Marxism – Sillyfrog's Blog

Unanswered Question: Why do we keep lying to ourselves?

Posted on 05/25/202305/25/2023 by Susan St.Pierre

I saw a post and only read two lines of the poem.
The image of George Floyd was clearly displayed at the top of the page.
The poem spoke of “slave ships”.
That was enough for me.
The death of George Floyd was tragic on so many levels but the stubborn adherence to the idea that it had anything to with race is absurd. What that mindset does is perpetuate a myth, a political flashpoint, and a lie.
Derrick Shovan was a terrible, barbaric, man and cop.
George Floyd was a drug addict, repeat criminal, and misguided soul.
We could investigate all day long the ‘whats and whys’ that made them each that way, but that’s not the point.
Something terribly tragic happened and we’re not placing the blame on ‘what happened next’ where it belongs.
Both men had culpability in the route they took to that place and time of Floyd’s death, yet their race wasn’t deemed, even in court, as having an influence.
So, why do we keep lying to ourselves?
Why is George Floyd a folk hero?
How does his life and death have anything to do with slave ships?
Derrick and George were already known to each other.
No ‘hate crime’ allegation was pursued in Derrick’s trial. Because race was NOT a factor. (He was a real ‘rotten egg’ and got what he deserved.)
Race hustlers came rushing out of the woodwork, though. Some for financial gain (BLM organizers) and others for political leverage (BLM self-proclaimed Marxists, among others). Both types should have been recognized as and declared opportunists immediately.
That’s why the riots, marches, and continued mythology over George Floyd are so baffling and IMHO are symptomatic of even darker ills than a would-be individual act of racism.
Those most desperate ubiquitous illnesses are victimhood, ignorance, and-bias inspired- gullibility.
The clear perpetrators of those crippling diseases are the media, our educational system, and political activists. If you want something ‘real‘ to be outraged about, their accountability isn’t even going to be EVER considered. The avoidable death and destruction in the aftermath will go on being falsely labeled a noble crusade. Instead, the misnomer of “systematic racism” (in this specific case) will continue to destroy our harmony, unity, and sense of justice. We will therefore go on being victimized and consumed by ‘lies’, half-truths, and narrative manipulations, until the nefarious goal of dehumanizing and dividing our country for the purpose of totalitarian control, is achieved.
Don’t play a role in it by not getting your facts straight.

Unanswered Question: When did we become mind readers?

Posted on 05/08/202305/08/2023 by Susan St.Pierre

When I was a kid, the saying “Sticks and stones will break my bones but names can never hurt me.” was the ‘law’ of Natural Selection.
It didn’t matter “why” someone said cruel things, it was our individual choice not to listen to them. That saying served as a powerful response to what is now considered “bullying”.
Let’s face it, people sometimes have bad days and have their own problems that they sometimes try to impose on the rest of us. But we aren’t supposed to be required to allow them to.

Young women experience wild mood swings once their hormones start flooding their bloodstreams. It was impressed upon me (and since to my granddaughters) that those feelings are our own to handle. To just release a whirlwind on the world, was/is NOT how we should handle it. That philosophy applies to our entire character. A familiar saying at my house is “deal with it”.

But there’s a strange turnabout in the “individual responsibility” genre these days. We are supposed to ‘guess’ why someone acts out, and after that, we’re supposed to respect, even support, the other person as if their emotional state has priority to your own.
First, when did we all become mind readers?
Secondly, why are we supposed to take responsibility for everyone else’s ‘feelings’ before our own?
Compassion doesn’t require an active response. We can ‘care’ without needing to ‘take care’ of others. By not getting ‘all up’ in their business we likely return them to their own empowerment. If they’re filled with self-pity, it doesn’t seem generous to feed that ‘beast’.
There’s a BIG difference between offering a smile, hug, or ‘helping hand’ to someone who’s struggling and bowing to (or enabling) someone else’s destructive behavior.
Aren’t we supposed to (allowed to) distinguish between someone in ‘real’ trouble and someone who is ‘playing the victim’? Sorry but IMHO those two kinds of people are not equally deserving of our concern. But somehow, the term ‘hater’ is thrown around when we don’t comply with, or reward, every single complaint.

Seems the patients have taken over the asylum, folks.

Our society is throwing individual responsibility and freedom overboard and replacing it with “group think” and “the collective”. Hope you know that those changes are a direct step toward Marxism.
Not good for you and not at all healthy for America.

The ‘adults’ who are left are the ones courageously just saying, “NO”.

In my humble opinion..., Unanswered Questions

Unanswered Question: What’s up with messing with language?

