Social Media and the Divide of America

War is a interesting phenomenon that has been inescapable since the beginning of time. Today we live in an American society that is increasingly at war with itself. On the other hand, the military is different. In combat, soldiers ignore differences of race, religion and politics within their platoon. They realize that in order to have the greatest chance of survival during war they need to do life together in cohesive unity. Throughout history the military has learned to focus on the things that unite themselves to one another rather than focusing on the differences.

In his book “Tribe”, Sebastian Junger says,

“The United States is so powerful that the only country capable of destroying Her might be the United States Herself. Which means that the ultimate terrorist strategy may be to just leave the country alone. That way America’s ugliest partisan tendencies could emerge unimpeded by the unifying effects of war. The ultimate betrayal of tribe isn’t acting competitively – that should be encouraged – but predicating your power on the excommunication of others from the group. That is exactly what politicians of both parties try to do when they spew venomous rhetoric against their rivals. This is what media figures do when they go beyond criticisms of their fellow citizens and openly revile them.”

With that in mind, something idiotically destructive that a military platoon can do during wartime is to openly revile one another. We must realize that we Americans are a single platoon ourselves rather we like it or not.  But if it is currently hard to imagine us as one unified nation, then that may be because, in actuality, we are at a great divide in our country. Moreover, we play our part in this divisive war on social media. Every day we see people speaking with contempt about the rich, the poor, blacks, whites, republicans, democrats, conservatives, liberals, the President, the government, the religious, the irreligious, etc.  

Do we really understand how this contempt is affecting us?  Humanity is still learning the science of how people communicate. One thing we have found is that the less distance between people (ex. two people face to face) then the less likely either person will act in a hostile manner toward the other. When people are face to face there is innate sympathy that toward the other person that regulates one’s behavior. This pleasant orientation has played out during most of human history.  Social media eliminates this pleasantry to a degree that we have never experienced and has done so in a short amount of time. This elimination occurred so quickly that we haven’t learned how to properly account for it in order to function correctly in our relationships nor can we comprehend its impact on our individual psyche/souls. We do, however, see it being played out in America in a negative manner. The constant criticism online that we have seen for years has now evolved into contempt of others.

Criticism and contempt are different.  Criticism is a fundamental aspect of daily life for the flourishing of society as it brings out the merits and faults of something or someone. We criticize anything from food, to music, and parenting styles. For years I have gladly criticized Lebron James’ basketball skills in order to further my support for Kobe Brant.  Unlike criticism, contempt is toxic because it puts someone morally beneath the speaker. Contempt is reserved for a wartime enemy or someone committing a great evil, but now it is regularly applied to our fellow citizens.

In marriage, contempt is one of four main behavioral predictors for divorce.  Let’s say a married couple has been going to counseling and the counselor is able to find the source of where most of their verbal contempt for one another happens – in the car. Most likely the counselor will recommend the couple to realize that there may be something unique about the dynamics of the car that brings about the disunity…not necessarily something within the husband and wife themselves. The couple would be foolish not to change something with the car in order to save their marriage. Matthew 5:30 would recommend us to cut off any tumbling block.

People who show contempt for one another are unlikely to remain united for long. This is the danger we see our country in now. Conservatives and liberals have a hard time having any dialogue or finding middle ground. This doesn’t just remain in the political lens but it also spills over to social issues, religion, economics, culture, and other arenas. I have noticed churches having the same struggle of believers from the same church arguing online. By now we have all seen people who love the Lord forsake one another online. There have been multi-year friends collapse due to differing opinions on social matters.

It is evident that the way we show our ideological allegiance is not by complementing our own side but by displaying our hate for the other side. This online contempt cripples relational growth. Typically, intimacy grows as people take turns speaking, laugh at each other’s jokes, and share surprising similarities (think of the famous Step Brothers movie quote – “Did we just become best friends?!). What happens on Facebook, though, when grandstands are erected along both sides and then filled with friends, acquaintances, rivals, and strangers, all passing judgment and offering commentary?

I have seen the same viral videos get shared by people on “differing sides” and each have a completely different take on the story but still yield the same amount of emotional outrage. Not too long ago we would look at two different video clips (of the same video) in order to get different reactions. Not anymore. We can just look at the exact same video and have completely opposite emotional responses. Part of the reason this is occurring is because our brains are becoming wired not to interpret truth but rather interpret information and uttering it in a manner that keeps our friends liking us, protects our reputations, and keeps our jobs. Sadly, this perpetuation further deceives ourselves and others.

