Shepherd or Charlatan Part 3 - Policiing or Pacing

I am sorry for the lack of focus in getting this series completed.

I can't avoid sounding like bragging, but I am helping start a new church, rebuilding a pickup truck, and raising a family, so I am frequently not putting my writing at a very high priority. This is unfortunate because I've had the chance to interact with some wonderful people, but that is all through writing, and I know that if I am an inconsistent flake, then there can't ever really be a relationship that forms.

The kind of relationship where I can say something that matters to them, and vice versa. The kind of interactions where someone might actually look forward to, even if we ultimately disagreed.

So thanks to any who bother to come back and read the rest of the series.

In Parts 1 and 2 I was laying the foundation for, and then providing an example of, the difference between a shepherd and a charlatan. This part of the series will discuss one specific aspect of the difference in how the two behave with respect to leadership style as seen in the contrast between "policing the flock" and "pacing and leading". We end up with yet another binary, because ultimately a leader either reflects the values of the people they lead or they don't.

When a leader shares the values of the people he leads, there will be a natural affinity. The leader won't need to explain or motivate the people on the topics he acts on, because both he and the people already ideologically support what he is doing, and will be looking for opportunities to contribute materially as needed. For a cause that people care about, they may even volunteer their services because they are so dedicated to achieving whatever it is they want to achieve that just achieving the results they desire will be reward enough. Whether such devotees exist or not, in such circumstances the leader will not need to spend a lot of time directing "the herd", but instead protecting it from outsiders who seek to predate on their flock.

This is where the leader who does not share values comes into play. A leader that does not already share the values of a group will not naturally rise to lead it, and will not have a natural affinity for or with the people, but is either be placed there by circumstance, like being hired, or through social manipulation, which is pacing and leading. When a leader does not already align with the values of the people, but is needing to redirect where they put their efforts, he can do this through pacing their existing convictions and emotional state in order for them to recognize him as the one they should follow. He becomes a refinement, an extreme, of whatever values are already held, and since this person appears to be the epitome of such values, having the most dedication and commitment to them, he will synthetically create a dynamic where the others look to him for direction and guidance. After this relationship has been established, he then leads them to where he really wants them to go, which may end up being in a completely different direction than before, complete with compromises and dilution of the values in order to justify what has been done.

A painful example of this "pacing and leading" is seen in politics. On the campaign trail, charlatan politicians promise so many things, they talk at length about their platform and priorities, and try to garner support from the community in their bid for election. Once elected, however, they then proceed to act in a completely different manner than would have been extrapolated from what they claimed, and are often then pressured to explain why there is a disparity. The good politicians already know this is coming, and will have a host of plausible reasons ready to provide at a moments notice, flipping the tables back on the people that elected them, as if they were delusional or ignorant for expecting to get exactly what they wanted.

Shepherds on the other hand rarely ever get elected in such circumstances because instead of making wild promises and inflating their capability, they'll look meek and incompetent compared to the charlatans. Such people only end up being able to get into political positions that confer little rewards for the effort. Where a charlatan will want to get on the city council to get a property re-zoned so they can develop it privately through their own businesses, a shepherd might get into the position of the local sheriff in a rural community. It's a position of importance for that community, but it also demands a lot of work and without a lot of actual power to change the dynamics of the community, because the primary focus is to protect the community from outsiders who want to exploit the community for themselves, whether a thief or a vandal or what have you.

Leaders aligned with their flock will police it to keep it the way is already is. To protect what it already values, to sustain and enforce the existing values the community already has.

Leaders not aligned with their flock will pace and lead it to achieve what they want. To exploit the declared values, to redirect and redefine the existing values the community already has.

Embrace extremists? Embrace those who share your values, and this is most easily demonstrated through action. If a politician claims to support an ideal, look at what actions they have taken, and whether those line up. In churches, for example, this can be seen in the "holier than thou" types. They are like the Pharisees, and will hypocritically apply rules to others in a way which elevates their own standing in the group, but at the same time will prevent anyone else from doing the same to them. Such people are highly critical of others, and extremely sensitive to criticism aimed at them, even if it is accurate.

