Elections: Toxic Masculinity or Liberal Fear

Phraseology flying, the slogan, ‘Toxic Masculinity’ has been thrown around like a sucker punch used to berate and escalate – well toxic attitudes.  Because that’s exactly what it does – it creates another division, another form of hypocritical hate speech, driven predominantly by left leaning women and – sigh, men.  Of course men say it as though they are mind deployed aliens whose brains have been harvested, much like the radical ‘White Men’ slander punches.

While the word was first used in 2004 in a book discussing different types of men and their masculine tendencies, also called hegemonic masculinity, it didn’t become a  popular demonizing phrase until 2013 when it was defined in Geek Feminism Wiki as ‘one of the ways in which Patriarchy is harmful to men’.

Since then it has been liberally dribbled about by Hollywood and the MSM to socially demean certain men, and sometimes men in general, much like the ‘white men’ phenomena.  We hear Robert DeNiro spew spittle and profanity about our President, calling on people to harm him and anyone associated with him because of Trump’s ‘toxic masculinity’.  Of course DeNIro completely misses the carnival mirror depicting himself that makes most of us nonHollywooders cringe with creepiness as he is most obviously ‘toxic masculinity’ in it’s full frontal explosion.

I read it in obscure places like Mike Frost’s blog, a Reverend and academic at a school in Australia. Of course, in his small opinion, it would seem fodder to make commentary about – Trump.  I commented on one of Mr. Frost’s blog posts – once – only for him to grandiosely attempt to ridicule me and denounce me personally.  Why?  Because I offered a ‘different opinion’ regarding his claims.  In other words, Mr. Frost was exhibiting ‘toxic masculinity’.

I have been the victim of it on even the most bizarre of platforms – dating sites.  Where instead of acceptance and conversation, I became the brunt of attack and hatred.  Toxic masculinity.  But not from Trump, not from conservatives, in fact it seems to be most oppressively used by Liberal minded men and women in a clearly hypocritical, log in the eye fashion.

It comes on the flames of liberals claiming they are about peace, love and inclusion while finding all kinds of people they feel shouldn’t be included in the inclusion:  white men, conservative women, conservative men, conservative black men, masculine men, feminine women, stay at home moms, anyone wearing a hat that states Make America Great, any animal owned by anyone conservative… because we are the hate mongers.

Since 2015, there have been well over 170 protests (based on days not cities) against Donald Trump. Most of them are not about anything except – we don’t like you.  That would be over a period of roughly 3 years, or roughly five each month.

During Obama’s entire two term administration there were… 8.  We didn’t much care for him.  We didn’t like his policies.  We didn’t like his agenda.  We simply turned him – off.

The peaceful vs the peaceful…

Conservatives don’t attend protests often.   Rallies? Yes, they are positive events, they signal support and victory and hurrah.  But Protests and riots are about demonizing, threatening, violence and destruction.  If we have an issue, it is best served in a written content.

These are both men who were elected by The People.

Hitler advocated for violence.  Soros advocates for violence.  Eric Holder, Maxine, Cher, Handler, Kathy  whatshername, Behar, Robert deNiro, and a multitude of Hollywood Liberals advocate for assault and violence.  It is an obvious linkage.  And yet, still, conservatives do not protest.  We attend rallies to support someone, but most often the masks, the violence, is perpetrated in the name of – peaceful Democrat/Socialists.

The left is advocating Revolution.  Why?  Because they didn’t get their way…  They are superior, and thus feel that they should have their way.   It is an infantile behavior.  In the name – of peace, tolerance and hugs for all.

In essence it is born of fear.  A fear of losing their ‘toxic Hollywoodism’.  Their feelings of superiority and fear of the truth that will ultimately be revealed that is far more devastating than just the couch fame protocol which we have all been guilty of accepting, breeds – fear.

I imagine the Hollywood Executives, the one’s whose hands are bloodied in money, are going nuts as their profits plummet amid the childish antics of their $$$$ pool of actors as they make public fools of themselves and derail 50% of the viewer base.  Not exactly a ‘business’ move, but then they are after all – ‘entertainers’.  Nothing more.    And in that – protests are simply another means of entertaining – themselves.

The Kinks coined it quite well in a phrase in which they depicted Hollywood as ‘celluloid heroes’, in other words, fake, transparent, not real.

It is the conservatives in Hollywood who hide.  They are the ones who fear blacklisting, rapprochement, and hate from the ‘pacifist liberals’.

Oddly, all of this multiple decades long globalism, fascism and toxicity, is blamed on Trump.  Find a person to horde all the blame for every wrong doing during the history of mankind, is the mantra.  I doubt there is any person, any couple, in the history of mankind who has been tasked with rising above the acrimonial amount of blame and hysteria and rancid comments as Donald and Melania Trump.

Q?  A radical supporter of Truth.

Conservatives.  A hodge podge of Americans wanting to know the Truth.   Feeling energized.  Feeling confident.  And weary of decades of subservience.

This is the moment of Truth.  Do you stand for your self?  Or do you stand with dignity, honor and God?   This is NOT toxic masculinity – it is Toxic Hollywoodarity, and they are masks, fake faces, celluloid, speaking scripts, and wishing they were something more than a lowly actor.

Because, in the end, they will be – left behind.

What Do You Want?

We all have an aspiration, somewhere, whether buried or on the surface, it exists, it is simply a matter of whether it is recognized and it is acted upon.   My time may be limited, yet, my desire to have this one success, simmers, and then sometimes bursts like a volcanic lava flow in a small pool.  You see, I am not largess.  I don’t need a stage.  And if it doesn’t happen, I will not be devastated.  It is simply, – a wish.   “I wish upon a star…”.  DO you?

