Category Archives: Nihilism

NewsBusters (press release) (blog)

Pathetic: 'The View' Suggests Cuba, US Have Same Human Rights Records NewsBusters (press release) (blog) There was also a detectable level of contempt for Trump voters by the progressive panelists, most evidently Joy Behar's bit of nihilism: Well, the other thing is that he didn't really do that much and he didn't undo what Obama did 100%, but did just ...

Here is the original post:

Pathetic: 'The View' Suggests Cuba, US Have Same Human Rights Records - NewsBusters (press release) (blog)

Some time back I wrote about an ageing man in Karachi who had travelled to Egypt to fight against the Israeli military during the 1967 Egypt-Israel war. After the war (which lasted just six days and saw the Israelis wiping out the Soviet-backed Egyptian forces), the man travelled to Jordan where he joined Yasir Arafats Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). He was soon sent to a village on the LebanonIsrael border to mount guerrilla attacks against Israeli border guards.

During the planning of one such attack, the PLO squad he was part of split when there arose a possibility that the attack might cause civilian casualties. He told me that the majority of the men in his squad were against killing civilians and refused to take part in the attack which was eventually aborted. The man returned to Pakistan and set up a tea stall on Karachis I.I. Chundrigar Road. The reason I repeat this story here is to contextualise the mutation of the idea of modern Muslim militancy and/or how drastically it has changed in the last four decades or so.

Professor of Political Science at Indiana University, James Lutz, in his 2005 book Terrorism: Origins & Evolution wrote that most European left-wing and Palestinian guerrilla groups, between the 1960s and late 1970s, largely avoided inflicting civilian casualties because they wanted the media and the people to sympathise with them.

This is not to suggest that civilian deaths were always entirely avoided; it is however true that many militant groups often suffered splits within their ranks on this issue. The most wellknown split in this context (and regarding Muslim militancy) was the one between Yasir Arafat and Abu Nidal in the PLO in 1974. Arafat had decided to abandon armed militancy and chart a more political course. Nidal on the other hand not only wanted to continue pursuing militancy but wanted to intensify it even further. He formed the violent Abu Nidal Organisation (ANO) which, by the 1980s, had become a notorious mercenary outfit for various radical Arab regimes in Libya, Iraq and Syria.

Even the anti-Soviet mujahideen in Afghanistan - the forerunners of devastating Islamist outfits such as Al-Qaeda - were conscious of receiving good press and public sympathy by avoiding civilian casualties. In spite of being heavily indoctrinated by CIA and Saudi-funded clerics in Afghanistan and Pakistan to embrace death as a religious duty, the mujahideen did not use suicide bombings, not even against Soviet forces.

The first-ever suicide bombing involving Muslim militants took place in Beirut in 1983 when a member of the Hezbollah drove a truck laden with explosives into a compound full of US military personnel. Yet, it was not until the 1990s, when so-called Islamic militants, many of who had never used violence against civilians during the Afghan insurgency, began to attack soft civilian targets in various Muslim-majority countries.

In his excellent 2004 BBC documentary, Power of Nightmares, film-maker Adam Curtis noted that those who fought in Afghanistan were made to believe (by their facilitators in the US and Saudi Arabia) that it was their religious war which downed a superpower in Kabul - many such fighters returned to their home countries and tried to overthrow the existing governments there.

Since this time they were trying to uproot Muslim regimes (and not atheist communists), Curtis suggests that they believed that they could trigger uprisings among the people against corrupt Muslim regimes by creating revolutionary chaos in the society. Thus, car bombs began to explode in public places and, as Curtis then notes, once these failed to generate the desired uprisings, suicide bombings became common when the militants became desperate.

It is also vital to note that suicide bombings, despite the fact that suicide is explicitly forbidden in Islam because it challenges Gods authority over life and death, was hardly ever condemned even by the supposedly apolitical and non-militant religious figures. This was especially true between the 1990s and the mid-2000s and largely because most Muslims were still stuck in the quagmire of the glorified narratives of divinely-charged bravado diffused by Muslim and US propagandists during the antiSoviet insurgency. For example, in Pakistan, suicide bombings were not condemned till 2014. Even as 50,000 people lost their lives to terror attacks between 2004 and 2014, many non-militant religious figures, reactionary media personalities and socalled experts were continuing to see sheer nihilist violence (in the name of faith) as reactions to state oppression, poverty, corruption, drone attacks, anything other than total nihilist madness. Nihilism.

Thats exactly what it really is. Famous French academic, author and a long-time expert on Islamic militancy, Oliver Roy, recently wrote in The Guardian (13 April, 2017) that the nihilist dimension is central to understanding the unprecedented brutality of outfits such as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and especially the militant Islamic state (IS) group.To them violence is not a means. It is an end in itself. Such nihilism that wants to wipe out existing social, cultural and political modes and structures of civilisation through apocalyptic violence has been used before in varied forms and in the name of varied ideologies.