Shepherds, on the other hand, because they are already aware of the values, and the affinity they have for the people is natural and not synthetic, when they make mistakes there is grace and mercy on hand. This is seen in the "wild west" stories about the "rogue sheriff", who is forced to bend or break rules to achieve their goals. The goals, the values haven't really changed at all, but by nature of circumstance they have been forced to use means they otherwise find undesirable in order to maintain peace and order. When a shepherd is challenged, they do not try to reject the undesirable nature of what they do, but will often explain that such matters are required for the time, and that the alternatives would all be worse for everyone.

The flock may resent the means of the "rogue sheriff", and not be afraid to express it, but there is forgiveness and understanding, and an appreciation that the shepherd is willing to sacrifice themselves on both a physical and psychological level, so that their flock doesn't have to. And when such a sheriff calls out one of the townsfolk on something they are doing wrong, they know to respect and comply with the sheriff, because he has everyone's best interests in mind.

An example of this type of character would be like Kevin Kline's Paden from Silverado. Thrust into a circumstance where he has to choose between being a shepherd for people in the community he has grown to care about, or living the high-life as a charlatan exploiting those very same people to his own benefit. He ultimately chooses to be the shepherd, risk his life, and as a result, ends up in a position of very high standing in the community for actually being an embodiement of the values they cherished.

Charlatans, on the other hand, are like his former friend and rival Cobb, played by Brian Denehhy. He isn't the rogue sheriff that goes to extreme lengths to "clean up the town", but instead is the one who tries to make a deal with the bandits and the outlaws, makes his own peace in a way that benefits him and his supporters, and ends up largely ignoring the values of the people he is supposed to be protecting as sheriff.

Shepherds react without the flock's permission, because they care about the future of the flock. Charlatans need the flock's permission, because otherwise the flock simply wouldn't naturally follow them at all. The actions of the shepherd and charlatan will expose who they think they are, and what they believe the nature of their relationship is, and that takes time and opportunity, requiring patience and observation.

So look at the leaders who have placed themselves, or been placed, in the various groups and social circles you are part of. Keep track of whether their actions are geared towards action on the existing values, or on convincing people that there's more they could be doing, if only they voted/gave money/supporting them. Are the leaders already taking actions which reflect the existing values, or are they hinging their actions pending further support?

Once you've figured it out, hang the charlatans, and give the shepherds a badge and a gun.

In Part 4, I'll discuss how this dynamic is in all social circles, all circumstances where there is a power structure, and how charlatans may look to exploit any possible circumstance to their benefit.

Orthodoxy thought experiment

In the book of Revelation, there are letters to various churches.

How many of those churches were Orthodox?

If the answer is "none", then there were schisms from the beginning, and the struggles of various modern churches can't be blamed on a departure from Orthodoxy, because there wasn't a single, unified, homogeneous, perfect expression of Christianity to begin with.

If the answer is "some", then one would need to demonstrate how the corrective action recommended was exclusive to Orthodoxy.

If the answer is "all", then even early on, the Orthodox church was struggling with problems that they now blame on schisms and people having strayed form Orthodoxy, so if those problems would have existed anyway even within Orthodoxy, they can't blame a rejection of Orthodoxy as being why the problems manifested.

The only absolute we are given is Jesus Christ, it is his work on the cross which reconciled us with God, "so that none may boast".

There was an infinite gap between God and man that was created by sin, yet it was bridged by Christ's blood in love.

The distinction between those who reject God and those who call on Jesus Christ as Lord and savior is going to be clear enough in due time.

Creating new distinctions, let alone the pride associated with sustaining them, is what drove the Pharisees.

When their practices were destroyed, they would sooner invent a new religion than turn to God.

Learn so that you do not make the same mistake.

Envy, Bitterness, Denial: Part 7

This is the continuation of Part 6, looking at an opinion piece published by the NYT.

White Women, Come Get Your People

In Part 6 we looked at some of the hateful results of what happens when white women behave like colored women do, in self-interest, and how because that does not immediately work in favor of colored women, white women are "gender traitors", because women are supposed to be voting based on what helps all women and not just themselves. White women, in making partner and lifestyle choices that do not benefit colored women, are selfish and playing a role in oppressing colored women. And they should just stop doing that right now.

