich and poor (bourgeoisie vs. proletariat, insert any binary friction here).
  • State Control: Both rely on government control or heavy regulation of the economy to achieve equality.
  • Wealth Redistribution: Both prioritize economic equality over individual liberty or market freedom.
  • Hostility Toward Religion and the Family: Marx and later communist regimes often viewed religion and the traditional family as tools of oppression that distract from loyalty to the state or the collective. Religion in socialism is seen as selfish and not conducive to an equal society.
  • Outcome in Practice: Both tend to centralize power in the hands of a ruling elite, suppress dissent, and produce economic stagnation.

Now that we’ve connected the dots of socialism and communism, let’s look at the argument for socialism’s (communism) implementation into the U.S., including where it has worked and not worked, the comparison to Nordic countries, and New York’s own history with socialism.

Where it has been tried, in various forms, and failed:

  • Soviet Union (1917-1991). Over 20 million dead as a result.
  • Maoist China (1949-1976) Over 45 million dead as a result.
  • Venezuela (1999-present). 7 million citizens fled
  • Notable mentions: Cuba, North Korean. (They’re really doing great these days)

Where it has worked:

Literally nowhere. Except in areas of Nordic countries. Nordic? I’m glad you brough that up.

The Nordic Comparison

Sweden (among other Nordic countries) is often hailed as the standard the U.S. should follow. They have about 10 million citizens. The U.S. has over 330 million. Sweden is highly homogenous. Very little diversity in culture, job market, and existential views. Comparing Sweden to the U.S. directly as national systems is like comparing a neighborhood to a continent. You can’t expect the same mechanisms of trust, coordination, and scale to behave identically. The diversity alone in the U.S. is enough to rule out anything that resembles voluntary, adequate, and consistent contribution to society. So that argument is out.

When Soft Socialism Collides with Hard Math

Then there’s New York. The city under the spotlight. The newest socialist experiment. But it’s not the first time New Yorkers tried socialism.

During the 1960s, under Mayor John Lindsay and the influence of progressive policies, New York City embraced what some economists call “municipal socialism.” The city expanded social services at a breathtaking pace:

  • Free college at CUNY.
  • Subsidized housing.
  • An exploding welfare system. By 1975, one in seven New Yorkers was on welfare.

Government employment and unionized city workers grew massively. Each new program was justified as “helping the people,” but they were funded not by growth in productivity, but by borrowing.

By the early 1970s, the rich and the productive were leaving, taking the tax base with them. By 1975, the city had racked up over $10 billion in debt (massive for the time) and was unable to pay its bills.

The Emergency Financial Control Board cut spending, froze wages, and privatized some services. Essentially reversing the socialist policies that caused the crisis. You mean, socialism didn’t work? Socialism has NEVER worked. But it gets worse.

Public services were slashed, police and firefighters were laid off, and whole neighborhoods descended into chaos. Arson for insurance schemes became common. Garbage piled up. Crime soared. The city looked like it was collapsing.

The mindset that led to the collapse was ideological. It left the arena of belief and was now more inculcated, indoctrinated, and innate that government could solve every problem through redistribution, and that private enterprise would always just pay for it.

That’s the core socialist assumption: the producers will keep producing, no matter what you tax, regulate, or redistribute.

Well they didn’t.

As economist Milton Friedman put it:

“New York City is a beautiful illustration of exactly these effects. New York City is the most welfare state oriented community in the United States. It has gone farther in the direction of governmental involvement in attempting to do good than any other city or state.”

“The first defect is trying to do good with someone else’s money.”

New York’s 1970s collapse is a cautionary tale about the seductive promise of endless compassion through government. Compassion without discipline becomes dependency. Generosity without growth becomes insolvency.

The socialist impulse to help everyone is noble in spirit but disastrous in execution because it severs the link between effort and reward. Remove merit, remove individuality. Remove individuality, you remove hope, exploration, creation, discovery, and innovation. Basically everything America stands for. New York’s brush with bankruptcy was their way of learning the hard way that utopian economics always ends with arithmetic. We now question who learned.

Conclusion

In the late 1970s, New York’s economic collapse didn’t just cripple one city, it sent shockwaves through the entire country. History is knocking again. Make no mistake, the same script will play out. The same smug belief that good intentions can replace basic economics will bring the empire to its knees. It destroyed New York once, and it’s about to do it again.

Every time government is handed more power, tyranny marches in. Every time feelings replace reason, chaos follows. And every time socialism has been tried, Every. Single. Time., it collapses under the weight of its own delusion.

New York City is sleepwalking toward the same cliff it fell off of half a century ago. Only this time, there may be no one left to catch it. The rest of us will have to watch as the “City of Dreams” becomes a slow-motion nightmare proving, once again, that socialism doesn’t save societies. It destroys them.

I started this out talking about my omelet breakfast. I’ll leave you with this, since you made it this far without your stomach growling from hunger enough for you to stop reading: Walter Duranty, a pro-Stalin journalist, once defended Soviet terror in discussion with George Orwell by saying, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” To which Orwell replied, “So where’s the omelet?”

Great, now I want more eggs! Thank God I don’t have to get them rationed from the government… yet.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

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