Nazis in Germany did it in the name of Aryan supremacy; Mao Tse Tung in China did it in the name of permanent (communist) revolution; and the Khmer Rouge did it in Cambodia, by wiping out thousands of Cambodians and announcing communisms Year Zero.

But since Islamic nihilists are still in the shape of insurgents (and not part of any state), Roy sees them more as large apocalyptic death cults who this time just happen to be using Islam as a war cry, mainly because this gives them immediate media coverage. He writes that just as disturbed teens and confused angry youth become easy recruits for cults promising them an identity (in return for total obedience to a charismatic leader), contemporary nihilists and death cults posing as Islamic outfits attract exactly the same kind of following.

Whats more, after painstakingly going through the profiles of known young men and women who decided to join such cults and willed themselves to carry out the murder of civilians and of themselves, Roy found that only a tiny number of them were ever actually involved in any political movements before their entry into the outfit. Roy noted that most wereborn again Muslims who had suddenly become very vocal about their beliefs and then were rapidly drawn in by the many recruitment tactics of nihilist cults operating as Islamic outfits around the world.

Most telling is the fact that religious figures in Muslim countries had continued to see the nihilists as a radical expression and extension of the glories of the Afghan insurgency-only to now realise that to the nihilists they too are as much infidels as the Soviets were, or the Westerners are.

Dawn/ ann

Originally posted here:

Death cults - The Statesman

I just saw Wonder Woman last night, and I have not reacted this emotionally to a movie since Brokeback Mountain.

I get why women are reacting so positively to the movie; as a gay man, I know that my well-being in society is inextricably tied up in womens empowerment and there was something about this movie that went beyond seeing a woman as a superhero.

Last year, America saw a qualified woman run for president and lose to a completely unqualified man who didnt even get more votes than her. It was a scary glimpse of just how broken the political system is.

Even though production began well before the election last November, Wonder Woman feels like a direct response to that feeling of injustice.

Here are 5 reasons why Wonder Women is exactly the movie America needs right now.

Wonder Woman, aka Diana Prince, is a warrior-princess who leaves the secluded island of the Amazons during World War I on a mission to kill Ares, the Greek god of war, and save humanity.

With such an ambitious project, shes going to need allies. I was expecting a lot of Mad Men-esque Look at how un-sexist we are in 2017! nonsense. I was expecting half the movie to be about men telling her she cant fight because shes a lady, about men who feel useless next to a powerful woman, about men saying that they cant follow a woman into battle.

Even if the men come around by the end of the movie, it still would have been a movie about men and sexism. Thats a topic that needs to be discussed, but what about just putting that aside for two hours? Envisioning a world without a certain problem is necessary to fighting that problem.

In Wonder Woman, Diana just rocks, the men recognize that, and they help her and follow her into battle. Its as simple as that.

No lies, no looking into every moment of her past for a flaw, no double standards. Shes obviously awesome, and people want her on their side.

Diana has a way of floating above the other characters. Shes not really a part of their world, and shes not just a fish out of water. Shes has high ideals and she makes no apologies for them.

Moral complexity in fiction is great, but theres a difference between moral complexity and nihilism. Seeing the flaws in all sides of a conflict is important, but its frustrating for that to be an excuse for inaction.

Wonder Woman herself knows that humans are more complicated than good versus evil, but she doesnt take that to the place where theres nothing worth valuing in this world.

Trumps campaign was all about nihilism: what have you got to lose? Everything is awful, so I cant make it worse. The media blew Clintons flaws out of proportion to make it seem like Both Sides Do It, and I had supposedly progressive friends tell me they just wanted to see him burn everything down because everything is so terrible.

Diana fights for love, honor, and justice in an age when nihilism is chic. And its just so refreshing.

Why does Diana Prince want to save the world?

Well, if the world needs to be saved, then someones got to do it!

Theres nothing wrong with her that makes her fight. Theres no troubled past, no one she wants to avenge. Yes, troubled heroes can be great to watch, but why does every female superhero have to have a dark past that makes her want to help others?

Wonder Woman doesnt need an excuse. Shes just a good person.

It reminds me of another famous woman who devoted most of her life to helping others out and faced decades of scrutiny because some people just couldnt believe that a woman would want the most powerful job in the world for any reason besides personal gain.

One of Wonder Womans main themes is whether humanity deserves to be saved. We can be pretty terrible, so why should someone so good trouble herself with helping us?

Especially since she trained hard since she was a child to be the person that she is today. Couldnt everyone else just try harder instead of depending on her?

Superhero stories dont usually raise these questions, but Wonder Woman went there and made it central to the story.

Dianas answer to that big question is just so right-on: who cares about merit when theres so much need?

So many times have I heard some permutation of Why should we have to help someone who could have done X or Y? in political arguments, which then gets the conversation bogged down in whether its reasonable to expect people to do X or Y.