If the theme sounds familiar and childish it's not an accident, because it's always easier to try and tear someone else down, to devalue their achievements and make excuses, than to try and accomplish something yourself. It's orders of magnitude simpler to be a critic than a creator, and so when even the very fabric of reality is demonstrating that some choices are better than others, and you can't change the past, you will work hard to change the future instead to try and mitigate the cost of bad choices you have made. This is natural, expected, and yet so often entirely self-destructive.

Let's finish up the article.

I’m sure he does “have” them; game girls will defend their privilege to the death.

Envious jab, and little more than that. Females naturally defend what is "theirs", whether we're talking about humans or animals, and so a woman accusing other women of doing so while trying to defend "what ought to be mine" is certainly hypocritical, but pointing that out is impotent at best.

This is why deceit and misdirection is required, because facts and data don't matter, so one must "dig deeper" to create the desired resonance that goes beyond intellect.

And that is why the article went where it did next.

But apparently that doesn’t include Ms. Murkowski anymore. Maybe it’s because she comes from a state with the nation’s highest rate of sexual violence, with a sexual assault rate three times the national average, where prosecutors just let a man evade jail time after he kidnapped a native Alaskan woman and strangled her unconscious, then masturbated over her body. Maybe.

The details don't need to be true for the narrative to appear convincing, and that's the point.

The statistics and data are reported out of context, because at face value this appears to be relevant given the nature of the accusations made against Kavanaugh. The emotional appeal is strong, but if you actually read the article linked:

Some 47 percent of suspects are Alaska Native. About one-third are white. Some 97 percent are male. Suspects and victims tend to be the same race, except for black suspects, whose victims most often are white, the analysis found.

Another data point:

Almost all the victims and suspects knew each other. Just 4 percent of the attackers were strangers, and for the youngest children, only 1 percent were targeted by someone unknown, the analysis found. Most suspects were acquaintances. Some were relatives. A few were boyfriends or girlfriends. In five instances, the suspect was the baby sitter.

Rather different framing. Apparently people are lacking proper sexual outlets and, given that incest and rape are really only a moral issue for Christians, the problem doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with any of the national narratives at all,

Now, the article cites 1,542 "incidents involving felony sex offenses" for Alaska in 2016. California meanwhile had 13,695 rape cases in 2016. They used "national average" to try and make Alaska seem so terrible, because that relies on statistics per capita, and since California is a more highly populated state, even if the "rate" is low, the actual number of reported rapes is much higher.

The same way that, as we saw earlier, even if only 10% of white women pursue abortions, because that's 10% of a bigger population, that still results in more actual abortions for white women than colored women.

So, does Alaska or California have a bigger rape problem? And how are "whites" to blame for any of it when they're not the ones doing the majority of it in the first place?

Facts, details, boring boring boring.

And for the man who "evaded jail time"?

Schneider was charged with four felonies, including kidnapping and assault. He pleaded guilty to a single felony assault charge in the second degree in exchange for a sentence of two years with one suspended, plus three years probation. Schneider received credit for time served while wearing an ankle monitor and living with his wife and two children.

Who cares about the truth when the story "feels right"?

The reason thus particular case was brought up was in an attempt to equate Trump, who is also entirely coincidentally also a white man, with this convicted felon. Trump was upset that a Republican congresswoman would not vote for the Supreme Court Nominee of a Republican President after hearing unfounded allegations brought forth by Democrats only after the nominee was announced. The attempt is to equate Trump's dismissal of the politically motivated and unfounded allegations with the judge "letting the evil white man go". Sneaky, but not very well hidden.

The intent is to make it look like Trump is an uncouth aggressor acting outside "civilized norms", sufficient to justify white women turning against him and to the "side" of colored women in solidarity against this oppressor who seeks to dominate all of them.

That asking for "proof" is the same as "excusing evil".

And yet this is all still falling under the "stop doing that" type of argument, not the "you should be doing something else and here's why", because the author and those who think like them rely on their opponents surrendering, never fighting back. If an opponent were to fight back, that would be "improper", and in this fashion did they so successfully manipulate those tempted by ideologically superiority.

