Category Archives: Nihilism

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

Sixty years ago, the assassination of JFK violently robbed the country of its chosen future and darkened it for a generation, along with the Vietnam War and the upheaval of the Sixties. For some, grief begat laments and counterfactuals of brighter futures denied and, for others, justifications for a radicalism more poisonous than any previously witnessed in American historyone that plagues the country to this very day.

The sudden, violent murder of President Kennedy in Dallas, Texas convulsed the entire nation. Two aspects distinguished the event from previous assassinations.

First, news of the murder was relayed instantaneously around the world. In the new era of television, everyone knew and experienced a moment of shared universal grief at the same time.

Second, the grief was compounded by the apparent senselessness of the murder. Kennedy was the torchbearer of a new generation promising America a New Frontier; Lee Harvey Oswald, was a disturbed leftist intent on satisfying his own delusions of self-importance.

To those desperate for an explanation, the judgment rendered by journalist James Reston resonated loudly: Somehow the worst in the nation had prevailed over the bestsomething in the nation itself, some strain of madness and violence.

As posited by James Piereson, liberals, in particular, ingested this explanation, agreeing that the real cause of Kennedys murder was a perniciousness latent within America. Despite Oswalds Marxist leanings, this perniciousness could be found in the opponents of progress, such as conservatives whose ideas were no more than irritable mental gestures and the racist reactionaries in nut country.

Indeed, First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, President Lyndon Johnson, and other liberals moved expeditiously to give the tragedy purpose by obscuring Oswalds radical leftism and crafting the myth of JFK as a martyr for civil rights.

According to this narrative, JFK was poised to lead the nation into a new era of race relations. Kennedys civil rights bill would have passed had it not been for the opposition from segregationists (within his own party). In the assassinations aftermath, LBJ attached new urgency to the bill and championed its passage as a tribute to JFK.

Unfortunately, Johnsons successes did not satisfy an increasingly restless segment of the civil rights movement, or a youthful cohort intoxicated by New Left heterodoxy. Dissatisfied leaders called for greater militancy and a departure from peaceful civil disobedience. Riots in numerous cities punctuated the growing frustration and, in response, Johnson appointed a commission to investigate the cause.

In 1968, the commission concluded its study and named the cause: white racism. Putatively, an America recognizing its racist past would be constructive, as it would spur Americans on to examine how to achieve a genuinely color-blind democracy.

The admission of guilt, however, did not satisfy militants; instead, they seized on the conclusion to assert that the entirety of American society was racist. Eventually radicals, black and white, declared themselves in possession of a new consciousnessan awareness of the real truththat granted them the prerogative to condemn and, where possible, rectify such iniquities. Such consciousness amplified the collective guilt hypothesized by Reston.

According to Shelby Steele, this supposed consciousness led the African American community down a fateful path once one realizes the entire system is racist, then one can conclude he or she will always be a victim. Furthermore, any attempt to integrate, seek advancement, or even adhere to prevailing norms would be futile, and more pointedly, would constitute faithlessness to this new consciousness.

The concurrence of black consciousness capitalizing on white guilt resulted in the former communitys trading its newfound freedom for the power to extort obligations from the latter. The latter acceded to these demands because doing so restored a measure of moral authority; by fulfilling the black communitys demands, whites could reassure themselves they were benefactors to black advancement.

In assuming this role, however, white liberals also incautiously accepted the blame for the metastasizing dysfunction within the African American community instead of holding black men and women accountable for the same transgressions they would decry in their own community.

By the mid-70s, white guilt, black consciousness, and New Left radicalism converged in a punitive liberalism that aimed to eradicate the perniciousness underlying a seemingly inexhaustible list of American sinsgreed, racism, xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia, slavery, genocide, environmental destruction, militarism, and imperialism.

Because punitive liberals self-righteously accept collective guilt and possess an enlightened consciousness, they believe themselves justified in constructing an alternate morality and acquiring the authority to enforce it.

In terms of practical politics, punitive liberalism cultivated a network of identity-based interest groups focused on promoting and taking advantage of this sense of historical guilt. In terms of policy, punitive liberalism enacted affirmative action, environmental regulations, and welfare entitlements; abandoned longtime Cold War allies; and, campaigned for unilateral disarmament.