Posted on 05/03/202305/04/2023 by Susan St.Pierre

There are many ‘new’ terms in our language. What are these about?
Are we naming ‘new’ things like EVs or AI?
Yes, sometimes we are coming up with labels for ‘new’ things.
Some of our ‘new’ language styles are coming from texting shorthand. BTW takes less time than typing “By the way.”
It is quite a cool event. I don’t believe we’ll be able to spell as well as used to, though. We’ve seen what calculators have done to doing math in our heads.
But there’s a ‘new’ specific term that disturbs me. It’s not about any new object or tool but a ‘new’ concept.
BTW- Even new concepts need new terms. The new term of ‘transgenderism’ isn’t offensive or misleading even though its ubiquitous and gut wrenching. It is a term for something that’s real and everyone knows what it’s defining.

The phrase that troubles me is “My truth.”. Primarily because it’s sometimes interchangeable with “the truth”.
“My truth” is a disingenuous term not unlike calling the Covid-19 shot a ‘vaccine’.
“My truth” has no more to do with “the truth” than the experimental medicinal shot had with any former ‘vaccine’.
IMHO…Our heads are being played with.

So, what’s up with messing with our language?

I think the definition of “my truth” according to the Urban Dictionary gives us a clue.

“MY TRUTH”

Pretentious substitute for “non-negotiable personal opinion.”

Often used by academics, this is a convenient phrase for avoiding arguments because people can contradict your opinion but not your “truth.”

The phrase is often used when seeking to justify a controversial personal stance or action because people are not allowed to argue with “your truth.”

I, for one, make every effort to correct the misuse of modern terms… especially with young people. A silencing and confusion effort is clearly descending upon us.

While we’re at it, can you define the following terms under a broad definition? There’s a lot of confusion these days. Good luck.

“hate speech”
“assault weapon” (the applicant for the head of the ATF couldn’t define one)
“woman” (How can you claim to be a defender of women if you don’t know how to define one?)
“poverty” (the government keeps changing the meaning of the term)
“social justice” (it’s equity now not equality and has nothing to do with ‘justice’.)
“human diversity” (doesn’t pertain to opinion or thought on college campuses but if we used human fingerprints as a guideline, we already have it universally.)
“rights” (Hint: they aren’t wants or even needs.)
“A Democracy as opposed to a Republic”
“criminal”
“Domestic terrorists” as opposed to “opposition to the powerful”
“anti-capitalist” (aka “envying the rich”.)
“Executive order” as opposed to a “law”
“science” as opposed to “expert opinion”
“motherhood”

There are more, of course. Feel free to add your own. ❤

In my humble opinion..., Unanswered Questions

Unanswered Question: Why don’t we think for a change?

Posted on 03/11/202303/11/2023 by Susan St.Pierre

Yes, I am angry.
I am also disgusted.
I’d mind my own business but there’s a concerted effort to ‘infect’ our children with bad ideas. My granddaughters are going to be exposed to them too. They simply can’t go unchallenged any longer.
If I hear about “equity” anymore, I may explode. LOL
Below is a picture meant to express the ‘marvelous nature’ of “equity”. Let’s examine the messages.

Well, there are three children of different races and sexes in this diagram and an imaginary dotted line. What’s the line mean? I would guess it has something to do with reaching ‘success’. Everything presented in this diagram has a purpose. The white male child is the tallest, the female child is shorter, and the black child is too short to reach the ‘success’ line in the first picture. Oh, I see diplomas in the hands of the “successful”. Could it be the getting of a diploma is a perfect goal?
Seems odd that the taller boy can more easily reach the goal when more women are graduating with college degrees these days.
Seems repulsively racist that the diagram depicts the black child as needing help to achieve the same goal. I hope they aren’t suggesting black children are not as smart as white kids! Somebody ought to tell Dr. Ben Carson or Barrack Obama about that a.s.a.p.
The black child not only seems to need ‘help’, but he’s also depicted as needing the most help. That’s a sorry message, I hope it was not intentional. [wink]
So, when it comes to “equality” it seems giving everyone a fair “equal” chance isn’t enough but giving ‘selected people’ according to their ‘appearance’ better unequaled advantages is shown as a ‘good’ thing. Don’t forget…that ‘good’ thing is a diploma. They don’t regard (in this diagram) success as being achievable any other way. That’s okay. They can’t cram all the possible ways we achieve in only one diagram because we know they are endless, right?

Now, let’s look at the heading. “Apply Equity to Women’s Advancement”. I’ve established many reasons that “equity” is condescending and unfair. How might the application of it advance women?
What possible measurement does the artist use for “advancement”? I already said more women are getting degrees than men. I can tell you, the women I know without degrees are advancing in there “life goals” nicely too. All motivated people strive to advance themselves toward goals. I surely hope being a devoted mother and/or caregiver or an excellent free-lance writer meets that undefined (but subliminally suggestive) advancement criteria.

