Daily Archives: November 26, 2023

On a summers day, TikTok influencer Gwen The Milkmaid can be found frying up all-American comfort food dressed in a floral prairie dress. I dont want to be a boss babe. I want to be a frolicking mama. I want to spend my days baking bread, cuddling chickens, and drinking raw milk straight from the udder, she writes in her TikTok caption. In another video, she smiles beatifically at her nearly 50,000 followers, giving the camera a view of her ample breasts as she bakes a fresh sourdough loaf.

Gwen is a self-proclaimed trad-wife, one of a number of women across TikTok, Instagram, and Reddit forums extolling a return to ultra-traditional gender roles and financial dependence on a male partner. Like the swinging dicks of WallStreetBets and crypto bros, the online trad-wife is an expression of 21st-century financial nihilism. Disillusioned by the girl-boss feminist fantasy, these young women are turning to men to pay off their loans and fund their lifestyles. And, why not? Thegood lifeisnt coming any other way.

Growing up, Millennials and Gen Zs were sold a false promise of economic security and self-entrepreneurship. They were raised to believe that if they only worked and studied hard enough, success was in their futures; failure was a personal blight. Born between the mid-Eighties and early 2000s, their identities were shaped by the vacuum of post-Communist politics (I was sent, aged five, to a fancy-dress party styled, not as a Disney princess, but as the Berlin Wall). There was no sense that the future would be anything but Game Boys and capitalism.

It turned out not to be so easy. The speculation and excess of the Dot-com era, followed by the 2008 financial crash, undermined faith in the economic system, while the public investments in health, education and housing that Boomers enjoyed have been switched out for volatility and risk. Somewhere along the way, the dream of the good job and the good house was replaced by an acceptance that the good life could not worked for, or bought, or built. What began in general rumblings about why we cant have it all progressed to a sense that maybe nothing matters anymore.

If some men respond to this creeping nihilism by staying in with the curtains drawn, YOLOing their rent money on Tupperware stock, some women are choosing to retreat to a time when things felt more secure: the Fifties. Today, women are not only expected to parent like they dont have jobs, but to work like they dont have children. Often, they are expected to do both of these things without the public resources (affordable childcare, healthcare, and education) or social supports (neighbours, family) that previous generations enjoyed. So really, is it any wonder that we just want to watch a woman bake sourdough? Trad-wife influencers embrace the lives second-wave feminists fought to leave behind the role of the housewife, her routine, her wardrobe, but also, if the bimbo ethos of no thoughts, just vibes is to be believed, her lobotomised outlook on current events. Betty Friedans sedated housewife in the suburbs is no longer a cautionary tale; suddenly shes a manual for survival.

Of course, its no longer necessary to be an actual wife or mother to retreat to the home: nowadays, you can be stay-at-home girlfriend. While the trad-wifes job, steeped in post-war nostalgia, is to keep her home and family, the girlfriends main project is to keep herself: thin, young, and desirable. She is her main project and her job is, as Jia Tolentino has written, to always be optimising.

Take Kendel Kay for example, whose boyfriend Luke Lintz is the CEO of Highkey Enterprises LLC. This is my typical day as a stay-at-home girlfriend, Kay intones in her flat little voice to her more than 500,000 followers on TikTok, sounding more like an Alexa than a real woman. Every day is more or less the same: beginning with a sun salutation in athleisure followed by various forms of superior hydration, iced waters, green smoothies, and matcha teas. There are small household tasks sprinkled throughout the routine, inconsequential things such as refilling ice trays, lighting candles, and watering the couples two lotus flowers. The work of content creation aside, Kays job is her own self-care, from workouts to complicated probiotics meals and 12-step skincare regimens.

Kay is one of a number of stay-at-home girlfriends now active on TikTok. There is also the content creator Aliyah Wears, whose videos are filled with sample sales and fat-melting treatments. In one video, she asks her boyfriend how much do I owe you? at the end of dinner, while showing the camera her empty purse. Its ok, its on the house, her boyfriend says, sliding out his card to pay. Then theres Shera Seven, who dispenses caustic dating advice such as make sure the second date is a money date, which means shopping, some kind of gift or spending a lot of money. The faster you get him to spend money, the faster you get him to attach to you. Sprinkle Sprinkle.

There are tangible differences between the stay-at-home girlfriend and her older sister, the trad wife. While the trad-wifes invisible breadwinner tends to have an honest profession that would be at home in a country music song farmer, electrician, carpenter the girlfriends partner usually has a lucrative career in tech or finance. And where the OG housewife, like her carpenter husband, can be seen to do real labour, such as laundry, childcare and vacuuming, the stay-at-home-girlfriends work is mostly vapor. Contrary to the Victorian mother and Fifties housewife who was the angel in the house, devoting herself to the needs of others, baking cakes that were perfect every time, and raising tomorrows workforce, Tolentinos optimised woman is a trickier breed: shes #thatgirl on TikTok whipping up kale smoothies, shes the girl-online, the influencer.

While some women find Kays existence perplexing, many do not. Watching these videos in between school drop offs, work meetings, and cleaning up Lego is strangely soothing. I understand that I am being sold a lie, but I dont want to think. I want to vibe. When having it all means doing it all, theres an allure to doing almost nothing. People used to ask me whats your dream job, Kay writes in one video caption. I dont dream of labour. I dream of living a soft, feminine life as a hot housewife. Its as simple as that.

Many people criticise trad-wives and stay-at-home girlfriends for setting feminism back decades. Despite what Gwen the Milkmaid would suggest, the Fifties wasnt a golden age for women if Betty Friedan (who actually lived through it) is to be believed, many real housewives got by on silent desperation and a permissive approach to benzodiazepines. For decades, women had to make do with care work, staying home, and a weekly allowance. And women the world over still do, not by choice, but by necessity. For this reason, many feel trad-wives are romanticising financial dependence, and maybe even financial abuse.

View original post here:

The rise of stay-at-home girlfriends - UnHerd

Fargo

Trials and Tribulations

Season 5 Episode 2

Editors Rating 4 stars ****

Photo: FX

After teasing Jon Hamms role inFargos fifth season via a brief flashback in the season premiere, Trials and Tribulations wastes no time getting to the Jon Hamm fireworks factory. We meet Roy Tillman astride a horse as he surveys the landscape of North Dakotas Stark County, for which hes served as sheriff since the age of 25. And assuming the election we know is coming up (thanks to a billboard he passes) goes the way its long gone, thats unlikely to change soon. Meet Roy Tillman, A Hard Man for Hard Times, as his campaign slogan would like you to know. Whats more, hes the latest in a line of Tillman sheriffs that goes back to his grandfather.

Hes also a man with a clear philosophy. Theres a natural order to things, he says in voice-over. We know it in our bones. Whats not immediately clear is that hes attempting to apply this philosophy to a specific situation, intervening in a case of domestic abuse. Thatsoundslike a virtuous act, but Tillman first wraps his admonition in a lot of talk about a wifes natural place (even allowing forsomehitting under the right circumstances), then drives the point home by having one of his deputies put the abusive husband in a chokehold, then scalding the perps face himself with hot coffee. Hes undeniably a hard man. But could it be possible hes played a role in creating his countys hard times?

On a personal level, theyre about to get harder. Roys sondeputy sheriff Gator (Joe Keery, looking quite unlikeStranger Things Steve with his haircut) informs his dad, They missed her. Her, of course, is Dot, and only one-half of they has returned: Ole Munch. Never did you mention that she is, for real, a tiger, he tells them by way of explanation. But he offers no apologies. By Munchs reckoning, this was a job he never could have pulled off with such a meager team. And why did Roy want this Tiger? Shes my wife, he tells Munch. Though Dots been in hiding for nine or ten years, Roy hasnt forgotten. And when her fingerprints showed up in the system after the last episodes tasing incident, he decided to take action.