Diana gets that question thrown at her time and again, but shes not deterred. Ultimately theres no way to prove or disprove that people deserve because there is no objective standard to determine merit. Instead, whats important are our beliefs.

Diana is an Amazon princess who is trying to find Ares and kill him. In the 20th century.

So some people think shes crazy.

In the end, the problems are more complex than she thought they would be, but fundamentally shes right.

Diana is more idealistic than everyone around her, has a vastly different belief system, is a strong woman in a world run by men, and holds fast to her sense of duty and justice.

And she gets to be right, dammit.

Read the original here:

5 reasons why 'Wonder Woman' is the superhero movie America needs right now - LGBTQ Nation

Jewish Chronicle

If the choice is hard-right or hard-left, I choose Lib Dem futility Jewish Chronicle In our nihilism, we have tended to vote Liberal Democrat but with as much enthusiasm as a supermarket cashier greeting their 1,000th customer of the day. Our depression dates back to the accession of Ed Miliband to the Labour leadership. It was he ... and more »

View post:

If the choice is hard-right or hard-left, I choose Lib Dem futility - Jewish Chronicle

Sleekly shaven-headed, with a pirate bandana, a gangstas dripped-in-death tattoos, and the liquid stare of an Arabian prince, Tupac Shakur was the matinee idol of hip-hop superstars: not the fiercest rapper, not the most virtuosic or visionary, but a figure of hard ferocity who elevated street nihilism by fusing it with a certain lovesexy bravura. For a while, he was as much a movie star as he was a rap star (and he would have been a bigger one had his legal troubles not scared off the Hollywood establishment). On some level, Tupacs life always seemed like a movie playing out in front of you not just the hair triggers of bloodshed, but his whole contradictory dance of activism and thuggery, commitment and celebrity.

All Eyez on Me, the messy, hugely flawed, but fascinating biographical drama that has now been made about him, channels those contradictions, even if it doesnt always know what to do with them. Comprehensive but sketchy, richly atmospheric but often under-dramatized, it is not, in the end, a very good movie (there are a few scenes, like Tupacs initial meeting with Ted Field of Interscope Records, that are embarrassingly bad). Yet its highly worth seeing, because in its volatility and hunger, and the desperation of its violence, it captures something about the space in which Tupac Shakur lived: a place that wanted to be all about pride and power, but was really about flying over the abyss.

The film is 2 hours and 20 minutes long, and considering that Tupac was only 25 years old when he was gunned down in a drive-by shooting in Las Vegas on Sept. 7, 1996, that should be enough time to tell his story with intimacy and flow. Yet All Eyez on Me, directed by the music-video veteran Benny Boom, is an old-school biopic that reminds you why old-school biopics faded: It has that overly sprawling, one-thing-after-another quality that can make you feel like youre seeing the cinematic version of a Wikipedia entry.

That said, Demetrius Shipp Jr., who plays Tupac, carries you through. He looks astonishingly like the rap star, but Shipp also fills out Tupac emotionally, showing us the smiley high-school student who prided himself on his success in the theater we see him cast as the lead in Hamlet as well as the surly, neglected adolescent who was raised by his mother, the former Black Panther Afeni Shakur, to take a never-ending stance of defiance. Afeni is played by Danai Gurura (who would have been perfect as Nina Simone), and Gurura makes her a ruthlessly intelligent analyst of the white power structure who is nevertheless consumed by a rage that has no outlet (at one point, she turns to crack).

Its no wonder that Tupac grows up to be a militant without a cause. He can see the injustice around him, and when hes arrested in Oakland for jaywalking (when was the last time a white person got arrested for jaywalking? Answer: never), the sadism of the police is like a nightstick to the soul. Yet each new way that he chooses to define his manhood as a rap star; as a fighter with thug-life cred who will walk, lips snarled, into any confrontation; as a stud; as an activist leader in the new era of rap-as-racial-politics becomes, for him, a highly self-conscious performance. He turns into a badass outlaw hip-hop demigod who is playing the role of a badass outlaw hip-hop demigod.

Theres a facile framing device, with Tupac explaining (and defending) his life in a prison interview that takes place during the nine months he spent at the Clinton Correctional Facility in 1995. The movie than flashes back to his New York childhood, his jarring moves to Baltimore and Oakland, the close friendship he formed in his teens with Jada Pinkett (Kat Graham), his shot at stardom when he was asked to join Digital Underground, his 1992 role as a stone-cold sociopath in Juice (a role he acted brilliantly, and that was said by some to have had an influence on his off-screen behavior), and his mesmerizing early solo videos for tracks like Same Song (his first lead with Digital Underground) and the scabrous social-protest rap Brendas Got a Baby. But its only after he goes to jail that the movie finds its footing.