How did social media get to this point? Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt summarizes an answer quite well. He relates the shift in social media confusion of the American public to the Tower of Babel story in Genesis 11. In this story, the people of the world grew prideful. In their pride they attempted to build a gigantically tall tower in order to reach Heaven. The Lord, upset at their pride, punished them by scattering the people around the earth and confusing their language so that they may not understand one another. Dr. Haidt then relates this shift in Genesis to the shift in social media around 2015. From the time I joined Facebook to today Facebook has changed several times. Social media changed fundamentally between 2009 and 2012. Before 2009, Facebook was simply about posting your random thoughts. In 2009, Facebook and Twitter added the “Like” button. Later, both companies brought in algorithms (and advertisements) in order to optimize content to emotionally appeal to users in order to get them to react and therefore become addicted for even more engagement. Social Media today has become an outrage machine that changed the moral, political and social climate of the Western World.

Now…let us follow the bread crumbs to see how we are being affected. There are studies showing that the more time you spend on Facebook the more depressed you become. There are also studies that show that tribalism increases in times of stress (or perceived threat) and it decreases in times of peace and prosperity. With Covid-19, outrage over the George Floyd killing, quarantine and mass unemployment people are on social media drastically more than ever before. Could it be that this rise in social media usage is leading us more towards a subconsciously depressed mindset? This consequently increases stress and causes individuals to be drawn further into tribalism. The next sequential step is a negative mindset leading to hostility and contempt toward anyone outside your identified tribe.

Of course, social media has its merits. But at this point is it a zero-sum game or a negative-sum game? How can we turn the tables and come together as one unified platoon? Satan is busy and if we do not push back then our country will see much worse division than we see today. Thank God for the common grace He gives us in order for us to have psychological and sociological studies to guide us during this time.

Do Group Identity Politics HELP or HARM Minorities?

Group identity politics is an idea used over the past 30 years to try to defeat social injustice. In this post I will attempt to test rather it is specifically effective for minorities. Before doing so, the concept must be properly defined:

Group identity politics is based on political positions focusing to divide people in society into different groups of shared interest and perspectives. Instead of society being based on the individual, the individual is identified within a particular exclusive group. It makes ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, age, political party or social class the primary element of our being.

When we look outside at the world, we see an increasingly depraved, polarizing, impatient world that is complex beyond measure. In this broken system, people have been trying to fix the world since the beginning of time. In particular, with the current social issues that have plagued us we are still searching for solutions. Identity politics is the current “potential solution”.

The thought is that by putting people into groups it will empower the people within them and raise awareness against things like racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc. That this will help people who have been victimized also come together as victims and rise above the oppressors. Sounds like a plausible solution.

However…the primary question is…..:

Do Identity Politics work?

My 12th grade AP Economics Teacher taught our class a key principle in consumerism – “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”  That is, every choice/solution in life has a cost. That cost may be our finances, time, energy, a human right, a relationship, 431265-Thomas-Sowell-Quote-There-are-no-solutions-there-are-only-trade.jpgquality of relationship, or a life itself. Today we hear chants for social justice. We want things fixed and we want them fixed “immediately”.

A wise approach when considering a new policy, system, or ideology is to consider as many outcomes as humanly possible if it is implemented. The most important outcome to consider above the others is the worst possible outcome.

Before making a decision, asking a question such as: What are the ways in which we might accidentally make things worse with this? Or, if we open this door to make something better, are there other ideas (or consequences) that will walk through that same door now that we’ve opened it?

We use a similar thought process in the engineering world when we conservatively design buildings. We do this in the sports arena when setting up rules to protect players from injury. We even do this when choosing which car to buy or where to eat for dinner. In the fields of mathematics and the social sciences, this process is called game theory.

Sometimes the costs are worth paying but, historically, many of times they are not. Besides Christ, there is especially no solution to any social issue that, if implemented, would not then be taken/used/twisted by the enemies of God several years down the line.

How does group identity politics affect the world?

The world is too complex and “endlessly” diverse for identity politics to function with consistency. It cannot be measured and quantified. It cannot be used as a tool for success on either political spectrum.

Within the Social Justice Movement and group identity politics there is no hint of consistency due to the absence of objective truth. This movement wants to remove any given number of contradictory rules and then tell us all which rules apply at any given moment. Our country cannot reasonably function with these rules.

maxresdefaultIn the same sentence they say, “You cannot understand me because my experience is too different. But wait, you also must understand me because my experience is too different.”

A person’s opinion matters not on the individual level but relative to their identity group. So a gay white woman’s opinion matters less than a gay black woman – both are oppressed by the man-dominated world, both are oppressed by the heterosexual majority, but the black woman has the added victim-hood of racism. The more memberships in oppressed groups you have, the higher you rank on the hierarchy. It plays out everyday.