Roy gets points for promptness, but by all evidence, he didnt have a great plan. Munchs partner, Danny, is on the slab, and his attempt to take Munch out of the equation by putting a bullet in his head goes sideways immediately. So now Roys up against a tiger and whatever animal Munch most resembles. And so far he looks like a wolf.

Across the state line, Dot and Wayne are also having a difficult, if less fatal, talk with law enforcement. Indira wants to know why they found two different types of blood on her floor, neither of them hers, and about the hair DNA on the ski mask. Dot has answers for both, but theyre not particularly convincing. And though Wayne may be a different sort of Lyons than his mother, he knows how to shut down unwanted inquiries, sending Indira to Danish Greaves.

Shell have to get in line as Danish is deep in conversation with Lorraine, who receives the news of Dots return with a suspicious eye. Which, to be fair, makes sense, but her theory that Dots acting as a Lady Macbeth (also kind of a Coens reference) to Wayne and pushing him for a more ambitious life than that of the owner of a Kia dealership is way off base. To figure it out, Lorraine proposes a You brace him, I brace her plan to Danish, which is an odd way to frame a talk with family members, but were obviously not dealing with a conventional family.

Of course, the same could be said for the Tillmans. If Roy is the king of his county, his hilltop hot tub is his crown. Its there he first confers with Gator about the whole Dot situation, then meets with FBI agents Joaquin (played by Nick Gomez and not pronounced ja-queen) and Agent Meyer (Jessica Pohly, not Mrs. Ja-queen), who want to find out why Roys not enforcing the laws that the government expects him to enforce. Roy argues that he is the law of the land, to which Gator simply adds the word freedom. And thats all they offer in the way of explanation before Roy rises nude from the tub and restates his position that hes the best judge of how to enforce what is right and prosecute what is wrong. With that, he sends them on their way, but its unlikely he, or we, has seen the last of them.

Elsewhere, its time for a twin bracing. Dot tries to play nice, sticking to her story that she just kind of wandered off for a bit, even when Lorraine turns insulting, referring to her daughter-in-law as a sassy thing with a tight caboose. But Lorraines not buying it and lays down the hammer before offering to buy Dot off if she promises to leave. And thats a bridge too far, earning Lorraine a whispered listen, bitch followed by a statement of defiance and an unambiguous threat to Lorraines well-being.

Across town, Wayne gets a visit from Danish and, via speakerphone, Lorraine, who expresses concern about this whole kidnapping that aint a kidnapping thing. Wayne stands by his wife despite Danishs overwhelming evidence, which earns him a slap from his mother administered by proxy by Danish, a moment that makes them both feel undignified. But its not like either of them have much say in the matter.

Up in North Dakota, Witts hospital room hosts an impromptu meeting of law-enforcement officers. Indira has some questions about the night he was shot, but before she gets very far shes joined by Gator, who, to say the least, isnt all that helpful. Indira has a picture of Dot on her phone, but before Witt can confirm her identity, he accidentally deletes the photo. From Indira, Gator learns that Dot has returned to Scandia. This does not bode well for her.

But the discovery probably doesnt bode well for Gator or any other potential intruders, either. Where Dot displayed aHome Alonelike ability with improvised booby traps in the previous episode, in this one she goes fullStraw Dogs, rigging the place with electricity, sledgehammers, broken glass, and other defenses, much to Waynes dismay. It seems a bit, well, crazy. But does it? The Tillmans are pretty determined to bring her home. Either way, Dot keeps her cheerful demeanor with Wayne, though she lets it slip a bit when Wayne tells her Lorraines litigatin against her. And when he wants to know whats up with all the new security measures, she deflects the concern by talking about societys breakdown and how they have to be prepared for ruffians at the door. This brings Wayne around. When he suggests they buy a gun she tells him theyre now speakin the same language. This doesnt seem like a home destined to stay peaceful.

Unless, of course, Gator, Roy, and the others never make it to Dot and Waynes house. Ole, it turns out, isnt the type of hired killer who can let an attempt on his life go unanswered. At the same gas station where the gunfight went down, he kills Gators traveling companion and leaves a message: You owe me. Thats a debt he seems eager to collect.

It feels like all the pieces are in place now, doesnt it? Roy wants his wife back. Lorraine wants Waynes wife gone. Neither knows that theyre troubled by the same person, and thats just the beginning of the misunderstandings, all of which will play out against a Midwest thats already experiencing, to paraphrase Dot, a neighbor-against-neighbor situation. Meanwhile, Oles acting as a wild card. Yet even if the setup looks clear, where all this is heading remains a mystery. But its probably not heading toward a peaceful solution.

Lets talk about Ole. It was easy to write him off as a discount-bin Anton Chigurh after the previous episode, but he seems like an altogether more complicated character. His profession of nihilism nods toThe Big Lebowski, but hes a far more aggressive nihilist than those faced by the Dude. And when hes told that hedoesbelieve in money, he doesnt have much of a defense. Hes a pitiless killer with layers and an unusual fashion sense, in other words.

While were at it, lets talk about Danish, if only to note how amazing Dave Foley looks with a white mustache and eyepatch to match his hair. Will he get his story in full at any point? How long has he been Lorraines Smithers? And why?

You know, I heard a man went into a hospital in St. Paul for a kidney transplant. He ended up with someone elses brain. Remember,Fargois all based on a true story.

Roy justifies his approach to the job in terms familiar favored by the constitutional sheriffs ideology. His claim of sovereignty over all he surveys sounds ridiculous, but its probably the most grounded-in-reality element of the season.

Speaking of which, season five isnt being shy about tapping into some very of-the-moment cultural fissures, is it? Its set four years ago, but that sadly doesnt make it any less timely. Waynes desire to return to simpler times is understandable. He just wants to play floor hockey in my socks with Scotty again and watchReal Housewives. Metaphorically speaking, dont we all?

Keep up with all the drama of your favorite shows!

By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice and to receive email correspondence from us.

Here is the original post:

'Fargo' Recap, Season 5, Episode 2: Trials and Tribulations - Vulture

Have you heard the joke about kreplach? A little boy hates this typical Jewish recipe and so his mother shows him how to make it. The ingredients are delicious: a pancake, a meatball, a dumpling... he claps his hands enthusiastically, but when he sees the completed dish he shouts in horror Aaaaah, kreplach! Many succulent ingredients do not guarantee a good outcome. We can blend Fincher, Fassbender, Swinton and Arliss Howard I still long for the airtight and fascinating Rubicon season it with gripping subject matter such as hired killers, and upon tasting it still be horrified: Aaaaah, The Killer!

Despite Netflix cataloging David Finchers new movie as drama, it is a comedy, I imagine unintentionally. Its hilarious in its casting in what universe would Michael Fassbender go unnoticed? And it requires too much of a fictional pact: how long would it take for the gendarmerie to be called by the residents of a posh Parisian neighborhood if someone were to spend the night in an office under construction? The internal dialogue of Fassbenders cryptobro, who reads Marcus Aurelius and thinks about the Roman Empire between CrossFit and Bikram Yoga classes, borders on parody: Empathy is weakness. Weakness is vulnerability.

The nihilism that worked so well in Fight Club is ridiculous today, especially in men in their fifties. So are the eternal monologues. It could have been filmed with WhatsApp audios. Everyone delivers their speech, calculates whether it will be enough to be in the running for the best supporting actor Oscar, and then they do nothing else. Note the ridiculous sequence featuring Tilda Swinton at a restaurant table, which is better lit than any other scene, including one in a hospital. The obsession among cinematographers to bump up our diopters is unceasing. As if Fincher hadnt already proved with the climax of Seven that you can terrorize people in the full light of day. I suspect that with this anodyne offering he is attempting revenge on Netflix for canceling Mindhunter. This is the guy who made The Game after all; nothing is too twisted for him.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAS USA Edition

Read more:

The Killer: The unintentional comedy of the year? - EL PAS USA

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is almost 700 days old now, nearing two full years since February 24, 2022, when tanks and troops crossed the Ukrainian border at dawn. But, of course, that isnt really when conflict began, but when it escalated. You could say that it began almost 3,600 days ago, since it was nearly ten years ago that Russia seized Crimea: a prosperous piece of land internationally recognized as the sovereign territory of Ukraine. The history of Russian aggression against its neighbours, though, is far older than even that, as even a cursory glance at history will show.