All Eyez on Me presents the incident that resulted in rape charges that were brought against Tupac and members of his entourage (he was convicted of first-degree sexual abuse) in a way that completely exonerates him; the truth may have been murkier. Once hes in prison, however, his life and career look like theyre in ruins. Tosave himself, he signs a record deal with the devil: Marion Suge Knight, the fearsome 350-pound giant-cigar-chomping entrepreneur of Death Row Records, who enjoys a supreme distinction among the rappers and producers he employs and lords it over hes the only one among them who isnt playing at being a gangsta.

Dominic L. Santana, who plays Knight, captures the underworld moguls self-righteous menace, and the second half of the movie, in which Shakur finds his greatest success, records his greatest song (the momentous California Love), and experiences his greatest existential confusion while at Death Row, is the ominous heart of All Eyez on Me. Its not just hes surrounded by back-stabbers and glad-handers, as well as musicians like Dr. Dre (Harold House Moore, in an underwritten role) and Snoop Dogg (Jarrett Ellis, who gets the voice but not the snakish cunning). In essence, Tupac is still in prison, trapped not just in a three-album contract but in a stance of outlaw brutishness thats become, in his own mind, political: the only stance the white man will allow him.

But his mother said it best: This is really the systems way of handing him the tools to destroy himself. Once his friendship with Biggie Smalls (Jamal Woolard) breaks down, the fabled East CoastWest Coast rap war becomes, in the movies view, a violent form of tap-dancing, with Tupac and Biggie deluded into thinking that their taunts and boasts mean something.

Who killed Tupac Shakur? All Eyez on Me doesnt say, but it least it spares us the soul-sapping diversion of conspiracy theory. In all likelihood, Tupac was killed in a tit-for-tat piece of gang violence that had nothing to do with the rap wars. What the movie captures is that Tupacs absorption through showbiz, then through the empire of Suge Knight into the role of gangsta sociopath was the insidious illusion that sealed his fate. It was a role he relished playing, and he did it brilliantly; he convinced the toughest audience there was himself. But the only thing about the role that was entirely real was his death.

Reviewed at Magno, New York, June 14, 2017. MPAA Rating: R. Running time: 140 MIN.

A Summit Entertainment/Lionsgate release of a Morgan Creek Productions, Program Pictures, Codeblack Films production. Producers: David T. Robinson, L.T. Hutton, James G. Robinson. Executive producer: Wayne Morris.

Director: Benny Boom. Screenplay: Jeremy Haft, Eddie Gonzalez, Steven Bagatourian. Camera (color, widescreen): Peter Menzies Jr. Editor: Joel Cox.

Demetrius Shipp Jr., Danai Gurira, Kat Graham, Dominic L. Santana, Jamal Woolard, Jarrett Ellis, Brandon Suave, Harold House Moore, Lauren Cohan, Hill Harper.

See more here:

Film Review: 'All Eyez on Me' - Variety

Student Edge

Movie Review: Rough Night Student Edge Rough Night, to its credit but also maybe to its detriment, walks back the from the brink of total nihilism by retroactively justifying the accidental murder, which will at least make the movie more palatable for any reasonable person who draws the ... and more »

Read more here:

Movie Review: Rough Night - Student Edge

American Christianity today is beset by political gloom. This gloominess is certainly evident in this years best seller on faith and politics: Rod Drehers The Benedict Option, which David Brooks hails as the most important religious book of the decade.

Inspired by the philosophy of Alasdair MacIntyre, Dreher argues that the modern West is living under [the] barbarism of moral permissiveness, secularism and individualism. In this new Dark Age, public morality is all about individualistic relativism and moral choices are nothing more than expressions of what the choosing individual feels is right. Gone are the traditional virtue communities of yesteryear. Faith is in decline. In its place barbarians with designer suits and smart phones dominate democracies in the name of a hostile secular nihilism.

Dreher believes that Christians have been slow to recognize this fait accompli. What it demands of them is forming local communities of committed believers who preserve virtue for a future flowering of civilization. Failure to do so will doom our children and our childrens children to assimilation.

Given Drehers alarming call to do battle in the modern world, Julin Carrns new book, Disarming Beauty, which asks Christians to lay down their arms and enter the public square with joy and confidence, may seem wildly nave. Yet Carrns argument deserves careful consideration by Christians attracted to the Benedict Option.

Carrn is a Catholic theologian, priest and leader of the movement Communion and Liberation (in which, full disclosure, I participate). Carrn shares similar anxieties about the modern spiritual crisis of nihilism (anxieties that I, incidentally, think are overblown). But, in sharp contrast to Dreher, Carrn does not think Christians should disown contemporary society as a new Dark Age.