By the end of the 70s, punitive liberal policies had sapped the vitality and ambition of Americans, supplanting the standbys of enterprise and resilience with restrictions and dependency. The ensuing stagnation only convinced punitive liberals of the need for more regulations and welfare.

The vicious cycle slowly ensnared more and more Americans, and cruelly so, just as changing global economic circumstances shifted the U.S. from an industrial economy to a knowledge-based economy.

The new cognitive elite emerged at the vanguard of the modern information economy, and as Charles Murray has explained, it was distinguishable from its agrarian and industrial predecessors in that it had relinquished the obligation to espouse and model the civic and moral virtues that others should emulate if the polity is to remain prosperous and whole.

Indeed, the cognitive elite, increasingly segregated in gated clusters around the country, continues to marry, raise children, earn high incomes, forsake vice, and attend church at rates far greater than the rest of the population. Meanwhile, more and more average Americans succumb to the dysfunctions once only observed in the underclass.

Unburdened by this traditional role, the cognitive elite sought to fundamentally transform the country, which was achievable, in part, if it ensured the enlightenment of the next generation in accordance with its ideological precepts.

While the cognitive elite is prevalent, it is not pervasive. Having failed to achieve the revolution dreamed by its New Left forerunners, punitive liberals have instead sought to capture the entire edifice of Americas educational institutionsfrom primary learning to post-graduate studies.

Christopher Rufo has extensively documented this undertaking whereby leftist radicals have transmuted the dogma of collective guilt and identity consciousness into a pedagogy and curriculum of critical race theory in direct opposition to the Judeo-Christian premises of the American Creed.

This evolution explains how the sunny triumphalism of JFK gave way to the dour defeatism of Jimmy Carter and then the cavalier conceit and condescension of Barack Obama.

This evolution explains how the Democratic Party, home of FDR and Truman, the vanquisher of Nazism and the champion of an independent Israel, became the platform for the anti-Semitic defense of Palestinian radicalism.

This evolution explains how the academic delinquents who accused American soldiers returning from Vietnam of killing babies spawned the faux intellectual elite unapologetically declaring their support for Hamas terrorists who murdered babies.

On this day, Americans lament more than the tragic death of a young president; on this day, Americans lament the nihilism born from those who were incapable of accepting its senselessness.

Read the rest here:

The Two Tragedies of November 22nd - The American Conservative

What are we to make of the frustratingly delayed ceasefire in Gaza?

It had seemed unlikely to happen. Israels Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his goal was to eliminate Hamas. That excluded a ceasefire. Calls for a ceasefire are calls for Israel to surrender to Hamas That will not happen. At most, thered be an hour here, an hour there. Now there will be four days plus likely extensions. But in fact, destroying Hamas was probably not the real goal.

Why? Because in situations like Gaza, a Hamas will always arise: despair leads to nihilism and a primitive theology that reduces your daily hell to good/us vs. evil/them, embracing death and martyrdom as the best of awful outcomes. Even if you kill them all, theyll regenerate, like the doctor in Doctor Who. The only way to eliminate Hamas is to abolish the conditions that keep birthing it.

If so, what was the real aim? Consider what Israel actually did. Its reduced most of Gaza to rubble, through bombing, invasion and a complete siege. It herded most people southward, using official warnings and threats. When/if the assault resumes, the space will be constricted further. What then? Expulsion to Egypt, perhaps, and what a cabinet minister called a Gaza Nakba.

Its happened before, in 48 and 67. Meanwhile in the West Bank, settlers harass Palestinians into abandoning their villages while everyones focused on Gaza. Expulsion was always an open preference on Israels religious right and has moved now to less extreme camps, like the centrist Yesh Atid party. The expulsion option is in the air and there is something harrowing about it.

Exile following expulsion from your land was a leitmotif of Jewish experience for the last 2,000 years, if not entirely in a negative sense. It cant help resonating deeply and toxically. It is doing to them what they did to us except the Palestinians played little part; they werent involved till recently.

Still, expulsion hasnt happened, and looks as if it may not. Why? Partly because compliant, supine Arab regimes like Egypt and Jordan explicitly refused to absorb a Palestinian exodus, perhaps due to fury over the Israeli onslaught from their own populations. Saudi Arabia also demurred, pausing the normalization of its relations with Israel. U.S. President Joe Biden on his part, assured them that the U.S. wouldnt allow the forced relocation of Palestinians. The fact all this had to be put on the public record suggests it was a real possibility.

