Manliness is ephemeral and should be meaningless but manly is bold and sometimes desirable

Maybe there is a better way of defining this pride of self, culture and mental toughness; but my definition of this definitely overlaps with manly. 

What is being manly to me? To be manly is to make a single binary decision that can be defined as being bold, having muchismo or of what your base instinct of maleness demands. The crucial detail is this is that being manly is this one decision. You can make a lot of decisions that are manly, in which case you are consistently manly, but I have not and choose not to define this as manliness.

Look at the mucho-roid men of the internet like Andrew Tate. They have made this cult of man where their objective is to make as many manly choices in life as they can. They can't physically bend in pictures since that they believe that is beta, thus being not manly. They are consistently money motivated and have this internal hatred or looking down on women, cause it is manly. They choose to idolize the male machismo, defied as big engines cars, guns and brash inconsequentialism. They strive for the Wikipedia definition of it,"a strong sense of masculine pride: an exaggerated masculinity".  I can say that yes, they are more consistently manly than me or many others but they do not achieve manliness since this can and should not be defined by men.

Being manly might be desirable but it is not always synonymous with wisdom, kindness, e.t.c. Being manly is choosing to leave bed at night to start work on a side project, A single binary choice to get up, leave your wife sleeping and work on an ambition. It is sacrifing job and livelihood to go help and be with a friend, a single binary decision that sacrifices your job for for the sake of someone. Being manly is deciding to leave a relationship that lacks respect for you, a single binary choice that sacrifices love, happiness and even the future for the sake of a virtue or honorability. Being manly is sacrifing physically, emotional and even financial welfare for family, a single binary decision that cripples, destitutes and impoverishes you to help out your family.

I can say that I have not always been manly. Sometimes, but not always. It is only one of the gauges on myself, a threshold of what I believe is the man thing to do. It is not the only gauge, it is not even the most important one. As long as I don't strictly adhere to this mucho-ness, I can consider wisdom, kindness, fears, laziness, appeal and other factors in my decision making.

 I choose to never define manliness. That is up to others to define. If a woman chooses to see Muscular and physical prowess as manliness, more power to her. If public perception chooses to equate monetary power and materialistic affluence as manliness, good for them. if society equates manliness with mental bearing, that's fine. They can say only guys with dauntless spirits, unlimited courage are manly, that has no bearing for me. Manliness is ephemeral and nebulous. To try and define it is not only hard but doesn't help me in any way whatsoever. If women, the public and even society does not view me as a man, it hurts, but bears no importance to how I view myself.

Of course, this is my personal definition. It comes from my kikuyu culture, my personal philosophy and pragmatisms. It is not stoically defined and able to morph. It is what I will bring to future generations of our family. I do hope that the future generations of the family have a better definition of being manly. Maybe there is already an existing definition that can be defined without the "fixed in stone" gender roles. For now, I think that sometimes I need to be manly. Sometimes.

Ps. I saw a tik Tok of a guy that was very upset that people redifined "literally" to mean the opposite of literally. It was hilarious but understandable. Maybe this is what I am doing here. Please follow your own definition of manly and don't adhere to mine. Please don't take offense to me redefining the word.

Pps. It is probably not manly to end my thesis of being manly with an apology, but whatever.

To stir up Hope

I'm obsessed with the activisim that you do beacuse to me it seems inefectual. What is the best thing that you hope to accomplish as an activist individual? I would say not much

You can say that you will soon have the power to vote, but as an individual what good does that vote do? In Kenya they will take your vote ,throw it in the trash and write in who they want, True fact.

You could say that you will influence someone else to make a difference but again, what will changing one person's mind on one given issue accomplish? Hell even if you convert them like how the religious do their conversions and have them believing all that you believe in, is that the best that can be done? Using Logan Paul's phrasing; if your goal was to dent the universe, is that the biggest dent you could have made? Seems kinda small to me 🤔

And the other thing that worries me with the activisim that you are a part of is all the baggage that comes with it. Being influenced by these groups that you have come to identify with means being influenced by the positives and the negatives that they preach. We all involve ourselves with at least one useless endeavor but it would be bad if we were swept up by group identity to dedicate our hearts to something that will never give any payback.I have this horrible nightmare of you marching for a whole night cause some random white person said nigga or something and your activisim group decided to march for that. Similarly, I really do see you in the near future taking part in a riot organized by BLM when they finally hear Trump say nigga or something. In scenarios like these, your efforts are effectively inefectual.