  • We attack Kevin Hart for homophobic tweets in 2010 but we let white female comedians slide when they’ve used similar homophobic tweets. On the intersectional scale, Amy Schumer, a liberal white woman, gets a pass over Kevin Hart, an apolitical straight black man, because her combined political and gender oppression outweigh Kevin Hart’s single racial oppression.
  • For myself, being a black male I have noticed that I get away with speaking more freely on social issues (race, gender, class, homosexuality) than my white male counterparts.

You see, without objectivity we rely on subjectivity. In a subjective world view, anything goes at any given time. Conversely, anything can be taken away at any given time. Group identity politics is insufficient in covering the marginalized because all people are marginalized in some ways. Everyone is oppressed. In a subjective world, how are we going to say one person’s marginalization trumps another person’s marginalization? Who dictates the hierarchy and the extent of oppression? How far back in time do we account for the oppression of our ancestors? It is not simply black and white or men and women.

  • The LGBTQ community is oppressed too right?
  • Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans are marginalized.
  • Jews and Muslims are discriminated against as well. Look at the complexity of the Crusades, the Israeli-Palestistian conflict, the Holocaust.
  • What about the deeply tense tribal differences between the several Asian communities with all their wars over the past hundreds of years?
  • For the gender fluid white women who will identify as white men tomorrow, will they simultaneously then be classified as privileged oppressors and hierarchically dominant white men?
  • Are white people who grew up poor less marginalized than black people who grew up in middle class families?
  • Do black women and Hispanic women deserve more than white women in the workforce?
  • What about job positions in society that Asians preferentially occupy? Are there too many Asians in the STEM fields? Are we going to put a quota on them?
  • Should oppression of black Africans equal that of black Americans?
  • And what about attractive people who have walked through life more privileged than less attractive people?
  • What about shorter men? Should they get privilege over taller men?
  • What about intelligence versus a lack of intelligence?

This goes on and on until we get to the level of individual people which is exactly where we should be in the first place. The victim system will never be equal. The irony is that it is our SHARED sense of oppression and pain that unifies us, not what separates us. We have each felt pain and caused pain. No one is innocent. Separating off into different groups does more harm than good. The benefit may be a short-termed warm feeling of camaraderie.  However, this does nothing long term for reconciliation and fixing the actual problem.

What do we risk when grouping with identity politics?

  1. We run the risk of being ignored because we have all these other accompanying social ideas and accompanying proposals that are not the same. For example, fighting for racial reconciliation tends to be accompanied by the acceptance of homosexuality. They may be similar looking by the standard of oppression but there are massive distinctions theologically, sociologically, and politically. Some of those distinctions may reduce our own quality of life. Having those accompanying ideas hardens the hearts of people who argue for the fact that there are distinctions.
  2. Some of the ideas associated within identity politics will, in turn, hinder our relationships. It will further polarize people. It will cause further tension between people who identify in seemingly opposing groups rather than unite them as humans.
  3. It will open the door to radical Right wing racists who would also like to play identity politics.
  4. It runs the risk of demonizing people who do not deserve to be demonized. For example, it puts Louis CK at the same evil level as Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby. It puts a white Chipotle manager, who did her job in refusing to serve two black men who Dine & Dash, at the same evil level as white supremacists. Or it simply names anyone transphobic who believes gender dysphoria to be a mental disorder.

(I will stay on that black-white racial tension train for the remainder of this post). Black Americans are being duped by identity politics to carry a weight they are not meant to bear. Black minorities are being pushed to the front of the line [by other identity groups] as a plea for diversity & inclusion when ultimately much of what those groups truly care about are their own agendas. Racial diversity is just the ticket inside the door that, if left unmonitored, allows in other ideologies. People are prone to give in to accompanying ideologies that they cannot defend against for the sake of the continued validity of our own hopes.

What actually works as a solution?

Image: Chris RockWhite privilege is real. We may not agree on the definition – CNN, NAACP, and other sources may have different versions of the definition. It may not be quantifiable. However, it is undeniable that, historically and today, there exists some form(s) of white privilege. This does not mean white people are criminals. There are other forms of privilege that people of color have that white people do not. Our society doesn’t have  a white problem it has a heart problem. As Chris Rock said at the Oscars, “Everything isn’t racist, everything isn’t sexist.”

A true “solution” for racial reconciliation would be to aim for incremental [compounding] improvement. By approaching it incrementally we can more effectively defend away chaotic and unnecessary accompanying ideas that are not needed for the overall goal of racial reconciliation. Let me explain: There is a difference between a person who is a reformer and person who is a revolutionary.

A revolutionary person attempts change in an immediate time frame with little foresight and, in turn, risks damaging the world. A reformer sees a social problem and understands the complexity that fixing it will possibly take hundreds of years. The reformer understands the wise, loving, beneficial patience in an incremental approach. MLK was a reformer. In an increasingly impatient world, we do not do too well with reformers – their ideas take too long. Jesus and the Apostles were also reformers. The world did not treat them too well either.