The present war is sadly only the latest development in an old process of usurpation and theft. It began in the late 14th century when the rulers of Moscow annexed parts of the eastern Slav lands centred on Kyiv, collectively known as Rus. This was a cultural and geographical term, not a political one, but the Grand Princes of Moscow began to appropriate it, and to subordinate Kyivs political and ecclesiastical institutions to those of Moscowa series of developments which culminated in the annexation of nearly all Ukraine by the end of the 18th century. Many attempts at secession failed until Ukraine voted to leave the failing USSR in 1991. And to this day the state centred on Moscow still calls itself Rossiya, and seeks to rule over the old Rus heartland and to co-opt its legacy.

Russias self-image as an imperial power takes shape within its literature also. Consider one of the very first Russian novels A Hero of Our Time published in 1840 by Mikhail Lermontov. It is the portrait of a highly unsympathetic person, Grigory Alexandrovich Pechorin, and his adventures in the Russian Caucasus and its environs. When I read it in school, I met for the first time such names as the Darial Gorge, Kerch, Taman, and Crimeastrange and wild places which I struggled to imagine but which now sadly feature in international headlines because of the war in Ukraine.The fictional Pechorin is the type of aristocrat who would have participated in that imperial project, and who would come to dominate Russian political life. He is the archetype of the lishniy chelovek, or superfluous man, as we say in English: a wholly immoral person, bereft of principles and beliefs, highly cynical, melancholy, and monstrously arrogant. He is what we would now call a nihilist. Lermontov intended Pechorin as an amalgam of all the vices which flourish, full-grown, amongst the present generation. And by that, Lermontov meant the rising cohort of well-to-do Russians in the early 19th century.

This was prescient, though it was not the Pechorins who overthrew and replaced the old order in 1917. They had, however, prepared the way. It is hard to imagine Lenins triumph without the 19th-century nihilistsNikolay Chernyshevsky, Alexander Herzen, and Mikhail Bakunin, to name only three. Their relentless attacks on religion, hierarchy, morality, and the traditional social order had impressed the Bolsheviks and given them strength, despite little public support. Nevertheless, unlike the nihilists, Lenin and his followers had altogether too many convictions, not too few. And, for a brief moment, the nihilism of the past seemed to give way to visions of a new, and (as some people thought) a better world. But the cynicism and nihilism of Pechorin were to return amidst the drab misery of the Soviet project.

Something like this process has happened again recently. The exhilaration of perestroika and glasnost did not improve the late 1980s Soviet system so much as provoke its collapse. The seemingly limitless possibilities of Yeltsins liberalism ushered in a blend of extreme wealth and freedom for the few with anarchy and poverty for the many. Cynicism returned and mutated into apathy and nihilism. From the evil morass of nihilism and national humiliation emerged Vladimir Putin, the ultimate superfluous man of our time, who exchanged one form of authoritarianism for another.

That transformation is consummately explained by Soviet-born journalist Arkady Ostrovsky. His book The Invention of Russia describes the return of authoritarianism and its legitimation through a series of television narratives which shaped Russian self-image. Those who lamented the collapse of the USSR and the humiliation of Russia blamed the policies of the late 1980s. They especially accused Gorbachevs policy of openness and transparency (glasnost in Russian) which had thoroughly irradiated and dissolved the bogus reality created by the Soviets. All the contradictions and paradoxes of the old regime were exposed, along with the sordid facts of history which had embarrassed the regime. The Soviet-Nazi non-aggression pact, the purges and repressions, the denunciation of Stalin, the struggle between nationalists and liberalsthose events, their meaning, and even their reality were contested between the Soviet old guard, liberals, and nationalists, as the future of Russia hung in the balance in the 1990s. Battle lines were drawn across the mass media, and Putins victory was achieved through total control over national television.

Tighter control of television media was merely the latest iteration of the Russian state capacity for making people believe things that are not true and suppressing information that might inspire criticism. The old Soviet news broadcast Vremya, for instance, disseminated the Kremlins view of everything, reassuring its nightly audience under the pretence of objectivity that all was well. Vremya is still in operation despite a hiatus between 1991 and 1994, and it remains the principal source of news for an audience of some 82 million Russians. But it isnt just Vremya now, and the appearance of objectivity is gone. Every programme on every television channel broadcasts the Kremlins narratives non-stop. Unsurprisingly, the main force of contemporary propaganda is the war in Ukraine, in which Russian heirs to the Red Army warriors battle Ukrainian Nazis, Satanists, terrorists, and so on, who are controlled by Anglo-Saxons. Chinas Xi Jinping is wise, brilliant, and mighty on account of his apparent friendship with Putin. But other world leaders, especially those who interact with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, are evil; and on account of a curse transmitted by Zelenskyy they inevitably meet with political disaster like Boris Johnson or death like the late sultan of Oman, Qaboos bin Said.

As outrageous and incredible as all that sounds, much of it has reached the West through influencers on Twitter, broadcasters like Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones, and even some commentators and politicians. They also transmit and repeat many of the narratives with which the Kremlin surrounds itself. Chief among these is Putins imaginary vision of Russia as a bastion of traditional values besieged by an empire of lies, as he himself has put it. For his boosters, Putin is a defender of the family and God, who appeals to many conservatives abroad. And irrational Western hostility to Russia is akin to cancel culture. Or so we constantly hear from certain voices.

But is any of this true? Is contemporary Russia genuinely a traditional society? If it were, the return of the old ways would be nothing short of miraculous after two centuries of nihilism and communism. But, alas, this is not the case. Despite a boom in church construction, only about 6 percent of the Christian population attends church regularly in Russia. For comparison, regular church-goers in the USA are about 31 percent of the Christian population. Other comparisons are even less favourable. The ex-Soviet countries have some of the highest rates of abortion in the world. In Russia, the rate of abortion has fallen dramatically since the Soviet era, but there are still about 53.7 abortions per 1,000 women; in America, the number is 20.8. Russia has the third highest annual divorce rate in the world at 3.9 per 1,000 marriages; America is at 2.3. Rates of infidelity in America are slightly lower (about 21 percent) than in Russia (26 percent). The prevalence of HIV/AIDS in America is about 0.4 percent of the population and falling; in Russia, it is 1.5 percent and growing. As for the idea of defending traditional family-formation, Russian oligarchs and senior statesmen notoriously maintain multiple mistresses and parallel families; and Putin himself, who is divorced and has sired multiple children out of wedlock, is no exception.

As an Orthodox Christian myself, I take no pleasure in saying that the Putinist defence of God is also rather weak. Kirill, the Patriarch of Moscow, is a former spy with an embarrassing fondness for garish Breguet watches, his $4-million yacht, $43-million private jet, and small real-estate empire in Moscow and St Petersburg. He also has an odd penchant for public blessings of nuclear weapons. Apart from supporting such militancy, the church that he runs is essentially an organ for disseminating domestic propaganda. This is why, under the so-called Yarovaya Law, all forms of worship and spreading of faith are illegal unless conducted within government-approved churches or other recognised religious sites.