Lately, it has become an interesting question given the attitudes that prevail in the news media.  The expletives that spew are rampant and far beyond the PG-13 television rating.   The lack of respect is … challenging.  Challenging because I really don’t understand this place.  I don’t understand the arrogance that believes respect is not available or deserving…   Who are you to decide?   You decry the religious right who declare judgment, and then become judgment personified!   How dare you!

So what is your aspiration?  What would be your dream in a perfect world – if you could have ‘ONE’ wish.

The only caveat is the caveat that you may not declare yourself judge and jury, you may declare yourself ‘an opinion’.  And no, your one wish is not that you can have a 1000 or 1 million wishes.   I tried that!

Who decides?  Who dictates the rules?  IS it really the government or is it another shadow within the rule of Order that was established hundreds of years ago?

Why is it so important that it succeed?

I imagine that at one point there was an honorable reason for the rule.  But, like a telephone conversation, the rule morphed, it’s definition altered, and soon, it represented little of its original intent.  And was in fact, virtually unrecognizable.

And as the game depicts, if we can’t keep the truth alive for two to three sharings, how can we possibly keep it honest for a day?

For by the time truth is revealed, it has been ravaged of tens of storms, and perhaps thousands of tracts.  Leaving truth to be a mere thread of the cloth.   And without the entire garment, it covers very little.

Peace, Truth and The Peacemakers Calling

We are called to be ‘peacemakers’. But what is Peace? How is it defined? Is it the absence of conflict or is it the aggressive actionable stance of creating relationship?

We are all ‘a chip off the block’, fragments of God, with jagged edges and jigsaw puzzle pieces. But when we come together as a family, with mother, father and children, we smooth these edges and become more like God. The pieces fit together to make a larger more whole piece closer, more like, the image of God. When we fragment the family, our edges are sharper, more pronounced, and our piece withers in a kaleidescope of warped imagery.

Peacemakers do not avoid conflict they confront it with love and compassion, they resolve it and use the strength of God to absolve the issue each and every time. To hold it like a knight, not a coward, to seek the truth within the conflict and make it known. This world we live in is an example of what it means to not face the truth, because it is the truth that will create peace. Taking responsibility. Owning what is your sin. Looking at the log that gauges your eye.

The UN was created in 1945 to end conflict and bring peace to the world. But it has failed miserably. In fact, between 1946 and 2013, there were 331 incidences of armed conflict. Why? Because the method, the rationale for prevention is not rooted in the core cause – individual emptiness, a Godlessness that permeates the very heart and soul of humanity. How can we possibly stave off conflict if we don’t address the truth of the cause?

When I Googled, ‘how to achieve peace’, most of the entries were Buddhist in nature and reflected a desire for inner peace. There were a few political adjuncts that claimed peace was achieved through freedom and a barrage of solid rules imposed by government. Other sites stressed ‘the avoidance of war’ as a means of peace. Still another site claimed that satisfying one’s own desires first will ultimately lead to peace with others. YIKES!

But men are flawed, and when they rely on their own person to achieve that which has never been known to mankind, they will fail. Again and again. And yet, we continue to believe that man is the solution. That avoidance is the solution. That independence is the solution. That if we avoid conflict, it will disappear.

Ten thousand years later, it still has not worked. So why do we keep butting our heads against this wall of thorns when it has never worked?

The false premise is that since man is the creator of chaos, man must be the source of peace. From the outside. But it cannot happen when the outside is ruled by pride and arrogance and vengeance and immorality. It simply will not work.

Then of course, there is the step-by-step instructions on how to achieve peace with ‘no compromising’ being fundamental to the doctrine. But ‘no compromising’ begs pride, arrogance, rightness, the moral depravity that creates the conflict in the first place. It is a very naïve approach to a very complicated issue. Recently, my husband invoked the ‘Christians don’t compromise’ doctrine in the midst of a fight. Really? I had to look that one up.

The first problem came up in the definition of compromise. Some believed it to mean ‘caving in’, while others observed that it was a give and take, a leaning in and out. I suppose they are both right in a sense, but circumstances are so diverse and broad, an absolute is definitely NOT the rationale.

Biblically, the phrase, “Christians Don’t compromise”, is addressed in the Bible, but it is in the context of there is no compromise with regard to God. No compromise with regard to the commandments of God. And no compromise with regard to sin. It’s a bit like the statement, “I’m sort of pregnant”. You can’t be in a gray area within these black and whites. But that does not mean that there aren’t vast gray areas of issue to mediate within Christianity that are a product of individual circumstances. So to make the statement in the context of a marriage dispute is somewhat …well, out of context.

My husband attempted to invoke ‘truth’ as his and his alone within the frame of not compromising. Truth belonged to him and no one else.  Uh oh…   And in so doing completely missed the point. There are hard truths, absolute facts, and then there are perspective truths, subject to interpretation. By invoking his truth, he was avoiding conflict (his fallback) by refusing to hear me. In so doing, we had no peace, what we had was a dictatorship rule.

While this earth may never find worldly peace, we are still called to understand that we must try. We are called to try as peacemakers.  Not peace as a form of government rule and protocol and doctrine and punishment and judgment, but peace that is based on the values and morals and integrity and spirituality of God and His Word.

And ultimately, Peace will only be had when we have Truth – not your truth or my truth – but THE Truth.