This is because todays secular democracies were partly built by Christians (in collaboration with others) and reflect a deep affirmation of their faith. Indeed, Carrn notes, the church in the first centuries was founded on the revolutionary distinction between the two cities, between God and Caesar. Similarly, a secular society maintains a clear and crucial distinction between the church and stately power. A genuinely open, secular public space is thus not a disadvantage to Christianity but rather an assurance against the perennial temptation to use power instead of love to spread faithwhat Carrn calls the temptation of hegemony. This temptation, as Carrn relates, is, unfortunately, something to which Christians frequently succumb. Thus, despite real tensions and disagreements, there remains a profound harmony between Christianity and [the] Enlightenment.

Secularism is not the enemy of Christianity but a historic opportunity for the church to live its witness authentically and unarmed. But Carrn also makes clear that the individual freedom defended by secular democracies is not simply an inconvenience necessary for avoiding the temptation of hegemony. Rather, from the Christian perspective, freedom is the most precious gift heaven gave to humanity. Indeed, there is no real faith without freedom to reject that faith.

When scandalized by others freedom, Carrn insists that Christians should return to the model of Jesus who never forced or coerced conversion. Instead, Jesus always began from the heart or desires of the individual in front of him.

For this reason, Carrn stresses Jesus famous parable of the prodigal son whose father gives him his inheritance early so he may fully pursue his freedom and desires even to the point of complete moral dissipation. Why does the father not intervene by the use of force? Why is he not scandalized by the muck of his sons desires?

Central to the Christian claim is that every human heart has a desire for the infinite, such that every other desire remains restlessly unsatisfied until a relationship with God is formed. Jesus recognized that real faith must always pass through the free desire of the human heart. Instead of coercion, Jesus approach was to offer people a bigger, more engaging love.

Carrn insists that this is why the earliest Christians did not focus on saving civilization but instead desired intensely to mix with Jew or Greek, to present to everyone a truly desirable humanity. This means that Christians, above all people, should affirm individual freedomallowing others to test out their desires and see if anything else will satisfy them. Indeed, Christians should even love this journey, this dramatic destiny of all Gods prodigal sons, who demand their inheritances and test their desires.

By contrast, Drehers book is filled with a deep ambivalence about individual freedom. Although he insists that Christians need the freedoms of the modern state to carry out their Benedict Options, he at the same time wants to denounce this state for its inadequate goal of facilitating and expanding human choice. Drehers project both denounces and requires the secular spaces of freedom he so distrusts.

This is very different from Carrns insistence that Christians should embrace the drama of freedom. According to Carrn, it is clear that returning to a society based on Christian laws is against the very nature of Christianity. Instead, Christians should seek to affirm and revitalize a space of freedom in which nothing is imposed by anyone and a society forms in which each person can freely contribute to its construction, offering his own witness.

It is difficult to imagine a position more diametrically opposed to Drehers belief that following your own heart, no matter what society says, or the church...is devastating to every kind of social stability. Thus, although Dreher at one point hints that Carrns Communion and Liberation is possibly in the spirit of the Benedict Option, he is clearly wrong.

Ultimately, Carrn believes Christians should come to the modern space of freedom armed with nothing but the beauty and attractiveness of their lives. The authentic Christian is not afraid of having to live in todays cultural pluralism without special legal privileges.

In spaces of individual freedom, Christians do not evangelize by withdrawing but by forming friendships. In chapter after chapter, Carrn insists that Christianity did not begin with a moral system or assent to dogmatic claims but with Jesus, who offered his companionship. Faith, in other words, begins as a relationshipas a willingness to fall in love with and accompany others. Far from embattled retraction, Christians today should see their politics as one of friendship: of being able to embrace and stay with the Other. And not because the Other is a burdensome duty but because the Other is a good.

Once again the model is Christ. Carrn recounts how in the Gospels the Pharisees thought Zacchaeus needed moral correction. But Jesus instead puts his trust in a real relationship. To the great chagrin and scandal of the Pharisees, Jesus asks to eat at Zacchaeuss house. In other words, Jesus sees Zacchaeus with all his imperfections and confusions and still loves him.

Carrn believes the great danger for Christians today lies in reducing their faith to a new Pelagianism, or the erroneous doctrine that the faithful save themselves through their efforts. In this light, Drehers call for civilizational action and virtuous withdrawal does not place sufficient trust in the essence of Christianitynamely, relationships with others.

Over and over again, Carrn seems to ask: If Christianity is true, what do Christians really have to fear?

See more here:

The book Christians should read instead of 'The Benedict Option' - America Magazine

By Gustavo Solimeo, February 24, 2010 |

Anyone who examines the ideology of socialism will see the contrast between the socialist doctrine and the doctrine of the Church.All the same, it is not out of place to review the condemnation of the popes starting with Pius IX and ending with Benedict XVI. Thus, we present what the popes have to say about socialism as they condemn the socialist doctrine thoroughly and entirely. This is not a comprehensive compilation, but just some samples.