Putin and his servants may talk the claptrap of conservatism and the defence of Orthodoxy, but they do not practise what they preach. They are more devoted to appearance than to reality. When criticised for this, they readily pivot to whataboutism, just as the old Soviets did. The West, they say, is equally hypocritical but better at hiding it, so why single out Russia? But this is quite unpersuasive. It is easier to find Westerners eager to denounce the flaws or downright evils of their own heritage than those of Russia. And, if anything, we suffer from too much internal criticism, not too little. Defences of Western civilisation, western Christendom, European and American customs, political liberalism, and so on, tend to be rather anaemic and studiedly qualified. And that diffidence opens the way to Russian agitprop, peddling the theory of a foreign strongman who stands up for his own heritage, even if he has to appropriate it from abroad.

But that is not the most sinister aspect of Russian propaganda in the West. It is rather the capacity for covering frustrated Westerners with a miasma of Pechorin-like apathy. The disease of postmodernism has left many of us unable to dispel it, since the idea of objective truth has fallen out of favour, especially in our universities. Accordingly, we are all too susceptible to believing half-truths and even outright nonsense. If your preferred political candidate didnt win, for instance, the reason is that the election was rigged and your cause is hopeless. If you are frustrated by incomplete information about the war in Ukraine, you should give up because you will never know the truth. All political decisions are made by a shadowy international cabal who manipulates your politicians from above, so there is no point in voting. How do you know whether or not a specific government document is fake? Your elites hate you, so give up. The propaganda is an invitation to disengage from politics and social life; and when those talking points reappear in the mouths of Western commentators, they are taken as evidence that Russia, however bad it may be, is no worse than the West.

Like all good propaganda, it contains a small element of truth. Both Russia and the West do indeed suffer from many of the same illnesses. Both are afflicted by forgetfulness of history, social atomisation, excessive faith in technology, political apathy, and a widening gulf between the rich few and a poor multitude. And yet, those problems are all far worse in Russia, which has been ruled and abused by superfluous men for 200 years at least. The past two centuries of Russian history are accordingly strewn with the ruins of broken institutions, shattered utopian dreams, and national humiliations. No model of associational life free of state control has survived. The consequences of this are represented in two statistics: a quarter of the Russian population regularly feels lonely, and about 80 percent of adults claim to be surrounded by people who share their views on almost everythingsigns of advanced atomisation and de-politicisation of society. The seemingly universal support for the war in Ukraine likewise represents extreme alienation of everyday life from politics, and the inability of Russian citizens to adopt their own political positions on events. Finally, the great Western disease of postmodernism is more acute in Russia, where the power of the Kremlin dictates what is true, and Alexander Dugins theory of a peculiar Russian truth is nothing more than an exaggerated form of relativism.

What this calls for in the West is a far more vigorous defence of our own traditions and heritage than we are used to. We can start by acknowledging that a good many traditional ways of life have survived better in the West, especially in North America, than elsewhere. Consider the Mennonites, Lubavitcher Jews, the Russian Orthodox in exile after the Bolshevik revolution, the Iranian royal family, or French Catholicism in Quebecthey are all communities who have flourished better abroad than in their place of origin.

We must also do away with relativism and postmodernism, and re-dedicate ourselves to objectivity and unanimous truth. Otherwise, the consequences will be grim, and we will be like Lermontovs description of the people of Pechorins generation:

we are no longer capable of great sacrifices, either for the good of mankind or even for our own happiness, because we know the impossibility of such happiness; and, just as our ancestors used to fling themselves from one delusion to another, we pass indifferently from doubt to doubt, without possessing, as they did, either hope or even that vague though, at the same time, keen enjoyment which the soul encounters at every struggle with mankind or with destiny.

Such an attitude is yet more prevalent in contemporary Russia than it was in the early 19th century, and it is already well advanced in the West. The fate of Moscow will be ours if we allow ourselves to become nothing but ambitious, self-absorbed nihilists.

And so, Russia is indeed an example to us, but not as their right-wing boosters would have it. Twenty-four years of Putinism were built on two centuries of decay. Far from a vision of a renewed West, Russia shows us how much worse the West shall be if we continue down the same road of forgetfulness, apathy, and nihilism. One day, like Pechorin, we may find that we can still look back upon our ancestors achievements, but we will not be able to understand or imitate them, and we will not even want to.

Read more here:

What's the matter with Russia? - The Hub

Warning: This article contains SPOILERS for Thanksgiving (2023)

While Thanksgiving has been lauded as a return to form for director Eli Roth, the slasher movie is surprisingly bloodless when it comes to major main character deaths. Eli Roth rose to prominence as part of a group of horror filmmakers whose gory, countercultural work became infamous in the mid-2000s. Inspired by grindhouse exploitation movies, the New French Extremity genre, and early Wes Craven movies such as Last House on the Left, Roth, Rob Zombie, Alexandre Aja, and other members of the so-called Splat Pack moved away from the playful, self-referential slashers of the late 90s and PG-13 horror of the early 00s.

The Splat Packs output was characterized by a distinctly nihilistic flavor, intense gore, and, above all else, brutally bleak endings. Roths first movie, Cabin Fever, fit this description to a tee with every main character perishing before the credits rolled. However, while its potential sequel Thanksgiving 2 might change this, Roths latest slasher Thanksgiving completely betrays this ethos. Despite some gory moments, Thanksgiving reserves its nastiest fates for minor characters, doesnt kill off many of its lead actors, and even leaves a major villain alive by the movies ending. Its a far cry from the pitiless attitude of the directors earlier work.

Despite the movies status as a slasher, almost none of Thanksgivings main characters are killed. All but two of the main friend groups seven members survive the entire movie, both of the Final Girls love interests live to see the finale and, most egregiously, the heroines outright villainous father inexplicably makes it out alive. This is particularly jarring because Roths early infamy came from the cynical nihilism of Cabin Fever and Hostel, the former of which killed off all its main characters and the latter of which killed off its apparent hero midway through the movie. This extended into Roths later work before Thanksgivings slasher homages softened his style.

Roths Hostel 2 repeated the original movies mean-spirited trick, with the meekest, most innocent main character getting the first and nastiest death in the movie. However, Thanksgiving instead seems to have borrowed its structure from the recent hit slasher Scream 6, which included some nasty, gory deaths for minor characters early on, but then ended up keeping almost all of the main cast members alive in a surprisingly tame finale. Like Scream 6, Thanksgiving does feature some very violent moments, but the movies deaths are reserved for minor characters and only two major characters, Evan and Yulia, die during its story.

Although it was surprising that so many of Scream 6s characters survived, the sequel had an excuse to keep its main cast alive. The entire Scream franchise is beloved for its characters as much as its kills and, since fans didnt want new characters like Mindy and Tara to die but also wanted returning favorites like Kirby and Gail to survive, Scream 6 could get away with a comparatively low body count. In contrast, Thanksgiving had no fan pressure to keep its cast around but did so anyway. Seemingly, Roth wanted all of Thanksgivings heroes to have a happy ending.

See the original post here:

Eli Roth's Thanksgiving Keeps A Disappointing 2023 Slasher Trend ... - Screen Rant

IT CAN BE hard to make sense of the disparate and seemingly disconnected challenges that afflict our increasingly troubled world. However, there is one common thread that links them all: Gaza, Ukraine, Trump, Braverman and the thuggish rioters in Dublin on Thursday evening.

The importance of the rule of law. Respect for the law is necessary both for the preservation of democracies and for peaceful relations between nations. Domestic law and international law are not academic niceties or optional extras.

Rolling News Hundreds of people riot on O'Connell Street and surrounding areas on Thursday. Rolling News

They are a vital part of the infrastructure of human civilisation. Without the law, then might will prevail over right. The Lord of the Flies comes into his own, as we saw briefly in OConnell Street this week.

Today, the most urgent challenge to international legality arises in the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The International Criminal Court (ICC) will one day reach a judgement on the behaviour of both sides. In the meanwhile, however, hostages are being held in horrifying captivity and innocent civilians are being killed in shocking numbers.