These are some of the bad things that are associated with group think, there are good ones for sure but looking at some of the movements I see you aligning with, those are not many.

I think of myself as a human, able to identify with any problem and as a critical thinker looking for solution to those problems and prioritizing on the immedieate problems and those that I have a feasible and direct solution for. I don't see my role in this world as a rabble-rouser whose role is to raise alarm for said issues. I don't like to view problems with filters based on ethnicity, feelings, history, injustices e.t.c. I identify each problem in society, community or the world irregardless of it's misliers as what it is,a problem. I don't like to dig up meaning(conspiracy, bias, bad intent) where there is not. This is a critical thinker and it seems to run antithetical to the mindset involved with the group think in activism.

I take pride when I see people solve the worlds problems with that mindset. When I think of us (you and me), I think of people like Linus Tovards(founder of Linux). When he lacked an OS he could work on-he didn't join the thousands begging or demanding Microsoft, he built his own OS.  To quote him, talk is cheap, show me the code. It might be a better use of your smart ass to try and solve the worlds problems as a critical thinker rather than an activist.

Just saying.

Relationship questions

What would it like to be as an dyed in wool atheist to date or even have a significant relationship with a deeply fundamentalist christian. Would it have to be that there are off topic things that are never mentioned like religion. Would there be terse conversations about religion such that in the end of it, there would have to be a conversion or a breakup? I know there are different ways that many couples can and do go about navigating this dangerous and charged topic, but in the end after many years of life together, what is the net result? I'm curious to know whether it would have been worth it for them to have pursued and preserved this relationship.

General MacArthur was a dick with a boner for victory

General MacArthur was a dick with a boner for victory. This is a claim I am making about one of the greatest icons in the history of modern day, and through about a page of writing it will become clear that there is sufficient reason to take this claim seriously.

I have little fault with the generals early life, mainly because his early life was a quite one. He did benefit unfairly from his fathers military history and his mother's heavy handled nepotistic advocacy but that was unavoidable on his part. His actions in world war one certainly proved that he had a very good military acumen and deserved to be in a leadership position. But his late life is full of alot of dismissive shallow thinking and mistakes that undeniably caused harm and made the world a worse place.

In regard with his campaign against Japan, Why did he urge the Philippines to fight and not to surrender on the onset of the war?was his mind already on the end of ww2 and he was thinking of depleting Japanese troop numbers or did he really believe he was getting reinforcements? Did the struggles of the Philippines help in the war? Did he abandon his brilliant island hopping technique to come back because of his wife,his pride,bribes, or was it his idea of help? Are the rumours of him filming his Beach landing twice to get a good shot true?

He also tried to take advantage of the Korean war to invade Russia. Why else would he ignore his orders to restrict the fighting above the meridian to south korean forces. Why did he push the invasion forces so far up into North Korea so fast? Since North Korea  is directly land linked with Russia, he must have assumed that if he could bulldoze his war through China, he would be able to invade into the borders of Russia without a hitch. China made punitive attacks to try and send messages but these were resolutely ignored by MacArthur. Finally China was forced to attack in order to drive away the american forces. I blame him for the genesis of dictatorship in North Korea. The Chinese at this stage would have traded literally anything to ensure their security.

He tried to combat communism in any way possible and coined what is the keystone to the hardcore right to this day which is McCarthyism. The art of proclaiming, accusing and declaring without any real regard to evidence. He did not care for any real proof to throw around accusations, or wait for investigation to force litigation. He only cared for complete victory aganist any percieved threat, minor or major. A textbook example of the present day Republican mantra of McCarthyism. Look at what the Republican party has descended to, a platform for flapping lips and  demagoguery.No one bothers to think critically or look for solutions, all there is is a mantra that begun with MacArthur and continued on by Reagan down to today's Republican party.

These three reasons sufficiently prove that even though he might have been a good general in ww1, his action in his later life made the world a worse place and proved him to be a dick with a boner for victory.

Moral Absolutism

I want to talk about relative morality and how it applies or does not apply to religious doctrine. Religion is based around absolute morality, The concept of some stuff being absolutely evil and not to be performed under any circumstance. I have nothing against Moral universalism, there could be a universal scale of ethics in which one action is demonstrably worse than the other, However moral absolutism is complete hogwash, even though an action can be categorized as immoral in almost all cases. There will always be a situation that can hypothetically exist  that the action can be constituted as moral.