Blessed Pope Pius IX (1846-1878):

Overthrow [of] the entire order of human affairs

You are aware indeed, that the goal of this most iniquitous plot is to drive people to overthrow the entire order of human affairs and to draw them over to the wicked theories of this Socialism and Communism, by confusing them with perverted teachings. (Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, December 8, 1849)

Pope Leo XIII, Annum Ingressi, Apostolic Letter twenty-fifth year of our Apostolic Ministry

Leo XIII (1877-1903): Socialists assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law.

LEO XIII (1878-1903):

Hideous monster

communism, socialism, nihilism, hideous deformities of the civil society of men and almost its ruin. (Encyclical Diuturnum, June 29, 1881)Ruin of all institutions

For, the fear of God and reverence for divine laws being taken away, the authority of rulers despised, sedition permitted and approved, and the popular passions urged on to lawlessness, with no restraint save that of punishment, a change and overthrow of all things will necessarily follow. Yea, this change and overthrow is deliberately planned and put forward by many associations of communists and socialists (Encyclical Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, n. 27).

A sect that threatens civil society with destruction

We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost barbarous names, are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, no longer seek the shelter of secret meetings, but, openly and boldly marching forth in the light of day, strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever. Surely, these are they who, as the sacred Scriptures testify, Defile the flesh, despise dominion and blaspheme majesty. (Jud. 8). (Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)

Socialists debase the natural union of man and woman and assail the right of property

They [socialists, communists, or nihilists] debase the natural union of man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples; and its bond, by which the family is chiefly held together, they weaken, or even deliver up to lust. Lured, in fine, by the greed of present goods, which is the root of all evils, which some coveting have erred from the faith (1 Tim. 6:10.3), they assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law; and by a scheme of horrible wickedness, while they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title of lawful inheritance, or by labor of brain and hands, or by thrift in ones mode of life. (Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)

Destructive sect

socialists and members of other seditious societies, who labor unceasingly to destroy the State even to its foundations. (Encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888)

Enemy of society and of Religion

there is need for a union of brave minds with all the resources they can command. The harvest of misery is before our eyes, and the dreadful projects of the most disastrous national upheavals are threatening us from the growing power of the socialistic movement. They have insidiously worked their way into the very heart of the community, and in the darkness of their secret gatherings, and in the open light of day, in their writings and their harangues, they are urging the masses onward to sedition; they fling aside religious discipline; they scorn duties; they clamor only for rights; they are working incessantly on the multitudes of the needy which daily grow greater, and which, because of their poverty are easily deluded and led into error. It is equally the concern of the State and of religion, and all good men should deem it a sacred duty to preserve and guard both in the honor which is their due. (Encyclical Graves de Communi Re, January 18, 1901, n. 21)

Saint Pius X (1903-1914)

Saint Pius X (1903-1914)

SAINT PIUS X (1903-1914):

The dream of re-shaping society will bring socialism

But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, the reign of love and justice What are they going to produce? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train. (Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique [Our Apostolic Mandate] to the French Bishops, August 25, 1910, condemning the movement Le Sillon)

Pope Benedict XV

Benedict XV

BENEDICT XV (1914-1922):

The condemnation of socialism should never be forgotten

It is not our intention here to repeat the arguments which clearly expose the errors of Socialism and of similar doctrines. Our predecessor, Leo XIII, most wisely did so in truly memorable Encyclicals; and you, Venerable Brethren, will take the greatest care that those grave precepts are never forgotten, but that whenever circumstances call for it, they should be clearly expounded and inculcated in Catholic associations and congresses, in sermons and in the Catholic press. (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914, n. 13)

Pius XI (1922-1939): Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.

Pius XI (1922-1939): No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.

PIUS XI (1922-1939):

Socialism, fundamentally contrary to Christian truth

For Socialism, which could then be termed almost a single system and which maintained definite teachings reduced into one body of doctrine, has since then split chiefly into two

sections, often opposing each other and even bitterly hostile, without either one however abandoning a position fundamentally contrary to Christian truth that was characteristic of Socialism. (Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, n. 111)

Socialism cannot be reconciled with Catholic Doctrine

But what if Socialism has really been so tempered and modified as to the class struggle and private ownership that there is in it no longer anything to be censured on these points? Has it thereby renounced its contradictory nature to the Christian religion? This is the question that holds many minds in suspense. And numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized.