Biden himself made the sharpest reversal. He initially rushed to Israel to say he had Bibis back in his fight against sheer, or pure, evil. But Biden then applied intense pressure for a ceasefire. Why? Fear of losing in 2024 because of surprisingly high anger about Gaza in his own party, especially among the young. Palestine was supposed to have gone away by now.

Having speculated about this one event which is inevitable in international crises, since we never know and will probably never learn, what was said in private versus the bombastic public hooey let me turn briefly to the larger historical meaning of the event. (This is always a bad idea.)

It feels like part of the decline of unipolar U.S. dominance, what Biden calls the U.S. as the indispensable nation. The U.S. is still deferred to in the West. But elsewhere, deference is being deferred.

In Latin America, most people would happily dispense with U.S. centrality; Asia and Africa are similar. All those nations have internal inequities and serious shortcomings like autocracy and suppression of basic rights. But among both the rulers and the ruled, theyve had sufficient experience with the U.S. imperium to recognize and disdain it.

I base this mainly on the widespread, ongoing Gaza protests, apparently impervious to western media claims about the conflict, and also on particular countries stands, like South Africa and Indonesia.

I know the end of U.S. dominance (finally) has been proclaimed often, so please feel free to pity me for thinking its arrived yet again.

This column originally appeared in the Toronto Star.

Support rabble today!

Were so glad you stopped by! Thanks for consuming rabble content this year.

rabble.ca is 100% reader and donor funded, so as an avid reader of our content, we hope you will consider gifting rabble with a donation during our summer fundraiser today.

Whether it be a one-time donation or a small monthly contribution, your support is critical to keep rabble writers producing the work youve come to rely on as a part of a healthy media diet.

Whether it be a one-time donation or a small monthly contribution, your support is critical to keep rabble writers producing the work youve come to rely on as a part of a healthy media diet.

Become a rabble rouser donate to rabble.ca today.

Nick Seebruch, editor

View original post here:

Speculating on the ceasefire moment in Gaza - rabble.ca

We hear people claim that it is wrong to label something a stigma and that we must not stigmatize people. Some now even assert that we must retire the word pedophile since it stigmatizes people who are erotically attracted to children. Rather, we must speak of a minor-attracted person (or MAP).

A student in one of my classes told me that the word transvestite must not be used, since it stigmatizes cross-dressers. I said that it was a descriptively accurate term for men who dress like women (and vice versa, although that is less common) and that I had not heard of its descent into a derogatory insult. I will continue to use it where appropriate and necessary.

This raises the question of whether anything should be stigmatized. I argue that some stigmas are good and should be applied appropriately. Otherwise, we will sink in a sea of relativism and antinomianism.

One can stigmatize a particular proclivity, behavior, or person while still seeking the well-being of those so stigmatized. The sociologist Erving Goffman defined stigma as an attribute that is deeply discrediting. For example, a convicted pedophile has been correctly discredited to work with young children.

Of course, people can be stigmatized for the wrong reasons, such as their race, physical appearance, handicaps, or other features beyond their control. And those suffering from moral stigmas may repent of them and lead new lives.

However, it is not loving to endorse a sinful bent or behavior. One can correctly assign a stigma without hating or seeking harm for the person so stigmatized. We can stigmatize something without cursing the person who practices the stigmatized behavior. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. (Romans 12:14) We can add this to that command: bless those who are rightfully stigmatized, and do not curse them.

Stigma is an inescapable concept for anyone seeking to make significant moral distinctions. The question for us all is discerning what is stigma-worthy and what is not. For Christians, our test book is the Bible.

Moreover, one should apply the standard used to identify the stigma to oneself first, as Jesus taught:

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brothers eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, Let me take the speck out of your eye, when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brothers eye. (Matthew 7:3-5)

Without proper stigmas, we cannot create or maintain a decent society. We simply cannot accept every action or every lifestyle. Wrongdoing and wrong living are real and should be rejected and shamed. Some desires (such as erotic desires for children) are, in themselves, disordered loves and should be stigmatized as such. Having such disordered desires is not on the order of having brown hair or white skin or being tall. This is the reality of concupiscence, which is due to original sin. Our sinful natures are sexually disordered, to one degree or another, in one way or another.