The solution is a sacrificial approach. Jesus died on the cross for something He did not do. He died for us. For racial reconciliation we all need to be willing to sacrifice for one another regardless of who it is. We must see people as souls, not as a particular social group.

The solution is grace. Jesus died on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins. For racial reconciliation we all need to forgive one another. It is wise to learn from history but we should not let history dictate our current emotions. All people should recognize the effects of history on people today and work through it for the sake of equality.

I recently heard someone say it like this when speaking on corporate repentance in the Book of Ezra, “Sometimes repentance is taking responsibility of sins past and present that are not your own.”

Jesus’ prayer is that we will be one. ONE. He said this because there is a spiritual war that is much more important than any societal or cultural war. It is by fighting the spiritual war together that we also have success in the societal and cultural wars.

The answer is simple in deed, yet complex to carry out. But the answer is good and worth the attempt.


How was Political Correctness Born in America?


[The following takes place in Hell among a classroom of young demons. The timing occurs directly after a previous blog post was written. The Dean of Demonic Warfare, Wormwood, had just finished giving his presentation on his effects in America.]

After the final PowerPoint slide ended, Dean Wormwood then paused and slowly turned his head to the left. There was a picture of Satan on the wall. It partially covered a medium-sized crack that ran from the floor up to the roof. The young demons watched as Wormwood steadily walked over to the crack and delicately ran his palm over it.

For the entire class period Wormwood spoke with such confidence to the fellow demons, but now his demeanor was different. Wormwood, in a suddenly defeated voice speaks, “the Enemy Jesus somehow has always seemed to be many steps ahead of us. Just look at the Cross and the Resurrection. Never never never forget that the Enemy Jesus has already won. The Enemy creates life where we constantly claim death … But that does not mean we cannot still try.  Class dismissed.”

“WA-WAIT”, Cupid, one of the freshmen demons, hesitantly exclaimed, “I do not understand. You keep saying that you slowly had the Americans to believe in individualism and Universalism. How exactly does that benefit us?”

The freshman demon grew more confident as he spoke – his chest sticking out as if he caught the Dean’s flaw, proving to be the smartest demon in class. The freshman continued, “Last class you spoke on today’s American political correctness and how it ties into individualism. However, would not the Enemy Jesus want those things? Humans enjoy independence and would want to join The Enemy if He seems to accept all things, right?”

Dean Wormwood, still looking at the picture of Satan, does not move in the slightest. It is as if he never heard Cupid’s question. His glare resolute. Wormwood’s eyes glowing as red as the pit of Hell itself. His demeanor switched back from defeat to assurance. An assurance spurred on by the curious freshman demon wanting to learn…but apparently still lacking faith in Father Satan’s plan.

Wormwood finally turns toward the class. He answers:

“Do not be so foolishly narrow-minded, Cupid. Of course individualism itself is not evil. Even political correctness has solid merit. Political correctness has the ability to stop humans from being marginalized or insulted by other humans. The Enemy Jesus enjoys that result when the human’s heart is involved.

All that said, that is NOT our end goal. If we stopped there we’d be defeated for sure. Our end goal is to pervert human thought process as to make it impossible for humans to truly guide one another toward the Enemy Jesus.

At the start of western America…we set in a subtle 300 year long plan of moral and sexual liberty that would destroy the effect of the Gospel. It is a free speech apocalypse. The Bible requires repentance on some level – but a human cannot tell another human to follow the Enemy Jesus without simultaneously calling that person to walk away from something else.

When individualism is coupled with political correctness that “something else” now doesn’t have to be walked away from anymore. Hence, true repentance in order to follow the Enemy Jesus cannot be achieved. Therefore, over time with our successful plan, the humans naturally become anti-repentant. You see, the bloody Gospel is not only a Gospel of repenting from sins that they KNOW are WRONG – it is also repenting from things that they THOUGHT were a VIRTUE

nomomnodadSexual sin is not immoral because it is or isn’t distasteful. Not at all. Sexual sin is immoral because God prohibits it.

You are probably wondering how we did this over the span of 300 years. During the late 1700s the founding fathers of The United States still had the bitter taste in their mouths from how the British used religious authority. Part of the reason of the numerous wars in Europe was because of church denominations (Anglicans, Catholics, Protestants etc). It would make sense for the founding fathers to avoid the Europeans’ ways in not having a single denominational “Church of the United States” at the federal level. Doing so would naturally lead to conflict against states that may have had primarily different denominations. Hence the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

After that was achieved, it all became a gradual game of words. Semantics. Equivocation. Sure, we demons were not initially happy when humans settled on Christian denominations being neutrally equal in law. It greatly hindered religious wars in America. We demons do love human wars, but we patiently waited for something better.political-correctness-language-thoguht-control

Listen very closely young ones… we got the Americans to start with denominational neutrality. After a little over 100 years, when humans stopped paying attention, that moved to religious neutrality. That eventually shifted to worldview neutrality. Now, it has turned into morality neutrality. So that everything today has reduced to “anything goes”. What the humans meant for good we twisted for evil.