That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth. (Ibid. n. 117)

Catholic Socialism, a contradiction

[Socialism] is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist. (Ibid. n. 120)

Pope Pius XII sedia gestatoria

Pius XII

PIUS XII (1939-1958):

The Church will fight to the end, in defense of supreme values threatened by socialism

[The Church undertook] the protection of the individual and the family against a current threatening to bring about a total socialization which in the end would make the specter of the Leviathan become a shocking reality. The Church will fight this battle to the end, for it is a question of supreme values: the dignity of man and the salvation of souls. (Radio message to the Katholikentag of Vienna, September 14, 1952 in Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, vol. XIV, p. 314)The state can not be regarded as being above all

To consider the State as something ultimate to which everything else should be subordinated and directed, cannot fail to harm the true and lasting prosperity of nations. (Encyclical Summi Pontificatus, October 20, 1939, n. 60)

Pope John XXIII

John XXIII

JOHN XXIII (1958-1963):

No Catholic could subscribe even to moderate socialism

Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority. (Encyclical Mater et Magistra, May 15, 1961, n. 34)

Pope Paul VI

Paul VI

PAUL VI (1963-1978):

Too often Christians tend to idealize socialism

Too often Christians attracted by socialism tend to idealize it in terms which, apart from anything else, are very general: a will for justice, solidarity and equality. They refuse to recognize the limitations of the historical socialist movements, which remain conditioned by the ideologies from which they originated. (Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens, May 14, 1971, n. 31)

Pope John Paul II

John Paul II (1978-2005)

JOHN PAUL II (1978-2005):

Socialism: Danger of a simple and radical solution

It may seem surprising that socialism appeared at the beginning of the Popes critique of solutions to the question of the working class at a time when socialism was not yet in the form of a strong and powerful State, with all the resources which that implies, as was later to happen. However, he correctly judged the danger posed to the masses by the attractive presentation of this simple and radical solution to the question of the working class. (Encyclical Centesimus Annus On the 100th anniversary of Pope Leo XIIIs Rerum Novarum, May 1, 1991, n. 12)Fundamental error of socialism: A mistaken conception of the person

Continuing our reflections, we have to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property. (Ibid, n. 13)

BENEDICT XVI (2005 present):

We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything

Pope Benedict XVI, WDC

Benedict XVI

The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person every person needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live by bread alone (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3) a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human. (Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, December 25, 2005, n. 28)

What the Popes Have to Say About Socialism

See the article here:

What the Popes Have to Say About Socialism - Catholic Citizens of Illinois (press release)

TheAdult Swim cartoon series is the internets favorite show, but not just because its good.

By Christian Zeitler, Carnegie Mellon University

Rick and Morty is Adult Swims most successful series since South Park, and has become especially pandemic among college kids.

Even when the show has been on extended hiatuses, the hype refuses to die down. Why has a show like Rick and Morty (which is, among other things, very strange) been able to grab ahold of our attention so powerfully?

Rick and Morty (image via inverse)

It is more than just the fact that the showsgood; beyond the interesting plots, well-developed characters and cleverly convoluted sci-fi concepts, the series seems to have struck a more profound chord with the younger generation, and fans are able to engage with the Rick and Morty universe(s) in unique ways. Basically, the shows success can be attributed to these two factors: the crazy marketing strategies employed by the Rick and Morty staff, and the shows nihilistic philosophy.

It is clear that the Rick and Morty staff have a firm grasp on social media and general internet culture. For one, most of their marketing efforts are creative and interactive in some form or another. For instance, the Rick and Morty Instagram account is actually an elaborate game called the Rickstaverse. It follows a point-and-click style system where fans can use tags within pictures as a method of exploration. One picture could help transport you to another planet where you could find collectibles or easter eggs. This stands in stark contrast to most other marketing on social media, especially other television shows, who use sites like Instagram as glorified posters for upcoming episodes or events.

Another example is the fundraiser for HIV prevention that co-creators Dan Harmon and Justin Roiland hosted. The winner of the fundraiser would get to voice a new alien overlord appearing in Season 3. These kinds of strategies that actively engage and encourage participation from the audience keep buzz for the show alive, even when it is not airing new episodes for a long time. They have also created two video games under the Rick and Morty brand. The first is a mobile game emulating Pokmon called Pocket Mortys, and the second is a VR game called Virtual Rickality, the release of which was advertised by an extremely self-deprecating commercial mocking the gimmicky nature of the games own existence.

Virtual Rickality (image via owlchemy labs)

The need to keep buzz alive in the space between seasons has been particularly critical in between Seasons 2and 3due to the ambiguous nature of Season 3srelease date. The ending of Season 2was an almost obnoxiously gut-wrenching cliffhanger, which was made even more painful by the announcement from a character in the after-credits scene that the show wouldnt return for at least another year and a half.

Unsure whether to take this time frame seriously (after all, the name of the character who announced it was Mr. Poopybutthole), the fans of the show have been emotionally battered in the space between. It was announced that the show was actually returning in the winter of 2016, significantly earlier than the year-and-a-half mark, but it turned out that they had not finished animating the episodes, so the return was pushed back to another ambiguous time.

In the dead space, the internet became a breeding ground for false release dates and rants cursing the names of Dan Harmon and Justin Roiland for putting fans through this roller coaster of anticipation and disappointment. Then, with no advertisement other than a tweet, the opening episode to Season 3 was aired on April 1, exactly a year and a half after Mr. Poopybuttholes announcement. Those who found the episode shouted its existence from the rooftops and were met with the overwhelming voices of the already-jaded fanbase: We know its April Fools Day. Nice try, but I wont be disappointed again.

