Whenever I think of Valentine’s Day, I think of candy, flowers, the color pink, and all manner of romantic nonsense that is usually associated with the holiday. It’s a social justice warrior’s nightmare–promoting largely heterosexual relationships, discriminating against obese feminists that hate men yet wonder why they’re still single (see Lena Dunham), and instills altogether far too many good feelings on a day that really ought to be dedicated to warring against the inequalities of capitalism and overthrowing the patriarchy. Between the excessive amount of pink and the cacophony of noise from the feminist crowd, have you ever wondered why Valentine’s Day is even celebrated?
Sometime during the 260s and 270s, a rather violent and apparently unpopular set of wars was being waged by the Roman Empire. Due to the high fatality rate, Emperor Claudius of Rome needed every man he could spare to go out to fight, and fight hard. Claudius viewed marriage as a distraction for his military men, believing that single men would take more risks in battle as they had no one dependent upon them waiting at home. In light of this, Claudius decreed that military men could no longer get married and forbade all ceremonies. A rebellious man named Valentine (or possibly Valentinus) refused to obey this decree and continued performing Christian marriage ceremonies regardless of the consequences. Valentine has also been rumored to have assisted many who were jailed in Roman prisons, as this was a time in which Christians came under heavy persecution from the Roman Empire. Neither of these acts put Valentine in good standing with the evil empire (see Star Wars), and he was soon arrested.
Now the events that occurred while Valentine was in prison are slightly more sketchy, specifically because many of them would have occurred without witnesses outside of those who were effected. Legend tells that while Valentine was in prison he prayed with the blind daughter of the jailer and her sight was restored. Both the jailer and the daughter are said to have converted to Christianity as a result of this. Legend further tells that Valentine established a rapport with the Roman Emperor, that is until he attempted to convert him to Christianity. For these crimes against the Roman empire, Valentine was sentenced to death. Prior to the execution, Valentine is claimed to have sent the famed letter to the jailer’s daughter signed, “from your Valentine.” On February 14th of that year, Valentine was beaten, stoned, and beheaded for his crimes.
Clearly this account of St. Valentine will not sit well with your average feminist, therefore I encourage you all to share this post with as many of them as you can in honor of the day. Happy Valentine’s Day!
Rarely am I so moved to actually write a blog post, however I found this subject so sparsely covered I felt I must express it myself.
Many of you have seen the viral peace signs with the Eiffel Tower replacing the nuclear warhead in the middle. For those of you who have missed my warnings about this symbol, the so-called “peace” sign stands for nuclear disarmament, otherwise known as surrender. Regardless of the intentions of the social media user, posting the Eiffel Tower instead of the nuke indicates that you support France’s surrender to jihadi forces. Thus, my initial warning not to post this symbol still stands.
The problems with these kinds of social media campaigns go far beyond misusing an “inappropriate” symbol. Much to the chagrin of my Twitter followers, I have been very vocal about the uselessness of the campaign to re-colorize your profile picture to somehow show solidarity with the French people. What many people assume to be a simple way for low-information voters to proclaim their knowledge and position regarding the Paris attacks actually serves as a cover or penance for those people that support the very policies that allowed this attack to occur with such magnitude.
Take Debbie Wasserman-Schulz, the chair of the DNC for example. She supports the strict gun control measures that prevent the average French citizen from acquiring weapons and thus preventing the average person from defending themselves. This is the very reason that the so-called “gun free zone” that is Paris was chosen as the venue for this attack in the first place, as there is no one around with the ability to stop the attackers.
Should Debbie rethink her policy positions? Have no fear, Facebook is here! Debbie can just re-colorize her profile picture to show that she feels bad about those attacks without having to face any kind of backlash over the policies she supports that create the kinds of environments that allow these attacks to occur.
I know the re-colorized profiles reading this post are going to take all of what I have said personally and probably need to recover in a safe space for a week. However, the reality is your re-colorized photo does nothing of real use to help the people suffering from this outrageous attack. All it really does is provide a feel-good way of expressing your “good vibes” toward a situation that you will ultimately forget about in a week, if not less.
This is why I would encourage my readers to educate themselves about what really can be done in order to prevent these kinds of attacks from occurring in the future, and start becoming active in their local communities to get good policies enacted so that we can avoid attacks like this on our own soil.
This is the legacy of the Paris attacks: will your support go beyond a profile picture?
It’s become a common libel in the past six years of political conversation. With the election of the first black president of the United States, people had hoped that this would be the end of racism. Unfortunately, this presidency has been the antithesis of this notion. If you don’t like the 2009 Stimulus Package, you’re a racist. If you don’t like Obamacare, you’re a racist. If you want justice for those who died in Fast and Furious or Benghazi, you’re a racist. Just over the weekend our own Attorney General announced that he believes there is a “racial animus” inciting both his own, and President Obama’s, opposition. Basically, anybody who disagrees or opposes or even just doesn’t like any of the policies that this administration comes up with is a racist. And they’re right.
The term “racist” used to mean somebody who was bigoted against a person or groups of persons solely due to the color of their skin, shape of their eyes, or other defining characteristic of a specific race. What people need to understand is that the word racist no longer has the same definition. People like Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and a multiplying list of others on the left have hijacked this term just as they have hijacked others (gay used to mean “happy”). People who were against the 2009 Stimulus Package were against the liberal agenda. People who are against Obamacare are against the liberal agenda. Therefore, the term racist no longer means that you dislike Obama or Eric Holder for the color of their skin, but their liberal agenda. Racist now means someone who stands against the liberal agenda.
Realizing that calling someone a racist in politics means that you are calling them anti-liberal is extremely important to conservative debate. Rather than defend yourself from the old definition of racism, it is paramount that you call out the person who is misusing the term before the conversation even starts. The real racists are the ones who dilute the term to mean anything that goes against the liberal agenda, and should be held accountable.