"We'll win without fighting because we desire a higher path and none can denigrate the power of our ideals!"

"We may lose this election, but we'll still have our principles, and they can never take that away from us!"

Now let's see the contrast.

Meanwhile, Senator Collins subjected us to a slow funeral dirge about due process and some other nonsense I couldn’t even hear through my rage headache as she announced on Friday she would vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. Her mostly male colleagues applauded her.

The author couldn't be bothered to listen to how legal processes actually work from a woman who has actually tried to work hard to achieve something in a legal system that was crafted by men. The author was so overcome by emotion that she couldn't even listen to another woman! Such terrible men for causing her to sin against her "sister" in such a fashion, at least, so long as that sister quickly repents of her own sins of being a "gender traitor" first.

Even this, though, is a misdirection from the fact that the author doesn't want to understand how to affect actual change, because the author isn't actually capable of, or interested in, doing anything but trying to convince other people to surrender, to be worn down by nagging stupidity cloaked in intellectualism and activism. To throw a tantrum and push people to just throw their hands up in the air and say "fine, do what you want, just go away!"

It's this same childish stupidity that lets the author pretend that because a woman said it, it must be good, but if a man said it, it must be bad, because the path to truth is obviously in the vagina. Even woman agreeing with a man, that's bad because a woman is apparently supposed to be diametrically opposed to anything a man might agree with, unless that man got what he said from a woman, then he's just a liar and a creep.

It's this kind of simplistic ignorance wrapped in grandiose vernacular that prompts people to promote socialistic ideals, because they're simply too dumb to understand why those lofty ideals won't actually work. It's this kind of intellectual laziness that the readers are supposed to ignore because they're supposed to be drummed up into an emotional fit just like the author.

Is anyone genuinely confused as to why the author is still single?

The author is the stereotypical "bossy girl" on the playground who goes into an absolute fit whenever someone isn't playing in exactly the way she wants. The kind of girl that finds herself lonely and insecure, but with a chip on her shoulder, certain that the problem is everyone else and not her.

She never grew up because her parents didn't care enough to tell her "no", but instead shipped her off to be brought up by a soulless government system which only taught her to repeat, not to think.

The article finishes out with the same pathetic weakness that the author is desperately trying to hide behind the emotional misdirection.

The question for white women in November is: Which one of these two women are you?

I fear we already know the answer.

The author wants what white women have, and if she can't nobody can, and all without putting in the work required for stable relationships and families.

The author is angry at men, because she's been rejected for putting what she believes before what she is, and so men are being mean and must be diminished in value and significance for refusing to "play along".

The author is ignoring truth, preferring instead a fantasy where women are goddesses and worthy of your worship, and perhaps if you've groveled enough they'll deign to show you favor.

But pointing all this is out is simply stating the obvious. It falls flat, nobody is really surprised or convinced by any of it. So what's really the "proper response" to such an article?

Well, beyond the dissection for understanding to help those who aren't quite aware of all that's going on, saying nothing is usually best. Ignoring a tantrum can sometimes work because the individual throwing the tantrum will come to realize that their inputs are not achieving the desired outputs.

If you don't ignore? I am bad rhetoric, but perhaps something along these lines:

Fake women want lives that matter.

And then tell white women to vote for white interests, marry and then have white babies, and make a big deal about women who dress like sluts needing to spend lots of money on batteries.

Envy, Bitterness, Denial: Part 3

This is a continuation of Part 2, looking at an opinion piece published by the NYT.

White Women, Come Get Your People

In Part 2 I continued on with the article and demonstrated that there is a binary being created with men on one side and women on the other. While my assertion of that binary may have seemed a stretch with only what was in the article up to that point, even the most skeptical will be satisfied in due time.

There's no way to unpack everything that's been said and what it means in a short fashion, this article just hits so many buttons at the same time.

Without further ado, let's continue the article a bit more.


They’re more sympathetic to Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who actually shooed away a crowd of women and told them to “grow up.” Or Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, whose response to a woman telling him she was raped was: “I’m sorry. Call the cops.”