As my demon teacher once told me, ‘It is funny how mortals always picture us as putting things into their minds: in reality our best work is done by keeping things out!’

The American founding fathers were not being malicious in their thought process. Their conscience was doing something good at the time for the betterment of their country. However, we have successfully twisted that thought and slipped it all the way down to subjective morality. Now, Christians must shut up otherwise they are doing something wrong against others. Now, no one has authority or the ability to tell anyone else that they are doing wrong. Emotion controls reason.”

Dean Wormwood quiets as he finally finishes. His massive robe drags the floor as he slowly approaches Cupid. Wormwood pats the top of his head saying, “Your curiosity shows much promise. I have high hopes for you, Cupid. Praise be to Satan.”

“Class dismissed.”


The Answer: Why do Black People Tend to Think Whites Are Racist Or Hateful Toward Blacks?

Image result for racism
First things first, the goal in answering is NOT to bring about anyone’s emotion. This isn’t about morality therefore in this discussion it doesn’t matter if anyone thinks a particular treatment is tragic or justified. A psychologist or economist limits their emotion and opinion in their analyses. Yes, they consider it in their notes. But in order for them to see more clearly and objectively they leave as much out as possible. Too much emotion may cloud and control our reasoning, as C.S. Lewis once framed it. So this “answer” is not about justification of riots, protests, cop killing, slavery, buying candy, or talking back to parents.

How am I somewhat objective and qualified?

If you follow me on social media you may notice that I have never talked about race issues. This is because (1) I’d rather write about Jesus; (2) honestly, I’ve grown to feel ashamed and embarrassed that I am black (something that applies to this topic but may be elaborated on in a future post) and (3) it always seemed pointless coming from me. That is, people would think I’m biased because I am black. I would NOT get upset at that either. I can’t really blame others for that natural reaction. If a Boston resident tries to tell me how great Tom Brady is…I’m naturally going to be skeptical because of course that guy loves Brady and The Patriots. However, I am opening up now because I realize much of the stuff I know isn’t known by many whites and what I can say isn’t being articulated by many blacks.

In today’s world, many people on both sides are not good with listening and being OBJECTIVE. In my experience black people get too emotional inside their bubble that they can’t have an objective discussion with white people. There has grown an innate level of distrust. Many whites, whether they care or not, have a hard time as well because they have natural blinders and historical privileges that prevent them from seeing objective as well. There is nothing inherently wrong with either side in their reasons because it’s not really a conscious effort. It’s naturally subconscious. For the past 50 years, most of this is due to the economic and sociological effects of our society.

What do I mean by sociological and economic effects? I’ll explain. This answer will be in 5 different phases: Micro, Macro, Familiarity of Stereotypes, Indifference, and Dr. King’s Frustration.

We’ve got to do a little ground work before we start though:

My professional career is in community and economic development. This is the process and policies by which a nation, state, county or city improves the economic, political, and social well-being of its people. So what my company does is try to bring companies, large and small, to our state. Jobs, capital investment, and revenue are the goal. And darnit we will sell this state the best we can. With statistics, innovation, and persuasion, and more.

Various KEY factors come into play, such as transportation, quality of life, location, money, branding, etc. If you look it up, you’ll see that your own city and county has its own economic development department, chamber of commerce, and other affiliates that are focused on this initiative together. Economic development directly affects the current generation AND the generations long after it. 

Ok now, do we understand that? If so, we can move on.

1. The Micro

Now let’s begin to answer the question of why many black people see whites as responsible AND what is the reason of how much of the black community is where it is today.

We’ve got to go to history of course.

Set race aside and just view it in an Economic development lens. Let’s go back to Tulsa – however, not 2016, but 1921. There was an area in Tulsa that was booming! It was a black community. It was rare because of course the odds weren’t in their favor but they just luckily rolled a 7 with the dice multiple times. As one of the most successful and wealthiest black communities in the United States during the early 20th Century, it was popularly known as America’s “Black Wall Street” until the Tulsa race riot of 1921. They had black lawyers, doctors, teachers, black-owners, entertainment, oil, etc. (Now again, ignore the race factor for now…it doesn’t matter for this analysis piece). Then one night the outside white people grew too jealous, came in and killed many of the successful people and burned down their businesses and streets. It was horrific. They even punished the few white people around for not doing it sooner.