For Jesus and the Bible as a whole, desires not acted on may also be sinful:

You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matthew 5:27-30)

Some engage in heterosexual lusts and immoral behaviors with adults and have no sexual desire for children. Their concupiscence differs from that of a pedophile. We are all sinners, by nature and by choice, but sin affects each person differently. We are disordered in various ways. However, we should all struggle to master ourselves to walk the narrow path laid out by Jesus. (Matthew 7:13-14)

It is especially important that pedophilic behavior be stigmatized and illegal, since it is tantamount to rape. A culture that countenances pedophilia is an anti-child and anti-God culture. Jesus had strong words for those who mislead or abuse children. (Mark 9:42)

People with pedophilic desires need not act out on these desires and may receive help with this sexual disorder. The same goes for transvestitism. (Deut. 22:5) These desires must not be normalized, since they are morally wrong. They should be stigmatized and, thus, resisted in ones inner and outer life.

The rejection of all stigmas means the descent into nihilism and anarchy. Those who say no to nothing say yes to perversity. But even those who rail against stigmatizing, stigmatize those who stigmatize pedophilia and transvestitism, deeming them as phobic or censorious or worse. So, stigma is an inescapable concept for anyone seeking to make significant moral distinctions.

The question for us all is discerning what is stigma-worthy and what is not. For Christians, our test book is the Bible. This means that we take all that the Bible says as objectively true and we take that objective truth as the standard for analyzing everything else. Notice what Paul writes about Scripture:

the Holy Scripturesare able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:15-17)

The Bible not only teaches the way of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. It is also our standard for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that we are equipped for serving God regarding the truth that God has graciously revealed in the Bible.

The Bible, rightly understood and applied, tells us what to stigmatize and what to praise, as well as which thoughts and actions are commendable and which thoughts and actions are contemptible. Because of this, we should defend the biblical use of stigmas in order to honor Gods moral order and to speak the truth in love to our neighbor. (Ephesians 4:15)

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D. is Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary, and author of World Religions in Seven Sentences.

Originally published at DouglasGroothuis.com. Reprinted with permission.

Read more:

In Defense of Stigma - The Stream

A shopper walks past NHS signage promoting "Stay Home, Save Lives"

At some point during the Covid pandemic the bit between lockdowns, when everything was open but we were still wearing masks and edging gingerly around each other I went into a gift shop, looking for a present for my niece. I had my sister on the phone, and was consulting her about the trinkets on the shelves, when a small, grey-haired woman started hissing at me from across the room.

Excuse me! she whisper-shouted, in a tone of trembling outrage. Dont you know theres a pandemic?

But Im wearing a mask, I replied, blushing with confusion. I took an automatic step towards her and she flattened herself against the wall.

You keep TALKING! she hissed. Tiny particulates can get through the mask!

It was an unsettling encounter, and not just because I felt unfairly reproached. My accuser looked so normal, in her glasses and raincoat and neat bob. She clearly felt herself to be a good, responsible person, trying to enforce Covid-safe behaviour. And yet, she was obviously losing her mind.

This is the constituency that is most easily forgotten when we tot up the casualties of the pandemic. The ones who went quietly, respectably mad. Not the conspiracy theorists, with their lurid fairytales and flamboyant nihilism. But the people who were inclined too inclined to be public-spirited and obedient.

A new study by psychologists at Bangor University has found that the people who stuck most closely to lockdown rules have suffered the worst impact to their mental health. Communal personality types those with a strong sense of duty towards others were most anxious about getting or spreading the infection, and therefore adhered rigidly to the protocols. This in itself must have had an impact on their mental health: the more scrupulous the self-isolation, the worse the loneliness.

The most law-abiding people have also found it hardest to transition back to normality. They miss being told what to do. Lacking regular announcements on how to live now, many are still following infection prevention measures. They are locked into a state of perpetual emergency.

Story continues

Some, it should be admitted, were a bit unravelled already. The hissing woman in the shop was probably always the type to patrol other peoples behaviour, with relish. Being public-spirited does not automatically make you personable or sane.