For the moment, no court can hold anyone to account. Neither side acknowledges that it is doing anything wrong. Hamas and Islamic Jihad, for whom civilisation is a hoax and legality a meaningless inconvenience, will continue to justify their nihilism. Israel will continue to deny the self-evidently disproportionate nature of its response and to gloss over the manifestly illegal nature of its expanding settlements in the Occupied Territories.

It is, therefore, of the greatest importance that calls for international law to be respected are stepped up. For the moment, the court of public opinion is the only one to which we can appeal.

International law is also central to the Russia Ukraine conflict. The massacres at Bucha and elsewhere, the relentless Russian attacks on civilian and infrastructural targets 10,000 Ukrainian civilians have now been killed and the deportation of thousands of Ukrainian children to Russia have compounded Putins war of aggression.

While Putin will never see the inside of a prison cell, the ICC investigation and its issuing of arrest warrants represent a valuable signal. Ongoing calls for respect for international law are important in this case also. In addition to underlining an essential principle, they contribute to shaping world opinion.

International conventions and treaties are relevant to almost every conflict and dispute between states. Close to home, former Prime Minister Johnsons explicitly stated intention to break international law, by reneging on the legally binding Northern Ireland Protocol, was on a far less dramatic scale than the more brutal examples cited. However, it was similarly important in terms of principle. If respect for international law becomes optional, it is no longer the law.

As regards the importance of respect for the rule of domestic law, it is the cornerstone of every democracy. Under autocratic regimes, individuals can be arbitrarily imprisoned for political reasons or at the whim of despots. A democracy without the law ceases to be a democracy.

One of the most flagrant challenges to the rule of law in a democracy continues to be posed in the US by former President Donald Trump. Much media focus has been on whether Trumps political future will be helped or hindered by the numerous criminal charges he faces. However, his legal travails should not be seen primarily through the prism of such political calculation.

The more profound question is whether US democracy itself could survive the assault by a second Trump Presidency on the rule of law.

The charges he faces regarding his attempts to overturn the result of the 2020 election make entirely explicit the link between democracy and the rule of law.

Alamy stock pics Netanyahu, Putin and Trump. Alamy stock pics

The outcome of the various cases Trump faces lies, as it should, in the hands of US courts. What is existentially important for US democracy is that the law be seen to apply, notwithstanding political intimidation or pleading.

In many other countries today, it is disturbingly clear that the preservation of democracy requires the rule of law, including the independence of the judiciary, to be upheld.

A striking example was in Israel, even before the present conflict. Prime Minister Netanyahu put forward a proposal to eviscerate the Israeli courts, including a provision that would allow a simple majority in parliament to override court decisions. It is not surprising that Israelis demonstrated in huge numbers to protect their democracy which is challenged not just by Hamas but by their own Prime Minister.

Prime Minister Orban in Hungary is another leader intent on undermining his countrys democracy, including by exerting Government control over the courts. His behaviour poses an ongoing challenge to the European Union as a whole.

It has been extraordinary to witness recently some of the reaction in Britain to the UK Supreme Courts decision preventing the sending of asylum seekers to Rwanda. Suella Braverman, until very recently the Home Secretary, and Lee Anderson, a Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party, were amongst those who, astonishingly, advocated simply bypassing or even ignoring the judgement of Britains highest court.

Fortunately, even if there remains a degree of ambiguity about the UKs continued attachment to important legally binding international conventions, British democracy, including necessarily respect for the courts, seems vastly more robust than during the disgraceful Johnson years.

Ireland, for our part, can be proud that our courts, which guarantee our democracy and our individual rights, remain strong and independent.

The mindless, profoundly anti-Irish, rioters who burned vehicles and indulged in recreational looting in Dublin on Thursday evening represent a serious challenge. However, the overwhelming majority of the public support the rule of law and it will prevail.

Our Supreme Court has recently been considering intelligent and respectful arguments for and against the Judicial Appointments Bill referred to it by the President. It is reassuring to know that, whatever the outcome of the Courts consideration, its judgement will be accepted; and that the rule of law will continue to be valued and respected in Ireland by the Government, in parliament and by the public.

Bobby McDonagh is a former Irish Ambassador to the EU, UK and Italy. He is an executive coach and commentator on subjects around EU and Brexit.

For the price of one cup of coffee each week you can make sure we can keep reliable, meaningful news open to everyone regardless of their ability to pay.

See the rest here:

Bobby McDonagh: The Rule of Law matters more than ever when ... - TheJournal.ie

LOS ANGELES (AP) For the obsessive record collector or the casual listener, the shower singer or the rock star of tomorrow, a music-inspired gift is never a faux pas over the holidays.

The challenge, of course, is in the decision making. Is a genre-specific festival ticket the way to go? What about a box set fit for a budding audiophile?

Heres a variety gift guide for the audio lover in your life from photo card binders for the K-pop superfan to a pair of some of the best headphones on the market and a cheese board that looks surprisingly hi-def.

Itll be music to their ears.

There are vinyl box sets, and then there isFour Women: The Nina Simone Complete Recordings 1964-1967,a massive, seven-LP collection built from the seven albums Simone released for the Philips label during her most prolific creative period. Thats 1964s Nina Simone in Concert and Broadway-Blues-Ballads; 1965s I Put A Spell On You, Pastel Blues and Let It All Out"; 1966s Wild Is the Wind"; and 1967s High Priestess of Soul, remastered from the original tape. It is the ideal way to celebrate the musician and civil rights activist, and the ideal gift for a music fan of any walk. Cost: $199.96

AP

The cassette tape revolutionized the music industry and the music listening experience: You could make mixtapes for loved ones, record that hit song from the radio, or best of all, carry your favorite album around with you. In High Bias: The Distorted History of the Cassette Tape, music journalist Marc Masters provides the definitive text on the tiny-but-mighty piece of plastic. Perfect for the pop-culture obsessed. Cost: $20

AP

In 2021, Harry Styles entered the beauty game with his company, Pleasing, beginning with colorful, gender-neutral nail polish. It continued to grow, eventually including skincare and makeup. This holiday season, Styles has entered the fragrance game. Launched this month, Styles perfume line includes Closeness, described as a woody musk scent, Rivulets, which is a floral, fresh amber scent, and Bright, Hot, a heady woody amber scent with top notes of plum and tobacco. Something for everyone, or, at least, the pop music fan in your life. Its a welcome distraction from One Directions indefinite hiatus. Cost: $135

AP

This one might give an audiophile a heart attack, but that doesnt make it any less adorable. Tis the season to break out the charcuterie board and host a great holiday party but why not do it in musical style? The Turntable Cheese Board from Uncommon Goods is exactly what it sounds like a cheese board designed to look like the most expensive, slick turntable, featuring a slate platter and hidden slicer in the one arm. Delicious. Cost: $78

AP

Theres never a wrong time to upgrade headphones in fact, it makes for a great gift. Sonys MDR-7506 headphones are a particularly wise selection. This pair is perfect for aspiring producers, music students, podcast hosts of the future, anyone who wants to look cool walking down the street with studio-grade headphones and beyond. Theyre an industry standard for a reason. Cost: $80-$130

On Nov. 7, Barbra Streisand released her very long and very long-awaited memoir, My Name is Barbra. Shed talked about it for years in 2021, she told Jimmy Fallon that Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis had asked her to write a memoir in the early 1980s, when the former first lady was an editor at Doubleday. (Heck, during an Associated Press interview in 2009, Streisand mentioned that she had been writing chapters about her life, in longhand. I go back and forth, Streisand said at the time. Do I really want to write about my life? Do I really want to relive my life? Im not sure.) But beyond the wait and the fact that My Name is Barbra is well worth it, a larger-than-life autobiography coming in at a whopping 1,040 pages are the revelations that await the reader. From her childhood to her marriage to the making of Yentl and beyond. Cost: $47

