Thought jotted from last night, and added to today

Where man is defined to himself in the soft equanimous atmosphere of 'non-discrimination', you can be sure he is not being properly or rightly defined. The idea of man not being wholly 'definable' in this world but nonetheless of being understood that by nature of his very being, he will always come to define things, and that man himself has a preceding 'definition' that is sacred and bound in the foundation of natural law, belongs properly to the assured and inalienable, and most importantly, ongoing war of words and ideas, and not in the enforced grey zone of totalitarian 'non-discrimination'. There is this aspect of man of always coming to a point, of always outing, that seems to be understood and still basically protected and upheld in the U.S. I say basically. Neutrality is not natural. And those who insist by force of seeming law on neutrality are, and become more and more, the most irrationally extreme.