American universities are distributing handbooks of basic small talk, for a generation of students incapable of making face-to-face conversation. After introducing yourself to a stranger, for example, you should: Stop! Let them tell you their name. This is not the kind of knowledge a university should have to impart. Lockdowns and smartphones have been blamed, but what about the parents? Teaching your offspring good manners by which I dont mean fussy etiquette, but the ability to make other people feel comfortable in your company is an act of love.

A teenager who knows how to talk to grown-ups who can look them in the eye, ask interesting questions and laugh in the right places has a superpower that will never leave them. It will flatter every adult they meet, earning them leniency at school and university. It will help them get their first job, and every job thereafter. Teaching small talk is the single most effective thing you can do to improve your childs prospects: vastly more important than violin lessons or extra maths.

Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month, then enjoy 1 year for just $9 with our US-exclusive offer.

View post:

Pro-lockdown obsessives still long to be told what to do - Yahoo Eurosport UK

Im so weak. I dont think I can make it through this.

Ive had many friends tell me something along those lines over the years. They all thought they werent strong, brave, or resilient. They all thought they were coping terribly with the challenges that life threw in their paths.

And they are all amongst the most mentally strong people I know.

It is sometimes in our fear that we find courage, in our anger that we find meaning, and in our vulnerability that we find strength.

Here are the 8 signs youre a mentally strong person, too even if you dont think so.

It sounds so simple, yet plenty of people out there are the exact opposite theyre stuck in a victim mindset, blaming everything and anything for the misfortunate theyve co-created for themselves.

But if youre mentally strong, theres a high chance youre not like that. On the contrary, you always take accountability for your actions, no matter if theyre good or bad.

If you make a mistake, you admit to it. If you hurt someone, you apologize and change your behavior.

This is because you understand that despite the limited control that we have over our lives, we do carry a lot of responsibility for how we react to what happens to us.

You may not always be able to choose your circumstances, but you can always choose your approach.

You may not be able to influence other peoples actions, but you can always remain in charge of your own actions, as well as your thoughts.

Since most of our life isnt within our control for example, you didnt choose the body you were born in, nor the country, nor the socio-economic situation, nor the fact that your boss is annoying and that its raining today its actually very common for people to try to grasp for any control they can get their hands on.

They obsess over minuscule things. They plan too far into the future. They let anxiety swallow them whole. They keep trying to butt their noses into other peoples business.

Little do they know that true power isnt about having as much control as possible its about the art of letting go. Of letting be. Of stepping back.

If a friend doesnt reciprocate the time and energy you invest in the relationship, you let them go no matter how much it hurts.

If your new job doesnt seem to be the right fit for you, you find a different position even if it means changing your priorities and rethinking your goals.

No, you dont always get it right. But thats okay. You dont have to be perfect to be mentally strong you just have to keep trying.

Do you know what true resilience is?

Its not facing challenges without a scratch. Its getting a dozen scratches, feeling the pain, and as they form into scars, your newfound skills make it easier for you to only get half a dozen the next time.

Its okay to be scared. Its okay to struggle. But if youre mentally strong, it means you incorporate all those struggles into who you are and grow stronger as a result.

It means you learn your lesson. And it means you emerge stronger and wiser, proud of how far youve come.

On a similar note, we usually think of mentally strong people as those who dont crumble under the weight of obstacles. Those who never cry. Those who always remain optimistic, no matter what.

But we rarely see those people in the comfort of their own bedrooms, right? We rarely see them weep into their pillow, stare at the ceiling late into the night as they doubt their decisions, and try to calm their nerves as anxiety storms through them.

The truth is, the strongest people I know arent the coldest ones. Theyre the ones who are in touch with their feelings. The ones who arent afraid to cry, laugh, or admit that theyre nervous.

Theyre the ones who dont shy away from their vulnerability. Instead, they embrace it.

We all doubt ourselves from time to time.

What if my partner doesnt love me anymore?

What if Im not talented enough?

What if I lose everything Ive worked so hard for?

However, what defines mental strength isnt the fact that you doubt yourself. Its how much power you let those doubts have over you.

At the end of the day, thoughts are just that: thoughts. You only give them power if you focus on them and magnify them, turning them into an issue.

But if you accept that your thoughts are just there, rolling through you in the same way clouds roll through the sky, you wont be as likely to yield to doubts and fears.

Life is essentially meaningless.

We dont know why were here. We dont know if we have some inner purpose or if our whole existence is just a lucky coincidence.

But while youre here, you might just as well create your own meaning.