AP

Far too often, holiday gift guides even those specifically catering to music enthusiasts fail to account for dedicated, artist-specific fandoms. And thats a shame, because the most thoughtful presents are often the most specific ones. They communicate to the gift-receiver that the gift-giver really gets them. That they listen. For the K-pop lover, why not get a photocard binder where they can store their limited-edition collection? Just make sure you know who their bias (a K-pop term for favorite member) is first, OK? That would be embarrassing. Cost: $13 - $20

In his second book, Goth: A History, Lol Tolhurst, co-founder the influential goth band The Cure, explores the often-misunderstood movement, what he calls the last true alternative outsider subculture. Its about the music subgenre born out of late-70s punk and dread, of course (Joy Division, Bauhaus, Siouxsie and the Banshees) but also touches on Tim Burton films, Edgar Allan Poes poem The Raven, Mary Shelleys novel Frankenstein, Emily Bront, and an adolescent period marked by black nail polish and nihilism. Its a well-rounded, interdisciplinary and definitive history and part-memoir, perfect for that friend who swears he liked that band before they were big. Cost: $20 - $25

In 1995, The Roots dropped their influential sophomore album, Do You Want More?!!!??!, a critically acclaimed album in hip-hop canon. Now, nearly three decades later, a four-LP box set has been released a remastered version of the original two LP albums and now with bonus tracks curated by Questlove himself. He and Tariq Trotter, a.k.a. Black Thought, wrote the liner notes, and thats a kind of exclusive commentary you can only pay for. (And if youre feeling really generous, you could also throw in Trotters new book, The Upcycled Self: A Memoir on the Art of Becoming Who We Are and become the greatest gift giver in your circle.) Cost: $89.98

What do music fans really want for the holidays? The live music experience, of course. In 2024, the Latin music festival Besame Mucho is headed to Austin, Texas, following the success of its inaugural year in Los Angeles, and should be considered a hot-ticket item. The lineup features Los Tigres Del Norte, Banda MS, Grupo Frontera and many more a cant miss event. Cost: $275 - 950

For more of APs 2023 Holiday Gift Guides, go to: music, movies, coffee-table books, gardening and serendipity, a grab bag.

Read more from the original source:

A 2023 gift guide: 10 ideas for the music lover in your life - 25 News KXXV and KRHD

Science fiction, in the words of American author Ted Chiang, is a way of using speculative or fantastic scenarios to examine the human condition.1 It includes stories that explore how we might react to aliens arriving on Earth, ask what wed do if we could travel through time, follow great missions of space exploration, or chronicle the rise and fall of future civilizations. Many science fiction stories promote rational, life-serving ideas such as exploration, curiosity, and freedom. Others, however, by and large promote life-destroying ideas such as nihilism and anti-industrialism.

Science fiction television is replete with examples in both categories. Some of it has been tremendously influential, inspiring people to become inventors, astronauts, writers, or simply to believe in a better future. Here are ten quality science fiction television shows that advocate life-serving ideas, particularly respect for reason, individualism, and liberty.

Star Wars was originally a story about good triumphing over evil, pitting the Rebels, who value life and freedom, against the Empire, which murders people by the millions to prolong its totalitarian rule. Later Star Wars productions have drifted from this premise and swamped the moral clarity of the original trilogy, but Andor is an outstanding return to form in this regard. A prequel to the film Rogue One, it follows gun-for-hire Cassian Andor, who is disinterested in the cause of the Rebellionuntil a series of painful encounters with the Empire teaches him the true value of freedom. This is not only a story of good versus evil, but of one man discovering what it means to be good.

The original 1960s version of Star Trek follows the crew of the USS Enterprise as they conduct a five-year mission to explore strange, new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations, and to boldly go where no man has gone before. It presents an optimistic future in which racism, war, and poverty are things of the past, and people work together as equals to explore the universea radical idea in 1960s America. Moreover, it presents a commentary on the roles of reason and emotion in a persons life through the interplay of the three main characters: The emotional, quick-to-anger Doctor McCoy; the emotionless, rigorously logical Mr. Spock; and the balancedrational yet passionateCaptain Kirk.

The Canadian sci-fi/fantasy series Sanctuary follows Helen Magnus, the head of a sanctuary for strangeand, in some cases, intelligentlife forms known as abnormals. She and her team protect these creatures both from the outside world and from each other. The show has a clear theme of scientific curiosity and fascination with the unknown; the villains often are people who fear, or try to exploit, the abnormals, regarding all as a threat based on the actions of a few or not recognizing the rights of intelligent beings among them. The heroes, on the other hand, value life intensely and relish the opportunity to study and protect these life forms. Moreover, Magnus is a fiercely moral character, never afraid to speak her mind, whatever others might think. As Magnus actor and Sanctuary executive producer Amanda Tapping said, I wish sometimes that I had her strength of conviction, without worrying so much about what other people thought.2

Doctor Who was born out of the BBCs original mission to inform, educate, and entertain.3 The order of those words was deliberate; Doctor Whos primary purpose was to teach children about science and history while also entertaining. It follows The Doctor, a Time Lord from a faraway planet, who travels through time exploring different worlds and time periods with a group of human companions, fighting evil along the way. One of the evil factions would propel the show to fame: a race of Nazi-inspired xenophobic half-robot mutants called Daleks. Their distinctive appearance and buzzing robotic voices made them an overnight sensation in Britain (think of them like a 1960s version of Minions), with countless Dalek-themed events, knock-off childrens toys, and two Dalek-focused movies.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Doctor Who, however, is The Doctors ability to regenerate, that is, stave off death by changing his form. This has enabled fourteen different actors to play the part in one continuous story. Regenerating changes The Doctors personality but not his fundamental values, which always include a conviction that individual lives are sacrosanct, a principled respect for freedom, and an unshakable confidence in the power of reason to solve problems. In one story, as he works to stop two warring tribes from destroying each other, he remarks, The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: they dont alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their viewswhich can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.4

Although the stories from the original 19631989 series have a (somewhat endearing) reputation for wobbly sets and improvised costumes, the moral themes they deal with are frequently deep and compelling, and the 2005 revival of the show delivers the high-quality action and spectacle that the earlier episodes sometimes lacked.

Although almost all the Star Trek shows embody life-serving values, a few deserve special mention, and one of these is Voyager. It follows the crew of the titular USS Voyager, an exploratory vessel that gets thrown across the galaxy by a powerful alien force. Faced with a seventy-year journey home at maximum speed, Voyagers Captain Janeway must keep her crew safe in unfamiliar territory while looking for ways to get them home faster. Voyagers crew is divided on what they can and should do to achieve that goal, and Janeway is presented with several seeming opportunities that would come at the cost of violating her principles. In one story, Voyager encounters another stranded crewonly this one captured and experimented on intelligent beings while trying to survive. Janeway refuses to help them, saying Its never easy . . . but if we turn our backs on our principles, we stop being human.5

Voyagers story gets even more interesting at the start of the fourth season when the crew encounters the Borg, a race of cybernetic life-forms wired together into a collective consciousness. Rescuing a human who was assimilated by the Borg as a child, Janeway and her crew take on an additional mission: helping this Borg drone rediscover her individuality.

Note: Im still trying to track down the later seasons of this show, so this review focuses on the earlier episodes.

Based on notes left behind by the late Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, Earth: Final Conflict is set on a near-future Earth that has been radically transformed by the arrival of the alien Taelons. Although they appear to be benevolent and eager to help the human race evolve, it soon becomes clear that the Taelons have their own plans for humanity, and they wont let individual lives get in their way. As one Taelon says in the episode titled Live Free or Die, The only imperative concerns the welfare of our collective sentience, not the survival of an individual.

The first season follows detective William Boon, who becomes head of security for the Taelons. He uses his role to uncover their plans and covertly support a group of freedom fighters. Although the acting is a little shaky in places, and the digital effects are dated, the shows fascinating concept and exemplary moral themes make those issues comparatively insignificant.