It was the ultimate April Fools prank, because it wasnt one.

All of these choices combine to create a unique persona for the Rick and Morty team. In one sense, it looks like they dont care that they dragged the fans through the mud and then aired an episode on April Fools as a middle finger to the world. But when considering the complexity and creative effort put into all of their other choices, from video games to trailers for The Simpsons in which Rick and Morty accidentally murder the entire Simpson family, it becomes clear that they do care. They care a lot.

They also know that the internet loves to be toyed with, and so the seemingly nonchalant approach to release dates has actually proved to be an important cog in a machine that builds hype. The show only has twenty-two episodes aired so far and yet, it is in the upper echelon of the most talked-about programs Adult Swim has had in the last decade.

Rick and Morty also holds an interesting position as one of the only shows based around the philosophy of nihilism. Nihilism (in a painfully reductionist nutshell) is the belief that nothing matters; everyonelives in a world dictated by random chance, where nothing has meaning and where purpose is an artifice created by beings who cannot handle the weight of their existential insignificance, etc.

This is an idea that can be found deeply entrenched in internet culture. For one, it gives way to absurdism, where the infinitely random nature of theuniverse finds shape in the twisted imagination of people who spend all day looking at their computers. Dark humor thrives in this environment as well, because if nothing matters, why should anyone care about the sensibilities of anybody? Memes about existential dread, incurable apathy and even suicide are extremely common.

image via animationstudies

This is all found within the folds of Rick and Morty. One of the primary plot mechanisms of the show is that Rick, a brilliant and alcoholic scientist, has invented a portal gun that allows him to travel between alternate timelines (a.k.a. dimensions or realties). Some timelines may be the same except for minor details; others are filled with insane creatures and governed by absurd laws. In one dimension, all land is made up of large butts. In another, everything is the same except that Rick and Morty die in a freak accident, allowing the Rick and Morty that the viewers have been following to seamlessly take their place. The variations range from the hilariously juvenile to the poignantly dark.

It seems that this knowledge of the randomness of reality has had its effect on Rick; he claims that he doesnt care about anything. His beliefs include that rules are always pointless and the desire to help anyone other than yourself is a projection of your own ego.

Throughout the show, we see Morty, a high school student, begin to develop similar attitudes. In the episode Rixty Minutes, their family uses one of Ricks devices that allow them to see their lives in alternate realties. Mortys sister and parents obsess over it, and lament the ways in which their current reality is worse than the ones they see in the device. Morty refuses to even glance at it, and gives his sister the following advice when she decides to run away from home as a result of what shes seen:

Dont run. Nobody exists on purpose, nobody belongs anywhere, everybodys going to die Come watch TV.

Its sort of the thesis of the show, and a call to ride out the absurd waves of chaos that constitute life by finding things youlike, things that entertain youor people that youlove. It is a sentiment that finds itself right at home with todays youth and with internet culture in general. Thus, the show has become an anthem for disillusioned young people everywhere.

Adult Swim showsDan HarmonJustin RoilandRick and Morty nihilismRick and Morty philosophy

Read the original post:

Why Millennials Love 'Rick and Morty' - Study Breaks Magazine - Study Breaks

The first track from a posthumous album of punk pioneer and Suicide singer Alan Vega was released on Monday, featuring his signature style of abrasive nihilism.

Vegas wife and artistic collaborator Liz Lamere said the album, IT, would follow on July 14 to mark the anniversary of his death last year at age 78.

The first single, DTM, features Vega reciting a stream-of-conscious set of dark thoughts from goodbye dreams to living in the home sewer.

DTM Dead to me, he repeatedly states over a grinding guitar and jarringly incessant beat.

Vega found inspiration for the album by religiously consuming global news and taking frequent late-night walks alone throughout the streets of downtown New York, Lamere said in a statement.

He understood we cant control much of what happens to us, or in our world, but we have free will and the power to go on and stand for what we believe in, she said in a statement.

Vega and his band Suicide were one of the defining if controversial voices of the US underground in the 1970s and were credited with popularizing the term punk.

Initially with no songs in any traditional sense, Vega would pound a cheap keyboard and shout aggressively at small New York clubs as he physically confronted the audience, who often pelted him with chairs.

Vega proved to be an inspiration for gloomy post-punk rockers in both the United States and Europe but also has been cited as an influence by more mainstream musicians including Bruce Springsteen.

Vega was prolific in his solo work but slowed down after a stroke in 2012. His last album was 2010s Sniper, full of gloomy ambient effects by Vega and the French musician and director Marc Hurtado.

3 hours ago Film

4 hours ago Film

4 hours ago Arts

5 hours ago Music

5 hours ago Arts

1 day ago Film

Read more from the original source:

Late punk pioneer Alan Vega's album due next month - Guardian (blog)