These are the kind of women who think that being falsely accused of rape is almost as bad as being raped. The kind of women who agree with President Trump that “it’s a very scary time for young men in America,” which he said during a news conference on Tuesday. But the people who scare me the most are the mothers, sisters and wives of those young men, because my stupid uterus still holds out some insane hope of solidarity.

Note that the behavior of the women "shooed away" doesn't matter. Note that telling a possible rape victim to do the very thing that would bring some measure of justice against her rapist is dismissed as being dismissive.

Note that the consequences of a false rape accusation are swept under the rug because "being raped" is so much worse. Note that the risks a man takes in associating with women, given how domestic abuse, family courts, and divorce laws are all tilted in favor of women, are meaningless.

Women who sympathize with the genuine struggles of men are "gender traitors". Women who agree with a man on how to handle a circumstance are "gender traitors". Women who notice the preferential legal treatment of women, and how other women can exploit that inappropriately and selfishly, are "gender traitors".

Because the article's author's uterus thinks that women are supposed to only agree with women. Or something. Let's continue the article a bit more.

We’re talking about white women. The same 53 percent who put their racial privilege ahead of their second-class gender status in 2016 by voting to uphold a system that values only their whiteness, just as they have for decades. White women have broken for Democratic presidential candidates only twice: in the 1964 and 1996 elections, according to an analysis by Jane Junn, a political scientist at the University of Southern California.

Right, so at this point we're more clearly talking about gender, not behavior, as the "problem". Specifically, about how white women didn't vote in ways that benefited non-white women. In case you doubt that this is a racial issue as well as a gender issue, just continue reading.

Women of color, and specifically black women, make the margin of difference for Democrats. The voting patterns of white women and white men mirror each other much more closely, and they tend to cast their ballots for Republicans. The gender gap in politics is really a color line.

Colored women want to dress slutty and vote Democrat, and so because since white women vote Republican and tell their daughters to dress modestly, they're "gender traitors" for choosing to align with white men instead of colored women because the colored women also have a uterus.

It gets better. Or worse, depending on your perspective.

That’s because white women benefit from patriarchy by trading on their whiteness to monopolize resources for mutual gain. In return they’re placed on a pedestal to be “cherished and revered,” as Speaker Paul D. Ryan has said about women, but all the while denied basic rights.

White women get married and their husbands work to provide for their wife and family, and in turn they're cherished and revered by their husbands and children. That's a bad trade because the white men are denying all women "basic rights".

The 19th amendment was adopted in 1920. Title IX has been in place since 1972. Which "basic rights" are being denied? We don't actually get to find out. For the same reason that the stories of sexual assault are to be believed and acted upon, the assertion that basic rights are being denied has to be taken as true at face value and then acted upon.

Even worse, let's look at the phrase "monopolize resources" in the context of taxes. Democrats support using taxes to put money where it needs to go on the premise that, left to their own devices, people would be too selfish to share their money. Republicans are already on the record as giving more charitably than Democrats, and so they favor fewer taxes and greater freedom on part of the individual family unit in deciding how to spend resources.

Guess which one of these paths is more attractive to someone who isn't married, doesn't have someone who would work hard towards their "mutual benefit", and believes that other people aren't sharing their money correctly and so they have to vote for people who will take that money and redistribute it by force?

At this point in the article, you have to realize that the politics and shaming are a clever front, a sham, a distraction from the real problem: the author simply can't find a man who wants her, and because of that, her politics reflect her need find a replacement for the role that men played to her "mutual benefit".

Think about it. Why would you have a problem with how someone else found happiness and contentment unless you cannot also take advantage of that opportunity because of choices someone else made without considering you? Why, other than envy, would someone try to tear down what others have built instead of building their own accomplishments instead?

Even in the secular world, the phrase "living well is the best revenge" holds some meaning, right?

This is the power of a victim identity over people. At no point can they ever stop being the victim, and not just them, but any who are demographically similar to them must also be victims, otherwise the demands being made would have no moral weight at all. If you've been wronged, you are supposed to seek justice, right? If a whole group of people have been wronged, then the scope of th justice scales, right?

It's the difference between a childish tantrum and a legitimate demand for justice, and oh boy, does it continue on in Part 4.