Then the white political and business leaders proactively prevented that community from reconstruction or picking themselves up. This wasn’t hard because due to rights back then black people didn’t have much of that ability anyways.

So think economic development: They are SCREWED for about the next 100 YEARS. For the next 60 years those blacks won’t know about diving into the community and economic development process. How could they? Their schools are IMMEDIATELY affected. Their job structure is shattered. Their families destroyed. They are currently crippled as a society. Not only that but also their kids’, kids’, kids’ are also now crippled. It becomes a generational snowball effect due to that initial occurrence and the laws established for years to come. There was no hope for them and it becomes too hard to thrive. Therefore, poverty in Tulsa. Therefore, violence because that’s all you have and know due to having to survive from being poor and having no good education or possibly/knowledge of escaping. (Although, poverty doesn’t correlate to violence). What happened doesn’t just end in a year… resonates within the fabric of a society for years to come in the form of both emotional distress AND economic instability (incorporating education, companies, businesses, families, crime, etc).

In my job, bringing in 1 company positively affects that entire community – their family benefit, the nearby retail and restaurants benefits, the schools benefit, tourism boosts, more companies follow suit, and more. This occurs positively for the next generations in that area as well. Black Wall Street had the opposite case. And it was not a single company. It was ALL of it.

That is  an objective analysis of cause and effect. Again, it doesn’t matter if what happened was bad or good in this analysis. FYI, this happened in other places as well. We must understand this “momentum effect” in this micro example in order to understand the answer in its fullness.

2. The Macro

To keep low with word-count I’m going to bypass the macro. It has similar cadence to the micro piece but without the violence and is, of course, on a larger scale. Please ask me in person or on Facebook if you want that piece as well.

3. Familiarity Of Stereotypes

I grew up around Blacks and Hispanics, but over the past 10 years of my life at least 95% of my friends and acquaintances are white. So it is extremely hard for me to stereotype people in either group because I have lived life with so many different types and I know their souls and hearts. The way society is laid out (because of white flight, economic structure, convenience, and family history) black people have been left to live amongst one another. So those black people naturally HAVE to CATEGORIZE all whites into the same group. That is how a human brain works.  This doesn’t happen to me because I have lived among others.

White people can easily get categorized by what is seen on television, social media, oImage result for racismr in stories told by the older generations. For example, I’m sure none of us know any native Cambodians personally because we don’t live around them. So we naturally group Cambodians into one category of people. Now we know people in Cambodia are all different with various opinions, personalities, languages, and subcultures. However, in our minds we have tendencies to group them together don’t we?

4. Indifference

The disbelief from much of the black community that a shooting or possible wrong-doing will gather positive help from the white community is from past years of “neglect” from that side and their current state of “emotionlessness”. That continual reaction from many white people makes it hard for many black people to listen/trust simply one white person with good intentions, when numerous other whites have failed that quota.
Let me explain.

If my mom had cancer and a stranger had cancer I’d show much more sympathy for my mother than the stranger. I naturally have a different level of connectivity and value for my mom.

One group continues to uniformly state “we should wait for the facts after these shootings before doing anything”. I agree, in theory. In a perfect world we should always wait and diagnose a situation. However, this isn’t a perfect world. Those same people flip-flop depending on what the crime is and who did the crime.

There is no objectivity in our reactions. We all react different and with different poise depending on what it is. The less subjective empathy I have, the more ability I have to refrain and diagnose the situation and wait for the facts. But when it’s my mom or a friend it becomes tough to control.

For the bomber “suspect” at the Boston Marathon – we wanted his head immediately. With a man “accused” of child molestation we want to give him the death penalty once he’s caught. When a college athlete is “accused” of rape we want him immediately kicked off the team before the trial begins. All the while, many in the black people continually watch a black person killed (justifiably or not) and those same people show unwavering objectivity and poise the entire time. That shows a different level of respect and love.

Black people see the immediate reaction of emotionlessness and interpret it as white people not caring.

In Romans 1 we see that God’s indifference is a very scary form of wrath; different from violence. Hate is NOT just someone spitting on another person. Hate isn’t only the KKK hanging someone. Hate can also be passive. Even Satan knows that. Indifference OVER TIME can be interpreted as unloving and hatred. That’s what happens psychologically in the minds of a people. So we can’t blame them that much, can we?

5. When Dr. King was Frustrated

MLK Jr. led protests in a manner that would “shame” those who were discriminating. People like to say his method was non-violence. Not really –  his method was shame and he used nonviolence to achieve it. His tactic was that if he could have people feel ashamed for how they thought and acted, it’ll force them to change. Read his writings.