This is the core principle of optimistic nihilism, and its also what many resilient people have in common while they accept the fact the universe may be meaningless, they dont give up on meaning altogether.

No, they go out into the world and forge their own path.

The fact that you go after your dreams, that you are keen to learn more about the world and yourself, and that you dont give up on yourself even if things get hard

It means youre creating meaning. It means youre stronger than you think.

Its not easy to remain disciplined, and even though you often falter, you push yourself when it truly matters.

However, theres more to pushing ones limits than you might think.

If you just push and push, youll soon burn out, stretching yourself way too far way too soon.

This is why mentally strong people approach self-improvement with care. They dont hurl themselves into ten new habits overnight.

No, they take it step by step. They push, but they also know when to loosen up a little, when to take a break, and when to have some self-compassion.

Discipline mixed with self-love is where true strength is born.

Ive had to learn this the hard way.

For most of my life, I relied on external validation so much that I felt like I had to earn other peoples love and admiration through competitions, good grades, and professional success.

But during lockdown, there was none of that to keep me going. For the first time ever, I had to look myself in the eye and find my self-worth from within. I had to accept that I was worthy of love even if there were no As to strive for, no rewards to win, and no people to impress.

And when the lockdown was over, I was stronger than ever before.

You dont have to take on a large challenge, win a shiny medal, or do something impressive to be strong.

The fact that you can accept yourself as you are now thats what makes you strong.

See the original post:

8 signs you're a mentally strong person (even if you don't think so) - Hack Spirit

There were moments, last week, whenif not for the first timeDonald Trump seemed out of control. On Monday, at a rally in Derry, New Hampshire, he compared himself to Nelson Mandela; said that he had to save the country from fascists, Marxists, Communists, and sick people; mimed a fistfight with Joe Biden (Poom! Poom! Poom! Id hit him right in that fake nose!); and went on a rant about seeing six-month-old McDonalds containers in the streets of Washington, D.C. Being in real estate, he said, I always kept clean properties, I like clean, clean, well-run, you know, tippy-top, we say tippy-top. We want them to be tippy-top. Well, our capital is the opposite of tippy-top! Its a shithouse.

Two days later, he stomped out of a New York City courtroom, after Judge Arthur Engoron refused to deliver a mid-trial verdict in his favor in a civil case alleging that he had fraudulently inflated the valuations of his tippy-top properties. During a break, hed told reporters that the judge was a partisan, with a person whos very partisan sitting alongside of him. Engorons clerk was sitting next to him; on Truth Social, Trump had described her, fantastically, as the girlfriend of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. That post had led to a narrow gag order. Now, asked by Engoron to take the stand, Trump claimed that the very partisan person hed referred to was actually his former fixer, Michael Cohen, who was testifying that day; Engoron told Trump that he wasnt credible and fined him ten thousand dollars. It was an ignominious and bizarre prelude to the four criminal cases Trump is facing, in D.C., Florida, Georgiawhere the prosecution recently secured four guilty pleas from his co-defendantsand New York. (He has denied any wrongdoing.)

But the comments that Trump made during another courtroom break last Wednesday suggest that, in one respect, he is very much in control. This time yesterday, nobody was thinking of Mike, he said, referring to Representative Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana. And then we put out the word and now hes the Speaker of the House. That is a fair statement. Trump is delusional on many subjects, but Johnsons strange ascent suggests that he is clear-eyed about the hold he has on congressional Republicans.

The G.O.P. House caucus had seemed to be in a state of anarchy in the past few weeks. On October 3rd, in a coup engineered by Representative Matt Gaetz, Kevin McCarthy was voted out as Speaker, ostensibly because he had worked with Democrats to keep the government open; but the maneuver may simply have been a product of Gaetzs demonstrated narcissism. (Although Gaetz denies it, it might also have been a reaction to a pending ethics inquiry, which he has portrayed as politically motivated.) He didnt seem to know who might replace McCarthyit just had to be a thorough Trumpist.

Next came the fight between Steve Scalise, the Majority Leader, and Jim Jordan, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, both of whom are in Trumps camp. Scalise has a more senior role, but apparently he had an enemy in McCarthy, for reasons having to do with each mans ambitions. Jordan had been deeply involved in Trumps efforts to hold on to power after the 2020 election, and Trump gave him the nod, which helped scuttle Scalises bid. However, some Republicans balked at Jordan; there was talk of his being a bit too January 6th-associated for swing districts, but the real problem seems to have been his loud style and the thuggish approach his allies took to lobbying for votes.