I could go on…
But I’ll just ask, “What in the world is going on?”
WHO are polluting our children’s minds and WHY are they doing this?

Depicting white males as already ‘advanced’ when I’ve seen so many work tirelessly to achieve their goals.
Depicting women and blacks as “less-than”. Wow! That’s a stupid and racist message.
Depicting ‘advancement’ narrowly as the “buying of a degree” (That’s all it amounts to in most cases.)
Depicting that our needs for assistance should be measured by our immutable traits not by our individual situations.

Why don’t we think for a change? Let’s consider who benefits from such messages.
Not white males… they’re ‘privileged’, so “you’re on your own guys”. We’ll even let people cut in line before you for jobs.
Not females…if they embrace the nonsense in the diagram, they may resent men especially ‘white men’ for having some made-up advantages. Oh yes, and ‘educated’ women resoundingly consider black people as so disadvantaged without them, that they are empowered to “tell them just what they need” because they know better. How condescendingly ‘kind’ are those ‘educated women?
Not black children… they’re harmed the most. They can’t (and told they shouldn’t) believe in their own potential when it’s clear they’re going to need a lot of help. Some may not even try with those ‘oppressive’ odds.

The only people who benefit are those who want to expand government and control outcomes. They don’t even use their own money but thinking up ‘equity’ programs while using taxpayer funds (and hiring family members) is their favorite pastime. It makes people appreciate the NEED for them, you know.
They (government bureaucrats and Marxist activists) purposefully disrupt our constitutional order of an “equal chance” to “pursue happiness” and sell a divisive message ending with “You need our help. We’re here to help.” because we’re the ‘nice’ guys.

That’s the best description of “authoritarian” control I’ve ever heard. Please “wake-up”. We’re not each other’s adversaries but those suggesting we are, aren’t looking out for you. Beware of the term “equity”, it’s a trick.

In my humble opinion..., Unanswered Questions

Unanswered Question: Why not spend more time teaching kids how to cope?

Posted on 03/06/202303/06/2023 by Susan St.Pierre

It appears to me that there’s a great amount energy spent trying to ‘cure’ the World of unpleasantness and ‘evil’. That’s quite a heavy task. It’s almost as absurd as humankind supposing they are empowered to “Save the Planet”, but I digress.
When I had a group of preschool kids in my home on a daily basis, the pleas for ‘justice’ and my intervention were sometimes incessant.
“Susan! He’s in MY spot!”
“Susan! She’s taking MY blocks!”
“Susan! He won’t stop looking at me! “…”Susan! Susan! Susan!”
My approach to those complaints was to offer them a self-initiated way to cope or compromise.

“Does that ‘spot’ have your name on it? Find another one.”
“If there aren’t enough blocks for you to work with, you can choose to come and draw for now, then I’ll give you time alone with all of them later.”
“You must be looking at him to know that. Stop looking at him.”

I pity the current kindergarten teachers. Kids, today, are routinely taught to lodge complaints rather than resolve their own problems. On top of that, mere irritations have now been given “problem” status. This is a sad situation for all involved. Many, many, people have opted to label themselves as victims, and few realize they have the ‘power’ (and responsibility) not to be one.

We can agree that many of us have been true victims of crimes, and wrongdoing, at no fault of our own. But by instructing kids to ask, “What might I do differently?” or “What may I have done to avoid that?”, I assure you the ‘victim’ statistics would be cut in half in no time. That would happily allow for more attention to ‘real’ victims too.

I’ve gotten a lot of push back and ridicule for asking people who are complaining about their problematic situation, “Could you have handled that better?” Those people ‘triggered’ by my question seem to think there’s a ‘side’ to be taken more than a ‘problem’ to solve. I suggest that the most prudent first step in solving all of our own problems is to ask questions of ourselves. Your problems don’t just belong to the world ‘at large’.

“But unkindness is BAD, and evil is destructive!” I totally agree. Yet I realistically understand the only power I have, when facing those things, is my own reaction and approach. Throughout life I’ve learned I’m a participant in ‘goings on’ not an irritated, aggrieved, observer. News Flash: Those “evil and unkind” dynamics of life aren’t going anywhere.

So why don’t we spend more time teaching kids how to cope? Complaining is an overall waste of time compared to taking a personal initiative.

To adults who were raised as individuals, the online ‘bullying plague’ could be solved by suggesting teens turn selected apps off, opt to “block” offensive content, or ‘unplug’ all together. Those options are readily available. The kids who feel that they ‘can’t possibly’ do that, have already IMHO shown they place a stunning level of importance on “What others think.” and those kids could have used more early intervention and instruction in “How to handle yourself safely and confidently in life.”