This is more of a show stopper for absolutist religion than it seems. For example assuming the christian god exists and you are a christian(assuming you are one), you go to school one day and happen to meet the Antichrist. What if the Antichrist told you to get his number? This is about as obvious a moral absolute in the christian faith as there can be. You should not get the Antichrist to brand you with his number! I doubt there are many Christians who would argue that point. Most Christians would not get his number in such a situation. Even if the Antichrist told you to get his number and that if you refuse it would be at the peril of your life. If you are a christian, the choice to refuse his number is dictated to you within the bible as an absolute.

What if the antichrist told you to get his number and that if you refuse it would be at the peril not of your own life, but that of the lives of a class of innocent children? This is the spawn of the literal devil(assuming he exists) so of course he is going to play dirty. Is the moral absolutism dictated to you by religion oblivious to the lives and plight of a class of innocent children. Would you doom these children to death for your assurance to heaven. What if it went further than that, what if by taking the antichrist’s symbol, you somehow prevent the symbol from being offered to the class of innocent children. Would the absolutism dictated to you by the holy scriptures mandate you to take the symbol and save the children from eternal punishment or not to take the symbol but remain righteous? Would you take it to save the children or not take it to save yourself?

 

Now all is highly hypothetical and most likely not possible to Christians and even to me.I don't believe their god exists and they don't believe that their god is such a malicious god and would put them in that situation. But i can construct a less hypothetical situation more closer to our current reality that bears the same weight and has a realer chance of happening. What if some Muslim terrorists told you to denounce your god at the cost of a class of innocent children. You have to remember,according to christian fiction, if you denounce jesus in front of whatever or whoever in mortal realm, He said in his scriptures that he would denounce you on judgement day in the immortal realm. According to the moral absolutism practiced today by Christians, there does not exist an argument that says it is OK to save those innocent children by denouncing god. I believe many a christian out there would let innocent children die for their belief in god. Even if god and heaven existed, is this right? are they being moral for performing this action? Can their reverence to their god excuse them from deaths of the innocent children?

No,i don't think that moral absolutism exists and can exist in the real world. There will always be a situation that can not be defined by any clear cut rules written beforehand. It is up to the individual to use the Moral universalistic senses within ourselves to ask, Is this moral or immoral? is this right or wrong? and this has to be done without quoting the holy ‘rulebooks’.


P.S: Christianity twists itself in knots with the issue of moral absolutism. Is contraception immoral or moral? by preventing a obviously bad situation easily(Microcephaly), is it a sin?
Why is it not possible to throw away these stifling rules and dogmas that bind one to such stiff thinking and just use your innate moral sense and  not a black and white unrealistic rule to know if it is right or wrong. Think outside the box or in this case outside the book!
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4594/contraception_congo_nuns_choosing_the_lesser_evil_and_conflict_of_commandments.aspx

SALUTATIONS FROM MY BLOG!!!!!

I am not the moon

 from a rising poet-

I Am not the Moon

Metaphorically speaking
I am not the moon
See the moon is beautiful but it's beauty at cost
Beauty so barren
Beauty tied down
Beauty solely superficial..
See the moon is not original
The moon is not creative
The moon is stuck
As a follower

An absence of  light
Only a transmitter of it shone by a mass that has the capacity to do so much more.
A mass exploding with power and potential

Potential energy that demands to be the center of attention
Potential radiance to illuminate entire solar systems
Potential to sustain life
Untouchable because it vaporizes anything that dares to approach it's benevolence.

But see I'm not the sun either
Doomed to run out of fuel and burn out.
Doomed to the fate of catastrophic death that results in a merciless black hole
A never ending burst in the very skin of the universe.
Doomed to mortality.

See I'm something so much more. 

I am the darkness in the spaces that you see. 

I am the darkness that supports the stars. 

I hold entire galaxies. 

 See I am strong enough to contain infinitely dense singularities but I'm gentle enough to support the frail and fragile beings that populate this universe.

 Courageous enough to hold all of space and time but responsible enough to manage it. 

You can't see me yet  I am everywhere. 

I go unnoticed and unappreciated

Think of me as air that holds the clouds and birds and the tops of skyscrapers or

 think of me as water that holds entire ecosystems
Revel in these thoughts and realize I could never compare myself to the rock that orbits around us
My immortal conscience flowing with ideas only limited by fleeting time
In addition to the knowledge that compiles from the evolutionary miracle that is my ancestors.
Metaphorically speaking
I am not the moon.

~Hope~