By the time Jordan was voted down, the dysfunction was embarrassing. Congresss inability to move forward on any legislation in the absence of a Speaker was causing concern internationally, leaving further aid for Ukraine and Israel (and for civilians in Gaza) uncertain. The trouble was that the Republicans next candidate, Tom Emmer, while being a Trump supporter, had voted to certify the 2020 election. He tried to make up for that last week by abasing himself before Trump. After Trump informed reporters that Emmer had called me yesterday and told me, Im your biggest fan, Emmer hurried to post a video of the remarks on X, adding, Thank you, Mr. President.

It wasnt good enough. On Truth Social, Trump wrote, I believe he has now learned his lesson, because he is saying that he is Pro-Trump all the way, but who can ever be sure? Has he only changed because thats what it takes to win?, and he dismissed Emmer as a Globalist RINO. Emmer dropped out within hours. The message was that it is not sufficient to pay homage to Trumpyou have to really feel it.

Mike Johnson seems to really feel it. He was elected as a freshman in 2016 and gained a foothold in the House by championing Trump on matters ranging from the would-be Muslim ban to the first impeachment trial, in which he was part of Trumps defense team. He spoke ecstatically about the President returning his calls, and got to fly on Air Force One. He, too, was involved in Trumps strategizing after the 2020 election, which Johnson suggested had been rigged with the help of Dominion voting machinesa thoroughly discredited conspiracy theory. Johnson rallied a hundred and twenty-five colleagues to sign on to an amicus-curiae brief in a case brought by Texas to invalidate the electoral votes of Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. (The Supreme Court declined to hear it.) If the 2024 election is contested, one can imagine how Trump might insist on Johnson using the Speakers gavel to help him.

Before running for office, Johnson was a lawyer for conservative Christian causes, and has written that he views homosexual relationships as unnatural. The climate crisis, on the other hand, is something he has presented as naturalnot chiefly to be blamed on human activity. On Thursday, he told Sean Hannity that the issue with mass shootings was not guns. Supposedly, the Party was willing to elect him without a single dissenting vote because he is very friendly. But Johnsons affability is just another version of Jordans irascibility or Gaetzs awfulness: a personal factor that fuels or settles squabbles within a closed, Trumpist circle.

Despite the spectacle of infighting, there is a sense in which the G.O.P. has rarely been so unifiedbehind Trump. He may be the only thing that brings the Party together, even as he imbues it with his own brand of nihilism. The Speakership race is not the only Republican contest he has been in control of. He was in New Hampshire the day of the rally to file his paperwork for that states Presidential primary. Hes still more than forty points ahead of any other Republican candidate in national polls.

See more here:

Trump Gets Fined in Court but Wins in the House - The New Yorker

Democracys main agenda is to outlive fascism, autocracy and nihilism by whatever means necessary.

When fascism was originally outlined, its objective was to become a bulwark against Marxism; it did not foresee a conflict with democracies in America and Europe. As it developed in different parties, the contradictions became obvious in Germany in the 1930s.

America faces another version of fascism, which has been simmering for a long time in the GOP. And again, as could be expected, it is in conflict with the goals of democracy.

But are we sure what the goals of a democratic society are? America is proudly pluralistic, but life today is experienced collectively by the new agendas that concern the planet we live on, what we read and who we love; these are big questions.

Included also are the struggles to defeat racism, sexism and the linchpin of American-style fascism theocracy.

America is colorful, queer and, in its diversity, intersectional, which means one can be religious and gay; Black or Latino and impoverished; or a woman with a disability. These are boundary-crossing experiences that multiply empathy.

The Republican Party is afraid of these positive ways of thinking about mutual responsibility and would bring the country to a level of cruelty unforgivable in a democratic society. Confronting fascism on the battlefield has already been done and we won; now the struggle is at home, and we do not need guns and bombs to defeat fascists. We need to vote them out.

Egon de Uriarte

Lancaster

Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.

Error! There was an error processing your request.

See the article here:

The challenges to democracy [letter] | Letters To The Editor ... - LNP | LancasterOnline