Babylon 5 is a place of commerce and diplomacy for a quarter million humans and aliens. A shining beacon in space, all alone in the night. This opening narration from Babylon 5s first season describes its setting: a gigantic space station built to serve as neutral ground for alien races to meet, trade, and work out their differences in the aftermath of several major interplanetary wars. But forces are at work to reignite those conflicts, and it is up to the crew of Babylon 5 to fight for freedom, not only among the stars but also back home on Earth, as it falls into the grip of a totalitarian regime. Of all the shows on this list, Babylon 5 has perhaps the most well-crafted storyan integrated, preplanned five-season arc that deals with such subjects as the origins of religion, the human cost of war, the challenges of addiction, and the importance of learning life lessons firsthand.

This prequel series, set a hundred years before the original Star Trek, follows the first human ship to venture into deep space: the USS Enterprise. This isnt Captain Kirks Enterprise but an earlier design, one far less advanced than the alien ships its crew encounters. That crew, led by Captain Archer, whose father invented the engine that powers the ship, must be exceptionally rational and courageous to survive in the face of often overwhelming odds. Not only that, but they must defend the very idea of exploration in the face of fierce resistance from Earths allies, the Vulcans, who consider humanity unready to venture into the galaxy and so work to discourage human space exploration.

For Archer, this is a personal quest; although hes excited about his mission, he is angry that the Vulcans prevented his father from ever seeing the engine that he designed fly. He also faces opposition from groups on Earth who resent the influence of aliens on human cultures. The crews values are tested time and again as they stumble into interplanetary conflicts, get infected with alien diseases, and attract the attention of warlike factions intent on preventing Earth from becoming a major power in the galaxy. In the third season, when Enterprise ventures alone into a dangerous region of space to find and destroy an alien superweapon being built to attack Earth, Archer must carefully consider what lines hes willing to cross to protect the people back home.

In the late 1970s, Doctor Who was at the height of its success, and Star Wars had just demonstrated that people were hungry for stories about fighting tyranny in the depths of space. In response, Dalek creator Terry Nation and the BBC came up with a new show: Blakes 7. It follows a band of escaped criminals who steal a powerful starship from the Federation, an Orwellian dictatorship that controls Earth and numerous other worlds. Naming the ship the Liberator, Blake and his fellow escapees evade the forces pursuing them. Many of the gang want to flee the Federation altogether, but Blake wants to stand and fight. When another escapee tells him, At least youre alive, the idealistic Blake responds, No! Not until free men can think and speak, acknowledging the fact that one is not fully alive unless one is fully free.6

As with any show from this time periodand especially from the BBCthe sets and visual effects look cheap and dated today, but all other aspects of the showthe concept, the characters, the actingare outstanding.

What if aliens built the pyramids? Thats a question conspiracy theorists and quacks have asked for decades, but the Stargate franchise goes a step further: What if those aliens are still out there today, posing as gods and forcing entire planets of human beings to worship them? The 1994 movie Stargate depicted a military expedition traveling through the stargate: an alien device that enables instantaneous travel to other planets. It carries them to a world where people are enslaved by an alien posing as the sun god Ra.

The movie is fun, but the TV continuationStargate SG-1is where things really get good. When another alien, posing as the god Apophis, attacks Earth through the stargate, the U.S. Air Force forms a group of elite SG teams to fight these aliens and find ways to defend Earth. Across its ten seasons, Stargate SG-1 follows the members of the lead SG team, SG-1, in their attempts to sow doubt and discontent among those who worship the gods. SG-1 encourages these people to use reason, follow the evidence, and throw off their oppressors and the belief systems that keep them enslaved.

The show also conveys a wealth of information about ancient mythologies, including Egyptian, Greek, Norse, and English, as various aliens impersonate gods and characters from these traditions. If you make it to season eight, its also worth watching the spin-off series, Stargate: Atlantis, at the same time, as the two aired together, intertwining and expanding each others backstories in fascinating ways.

***

Many more shows could go on this list, and a few honorable mentions are Star Trek: The Next Generation, Farscape, The Expanse, and the sadly short-lived Firefly. Also, the original 1978 version of Battlestar Galactica is a life-affirming story of hope and determination (although the 2003 reboot sadly swapped that tone for one of nihilism and despair).

Science fiction is at its best when it conveys the values of reason, curiosity, and freedom. These are the values that will enable us to boldly go into a better future. Savor them in these fascinating explorations of what that future might hold.

Thomas Walker-Werth is associate editor at The Objective Standard and a fellow at both Objective Standard Institute and Foundation for Economic Education. He hosts the podcast Innovation Celebration with his wife Angelica. See more of his work at walker-werth.com.

Continue reading here:

Ten Great Sci-fi TV Shows that Promote Reason and Individualism - The Objective Standard

In his book, The Great Partnership: Science, Religion, and the Search for Meaning, Jonathan Sacks writes against thinkers of the new atheism (like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, or Daniel Dennett). He is determined to show that religion is not replaceable by science and that religion is essential to grasp human meaning. Against new atheists, he believes that existential questions are key to our freedom and hope. He also believes that any narrative of the universe that does not account for purpose is ultimately a tragic one.

According to Dr. Denis Alexander, the relationship between science and religion can be represented in different models. No model truly encapsulates the colorful interaction between the two but highlights a dimension of it.

As he mentions, science and religion are already intricate enterprises, and both are in a constant state of flux. Notwithstanding complexity, these models tell us something about the position of an author.

There are four models, according to Alexander. First, we find the conflict model, according to which science and religion are constantly in disagreement and are opposing enterprises.

Secondly, there is the NOMA model. NOMA means Non-Overlapping Magisteria, as initially proposed by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. In his view, science and religion address separate kinds of questions and work within isolated compartments; no conflict is present because of this definition.

Thirdly, the fusion model represents the opposite of NOMA, claiming that there is no dividing line between science and religion. For example, insights from quantum mechanics can be said to resonate with Eastern religious beliefs in a way in which they are intertwined.

Finally, the Complementary model maintains that science and religion are addressing the same reality from different perspectives. They complement each other (07, p. 4). Let us keep these different models in the back of our minds as we discuss Jonathan Sacks approach. In the end, I would like to consider which model better represents the ideas of the Orthodox rabbi.

The central claim of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks is that science takes things apart to see how they work. Religion puts things together to see what they mean. Lets try to unpack this statement by reconstructing his argument focusing on the first part of his book The Great Partnership: Science, Religion, and the Search for Meaning.

One initial premise of Sacks is that human beings are qualitatively different from the rest of nature. Humans are not simply part of nature; rather, they have something that transcends it. If this were not the case, says Sacks, then humans would lack any uniqueness; there would be nothing distinctive about humanity, and our hopes, dreams and ideals would be reduced only to brain processes.

Darwin went even further and defended that humans were not only not created in the image of God but they were just one branch of the primates, close cousins to the apes and chimpanzees (12, p. 121). For Jonathan Sacks, this is unacceptable because pivotal concepts such as human dignity and freedom hinge on the uniqueness of humanity.

Secondly, God is not to be found in nature for God transcends nature. This means that God is not reducible to any material principle or law. He argues that the discovery of Monotheism (the belief system that holds the doctrine or concept of the existence of only one supreme deity, God, or divine being) is key.

Monotheism is not simply the opposite of polytheism. He rebukes, We make a great mistake if we think of monotheism as a linear development from polytheism, as if people just worshipped many gods, then reduced them to one.

Instead, Monotheism recognizes that God is outside the universe and is able to create it. Notice that this already restricts his argument to three Abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I will come back to this idea.

Given the two premises, Jonathan Sacks can contend that while science is about explanation, religion is all about meaning. In a nutshell, while science is concerned with the physical dimension of nature and humanity, religion provides meaning to it.