My final note is about the Big Picture of “individualism” versus “victimhood”. Free countries can only exist with one of those mindsets. I have no doubt that Marxism is currently winning the battle between those two.

In my humble opinion..., Unanswered Questions

Unanswered Question: Is the current definition of “kindness” actually “kind”?

Posted on 02/26/202302/26/2023 by Susan St.Pierre

When I’m online in social media sites, I’m constantly reminded to just be “kind”.

It’s occurred to me that many people currently have an oversimplified idea of “What is kind?”.

I could be mistaken but there seems to me an idea that not “making waves” is the epitome of “kindness”.
[Other than being the epitome of Marxism, I don’t think so. Marxists don’t like people who ‘think’.]

I consider myself overtly kind. I’m thoughtful, helpful, generous, and reassuring, as often as I am able.
So, I’m wondering why someone might declare my objections to policies and positions as “unkind”. They could argue that they’re flawed but calling someone ‘unkind’ requires a big leap.

I’ve heard that affirming children in their quizzical conclusions on ‘adult’ topics is the ‘kind’ thing to do. Really? Do kids have the knowledge and life experience necessary to make ‘informed’ decisions? Are they born with the ability to navigate the world? If so, why would parents even be necessary? Also, why have parents been held ‘legally’ responsible for what their kids do if kids are independent beings?

IMHO… not offering your kids your values and opinions (aka free-range parenting) is as ‘cruel’ as not offering a ‘blind’ person a ‘helping hand’ to cross the street safely. (Curiously, people who suggest raising kids as ‘free range’ is ‘kind’ often consider anyone not making their cat an ‘indoor animal’ ‘unkind’ because of ‘at large’ dangers.)
Keep in mind, the ‘blind’ person still has the ‘free will’ not to accept the ‘helping hand’. Your kids may not accept your guidance either but it’s likely they may if you are a fair and thoughtful parent. It’s cool how fair and thoughtful parents tend to raise their kids to be fair and thoughtful adults, isn’t it? Can we attribute that only to ‘kinder’ genetics or possibly something else? 😉

Another thing suggested as “unkind” is objecting to people “who want to better themselves” flooding our country ‘illegally’. Really?
First, if we allow that, we are encouraging people- who may have been ‘law abiding’ and generous all of their lives -to break the law and take something that doesn’t belong to them. The ‘unkindness’ of ‘breaking into a country’ also is an affront and ‘cutting of the line’ of other good people who chose not to break the law to become American citizens. Now that we know horrific things are happening to people uprooted by ‘false hope’ of being absolved of their ‘unkind’ methods, might ‘putting our foot down’ (as parents do) save them from themselves?

The ultimate unkind act comes from people who know ‘unkind things’ are happening and think it’s ‘kinder’ not to ‘speak up’.
No, the act of not trying to stop bad things from happening is NEVER kind. It is absolutely unkind, and IMHO is either cowardly or in some way self-serving.

Take heart! People calling others “unkind” are happily not the ultimate arbiters of ‘kindness’ neither are social media memes. Every individual heart determines what is kind. The people telling others to be generically ‘kind’ might want to examine if their own actions fit a “kindness definition” because I don’t think the current ubiquitous definition of “What kindness is?” is universally ‘kind’, at all.

In my humble opinion..., Unanswered Questions

Unanswered Question: Might we guess why progressives erase ‘standards’?

Posted on 02/01/202302/01/2023 by Susan St.Pierre

It just occurred to me while listening to a Progressive member of Congress how often people of that political persuasion use nearly meaningless and generic terminology.
The woman speaking wants (nearly) open borders to “welcome new Americans”.
That tells me that she has no concern for any definition or “standard” for “What is an American?”. Apparently, to her, an American is someone occupying space on our soil. I can conceive of her making a further argument that visa holders are actually, kinda, sorta, Americans too. It’s time to listen to these self-described ‘altruistic’ people far more closely!

Progressives oppose all standards and simply make-up their own definitions to fill that void. And,they do it cleverly. We already know that the Left insists that a woman is anyone who likes the color pink, wears feminine attire, and cries a lot. Any scientific standard that ‘begs to differ’ is simply disregarded. Luckily, our medical professionals haven’t gone totally off that deep end because I’ve been told they still keep actual REAL records attached to the “trendy” ones they are intimidated to compile in order to keep their funding and individual licenses to practice.

Without standards anything goes. Feelings can reign and Marxism can flourish. Equity, itself, is a term promoting a standardless society. Holding anyone to any standard of merit is now racist, unfair, and non-inclusive. Serfdom cannot actually work when diversity of any kind exists. Mediocrity… compliance… and ‘one whole’ are the direct opposites of thriving…independence …and individualism.

And what might we all be being nudged to be included in? A Utopia, Shangri-La, or a gulag? [Only one of those places exist in reality.]