What’s interesting is that in his later years when King went to Chicago, he tried his same tactics but the white people beating them didn’t feel ashamed at all. It was different from the South. And it scared MLK. When a people aren’t aware enough to have the ability or respect to feel shame toward the treatment of someone else, then that is when something is off. Which begs the question of what the next step would be.

One friend I debated correctly claimed that ‘King’s tactic did work in the South though, because it was more saturated with Christians’. If that is true then it still proves my point: We, as a nation, are less Christian today. Therefore, King’s tactics of shame won’t work as effectively here anymore. That said, our nation is more like Chicago in that King was scared because it was seemingly and hopelessly in a state of chaotic reasoning that shocked him. It left Martin Luther King afraid and scrabbling for a new tactic. That’s where many in the black society would say we have been growing in subconsciously [through the eyes of blacks and whites]. Even in the past 50 years, before social media.

As scripture says, in the last days nations will turn their backs from Christ. America is doing that. Hence my friend’s point flows into this – shame isn’t working here anymore. hat’s why there are frustrated protests (good or bad) and riots (good or bad). That’s the only next step people can think of on the fly. We all have the same natural tendencies when trapped into a corner for so long.

In conclusion, we cannot just look at “today’s” knee jerk reaction of the black community. We must look holistically. This is similar to chaos theory. It’s ALL connected. This isn’t about black on black crime BUT black on black crime is a subset of the results of history. It’s not about Charlotte. Charlotte can be 99% wrong…but it doesn’t matter. The deep damage was already done.

This isn’t out of the blue. It’s a past 300-400 years thing. It’s a 1920s and 1980s thing. Look at old Richard Pryor or Dave Chappelle stand-up and old low budget black films from the 1970s-1990s. They are screaming and crying about the same killings. And no one cared. Listen to R&B songs from that time period. They were constantly crying about it and asking for help and America turned it’s head. They didn’t have Facebook Live to make it public. I’m not making this stuff up. So little by little day by day that people group grew to a particular view of white people. Skepticism. Distrust.

The solution is another story, but when a black person tells a white person they don’t understand or aren’t qualified – They are really saying that you don’t know how they got there and why. Therefore they are not truly known and loved. But if the black person knows that the white person objectively knows this stuff and still wants to love on them…..goodness gracious the effect that will have.

Image result for racism

6 Steps for “Winning” Any Debate in Favor Homosexuality (Allegory)

Dr. Peters enters the auditorium with his demanding 6’4” stature and scruffy beard. “Good morning everyone,” he declares in his deep, raspy voice as he turns on his PowerPoint presentation. The room is on the top floor of one of Washington, D.C.’s tallest skyscrapers. The auditorium – filled with numerous high-end politicians, news company executives, noteworthy reporters & writers, and numerous prominent voices of the LGBTQ community – was silent with anticipation.

“Well lets get started, as I do not have much time. You have brought me in today to teach to you methods of filtering an idea into the ethos of our society in a way that our society will approve of it. As you know, the topic at hand is homosexuality and same-sex marriage. In order for success we must be covertly deceptive. I can assure you that this is not my first time at the rodeo for altering the macro-psychological concepts of a population. Over time, if you closely follow my 6-step plan, you will see a turnaround in the acceptance of homosexuality. It will be the quickest shift on a mass-societal topic in the history of our world.”

Dr. Peters smirks with confidence as he beings his PowerPoint:

1)   Redefining Words.

In order to change a people’s idea on the topic of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, we must first get our country to redefine the words “judgment” and “condemnation”. Historically, those words have been defined as what is done by the accuser after they tell someone the truth. That is, condemning is about casting a person off after they tell you their position. We will need to alter these definitions such that ‘judging takes place anytime someone disagrees with your position regardless of their actual treatment of you afterwards.’ [Other words to redefine: rights, marriage, love, hate]

We also need to pervert the ideas of “individualism” and “political correctness”Of course individualism itself is not evil. Even political correctness has solid merit. Political correctness has the ability to stop people from being marginalized or insulted by other humans. This is good all around. All that said, that is NOT our end goal. If we stopped there we’d be defeated for sure. Our end goal is to pervert human thought process as to make it impossible for them to truly guide one another toward Truth.

Since the start of western America… there has been a subtle 300 year long progression of moral and sexual liberty that destroys the effect of the Gospel. It is a free speech apocalypse. The Bible requires repentance on some level – but a person cannot tell another person to follow Jesus without simultaneously calling that person to walk away from something else.


When individualism is coupled with political correctness that “something else” now doesn’t have to be walked away from anymore. Hence, true repentance in order to follow Jesus cannot be achieved at the heart level. Therefore, over time, they will naturally become anti-repentant. You see, the Gospel is not only a Gospel of repenting from sins that we KNOW are WRONG – it is also repenting from things that we THOUGHT were a VIRTUE.  Subsequently, this will force the hand of the church into accepting homosexuality as normative because they need that key repentance piece to seemingly stay in effect as some level within their doctrine.