Cognitively speaking, they perform different activities: Science analyses, religion integrates. Science breaks things down into their component parts. Religion binds people together in relationships of trust. Science tells us what is. Religion tells us what ought to be. This is why the existence of God can never be proven because it is asking science to deal with an object that lies outside its domain.

If science and religion have distinct functions, then it follows that to believe in God is not a denial of science. Both are essential aspects of human expression and experience.

For Sacks, the meaning of a system lies outside that system. This implies that science cannot answer questions of meaning. It can only describe the system. He gives the example of a football match. One can describe the rules of the game, but the meaning of the game (the why) is found outside the rules, namely, in the wider social context of people enjoying it.

Science deals with the internal logic of the system and religion with what lies outside of it. In this vein, the orthodox theologian can assert: The meaning of the system lies outside the system. Therefore, the meaning of the universe lies outside the universe. This has a substantial consequence: if humanity were to toss religion aside and focus only on science, it would lose all meaning.

It would entail that everything beautiful about humanity is devoid of real significance, that they are fictions dressed up to look like facts. We have no souls.. Nihilism is the only outcome of renouncing religion A world without religious faith is a world without sustainable grounds for hope. There is nothing in science that can provide meaning, it only offers bleak explanations.

Both science and religion are essential perspectives. Their function is similar to that of the right and left hemispheres of the human brain. Therefore, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks is not arguing against science.

Human life would be deprived without either of those dimensions. He further explains: The left hemisphere tends to be linear, analytical, atomistic and mechanical () The right brain tends to be integrative and holistic. To be sure, he is not saying that the two hemispheres are completely independent. He is using them as metaphors for different modes of engagement with the world.

He further argues that this contrast between the left and the right hemisphere is related to the Greek tradition and the Hebrew tradition, respectively. For example, when the Bible wants to account for the phenomenon of Monarchy it does not discuss in the line of Plato and Aristotle the merits of monarchy as opposed to aristocracy or democracy (), it does not articulate theory. It tells a story.

For this reason, Jonathan Sacks regards Greece as a left-brain civilization while Israel is a right-brain culture; the Greeks worshiped human reason, Jews, divine revelation .

Once we have outlined the premises and conclusions of the argument, it is worth highlighting some of its shortcomings. For Sacks, denying any metaphysical principle in humanity leads to devaluating society and individuals. He explains that if no metaphysical principle is recognized, Humans might write novels, compose symphonies, help those in need, and pray, but all this is a delicately woven tapestry of Illusions.

But this conclusion does not follow. The complexity and beauty of human achievements are valuable in themselves. He also criticizes what he would deem a material reductionism of humanity: For thoughts are no more than electrical impulses in the brain, and the brain is merely a complicated piece of meat, an organism.

Once again, the complexity of the brain and the whole body, for that matter is not given sufficient credit to the extent that even today, we still do not comprehend everything about it. On the other hand, even if one disagrees with the lack or presence of a metaphysical principle, this does not entail simplicity of material organization and emerging properties.

Sacks also claims that the meaning of the system lies outside of it. For him, meaning is something that is discovered and, to be precise, is only found in the monotheistic God. This disregards many other spiritual traditions that are not transcendental, i.e., in which meaning lies within the system.

Furthermore, the lack of a preexisting meaning does not necessarily conclude in nihilism, as he suggested. Meaning can be constructed, for example, besides our loved ones and communities, thus leading us to a fulfilling life. The atheist physicist Stephen Hawking, when referring to all his ideas of the universe adds: It would be an empty universe indeed if it were not for the people I love and who love me. Without them, the wonder of it all would be lost on me.

Even with these caveats, the claim by Jonathan Sacks is powerful, namely, that science and religion are two different cognitive activities that are nevertheless complementary.

Indeed, science takes things apart to see how they work, and religion puts them together to see what they mean. They both produce valuable types of claims necessary for a richer view of reality. He is right in arguing that science has inherent limitations and that there are domains in which a scientific approach is not the answer.

Left-brain people like Stephen Hawking inadvertently accepted that limitation. While recalling some early stages of his life, Hawking narrates: I was always very interested in how things operated. I used to take them apart to see how they worked but I was not so good at putting them back together again.

Read the original:

Jonathan Sacks: Are Science and Religion Enemies? - The Collector

On Oct. 7, the Jewish people suffered our greatest losses in a single day since the Holocaust. More than 1,200 Jews and others were murdered; babies killed and burnt; our women were raped and paraded naked through the streets of Gaza; more than 200 people, from a variety of countries, were taken hostage.

Where were you?

You were either silent, or you said there was wrong on both sides (like very fine people on both sides at Charlottesville?), or that all human losses are the same (recalling how none of us liked the all lives matter thing), or you were outright hostile to Israel and the Jews.

Yes: on Oct. 7, you offered us, perhaps, a day of sympathy.

But, it is easy to sympathize with Jews who are suffering. After all, we have so much experience with it.

But, when Israel fought back, you went ballistic. You criticized Israels response. You ignored how Hamas operates placing its operatives in schools and hospitals, deliberately using its people as human shields. You called for a ceasefire but not a release of the hostages. You did not demand that the Red Cross be permitted to visit those hostages.

And, why? You were victims of your binary categories of powerful/powerless that you could not see the pain of the Jewish people.

You have ignored the growing nihilism in our universities. Professors were exhilarated by the actions of Hamas, and you were silent.Imagine if someone had said that after the homophobic attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, or after the attack on Emanuel AME Church in Charleston.

There has been an explosion of antisemitism in this country masquerading as pro-Palestinian support. From the river to the sea is not a cry for a two state solution (which many Jewish organizations have supported). Rather, it is a call for genocide against the Jews of Israel. When crowds at Columbia University chanted Long live intifada! do you not realize that this means the spreading of violence against not Israelis, which would be bad enough but against Jews?

Frankly, I dont get it.

I remember being in fourth grade in our synagogue religious school. Our teacher held up a photograph of Rabbi Arthur Lelyveld of Cleveland, from the New York Times. Rabbi Lelyvelds face was bloody. White supremacists had beaten him during a civil rights march.

That teacher told us: This, boys and girls, is a Jewish hero. Of all my years in synagogue religious school, that is the moment that I remember most vividly.

White supremacists killed Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, along with James Chaney, in 1964 in Mississippi for their civil rights activism. Goodman and Schwerner were New York Jews.

Many American Jews suffered, personally and professionally, because of their support for progressive causes of all kinds long before it was popular, when there were real prices to be paid.

When George Floyd was murdered by a white policeman, we were there with you.

But, when it came to the mutilated bodies of our people; the hostages, whose photos are ripped off lampposts: Where were you?

If you blithely turn away, then I must ask: What did these years of our activism mean to you?That is why I am calling you to account.

Because that is what we must do, as Jews. You must surely reprove your fellow (Leviticus 19).

Because that is what we must do, in order to maintain our self-respect. No other group would be expected to stay silent in the face of such inaction. To do anything less would be to betray our Jewish pride, which is the credentials that we carry into those alliances in the first place.

Do not expect us to cower and to erase ourselves. No ally would expect us to do that, and no ally would maintain respect for us if we chose to do that.

In a Hasidic tale, we learn that the only way to love someone is to know what causes them pain.Our losses have caused us immeasurable pain.Your silence has caused us pain. Together, we will work on listening, and hearing, and being present, and bearing witness.

But, again, we need to ask the first question that anyone asked in the Bible, the question that God asked Adam in the Garden of Eden: Where are you?

Salkin, a rabbi, is a contributing editor to Religion News Service, where he writes Martini Judaism: for those who want to be shaken and stirred. His new book, Tikkun HaAm: Repairing Our People: Israel and the Crisis of Liberal Judaism, will be published by Wicked Son in January 2024.

More here:

An open letter to all of my progressive friends - New York Daily News