2)   Excessively Accuse Anyone that Thinks Homosexuality is Wrong, as Hateful Bigots.

I know what you’re thinking, what good will that do? Let me tell you a story. Back in 2005, the Bush administration asked for my help as they needed to drastically increase gas prices; something they’d never done before. I told the administration to increase gas prices from the nationwide average of $1.80 upward to $4.50 (much more than their actual goal). This caused a nationwide outcry. After one week of chaos, I told the administration to bring it down to $3.50. The entire nation immediately calmed down. They were so relieved to pay $3.50 a gallon instead of $4.50 that they forgot that just a week prior they were paying $1.80! This psychological tactic is unwavering in its success when done correctly. For instance, if you continuously call Christians bigots, they will naturally begin to give in and attempt to overcompensate for their “presumed hate”. They will being to weaken their doctrine  and their churches will water down on LGBTQ issues.

Image result for cs lewis emotion reason


3)   Deteriorate the Current Secular Worldview.

This is one of the easier, but tricky targets. Apart from the Christian faith, Americans have no objective structure to look towards that justly labels homosexual acts as morally wrong. Have them begin to believe that homosexuality isn’t a choice or a sinful bent; but that you are immutably and unchangeably biologically homosexual. This has no scientific evidence, but it is still a powerful weapon. Now whether it is biological or not, it doesn’t matter in the end because we still run into the risk of our opponents making the factual claim that some people are genetically predisposed to alcoholism (which has more evidence), pedophilia, or violence. Therefore, those things should also be accepted. Be careful with this point.

We can also rid of this group by attempting to correlate gay rights to historical women’s rights, African American slavery and the Civil Rights Movement. They will eventually topple over and acquiesce. Their growing indifference and low attention spans will be the end of them. ‘God bless America’.


4)   Emotion     Emotion         EMOTION         E-M-O-T-I-O-N.

This, my friends, is our greatest and dearest weapon!!! When you write articles or give political speeches on same-sex marriage it is vital for you to use as much emotion as possible. The emotion of both love and hate are equally important. If you hear a heartfelt story about a daughter revealing her homosexual lifestyle to her parents … regardless of their reaction, publish it!! Share it! If they accept her, write to gain tears of joy. If they neglect her, write to gain empathetic hate. Either way, it is a win-win. People love stories. There is a reason why Michael Jordan is still extremely popular among today’s adolescents – because his stories are still passionately told to this day. Emphasize on how you love your partner every chance you get during a debate. Story telling is a “straw man approach” which subliminally works in our favor.


5)   When to avoid Christians:

  1. The ones in the Reformed or certain seminary circles are tough to break down. They stand with their strong theology and, because that is not our strong point, … we should digress there. However, luckily for us, the theologically-focused Christians are depicted as arrogant bullies within the entire Christian domain itself already. The white men especially have a hard time theses days because their historic pedestal has been revealed and frowned upon. Therefore, we can sit back and avoid them as they are already labeled as conservative bigots from other Christians.
  2. Please avoid Christians who show genuine love for people who practice homosexuality with a distinction between “loving the person and not the sin”. Do not write those stories. Be careful around them, lest they invite you into their homes, engage into your lives, turn you into a Christ follower, and show you the true design of God’s creation. Remember, this is a chess game. That is a move that you do not want to make.

Note: If you do come across these Christians, try your best to keep the discussions away from the Gospel. Keep the focus narrowly on God’s treatment of homosexuality. This way the Biblical metanarrative of Jesus is not spoken on … but only an implication of it. Depending on their knowledge of scripture, or lack thereof, you may be able to twist scripture and justify your case without them knowing.

6)   Stray away from the polygamy argument.

This is important. We have no way of fighting in favor of same-sex marriage without inadvertently allowing for people in favor of polygamy to use our exact same arguments in favor for themselves. That is a large weakness in our fight. Even though some of you may actually be in favor of polygamy, America is not ready for polygamous marriages just yet. Our current focus has to stay on same-sex marriages. If people bring up that polygamists should merit rights if homosexuals merit rights … just walk away or change the subject. Trust me, we cannot win that argument nor do we want America aware of its imminent occurrence.

[End of PowerPoint]

Dr. Peters, turns off the Power-Point document and looks toward the audience. No one says a word. Everyone is in awe of what they just learned.

“Class dismissed,” declares Dr. Peters.



Dear Heavenly Father, please continue to have mercy on our wretched nation. Please forgive us. Please forgive us. 

Ephesians 3:14-20