Archives For 21st century politics

What’s failing, exactly? I wonder if, like intel agencies pre-9/11, mass shooting threats are lumped in to a vastly broader pool, responsibility spread across many agencies federal and local, so no single force is in charge, dedicated to spotting them. Dedicated local task forces like the ones described here strike me as having a great deal of potential. We should be thinking and talking about them more.
There is, to my knowledge, no dedicated national law enforcement + criminologist group specifically looking for potential infamy shooters, for institutional holes that might impede finding them, or trying to educate local officials on warning signs. This may also offer a way to think more clearly about security reforms and the like — Not arming teachers or lightly trained, bored rent-a-cops, but increasing both random and occasionally intel-based patrols by trained police who are specifically there to deter shooters.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/964614619523362816.html

Advertisements

The alt-right is anti-Christian. Not by implication or insinuation, but by confession. Its leading thinkers flaunt their rejection of Christianity and their desire to convert believers away from it. Greg Johnson, an influential theorist with a doctorate in philosophy from Catholic University of America, argues that “Christianity is one of the main causes of white decline” and a “necessary condition of white racial suicide.” Johnson edits a website that publishes footnoted essays on topics that range from H. P. Lovecraft to Martin Heidegger, where a common feature is its subject’s criticisms of Christian doctrine. “Like acid, Christianity burns through ties of kinship and blood,” writesGregory Hood, one of the website’s most talented essayists. It is “the essential religious step in paving the way for decadent modernity and its toxic creeds.”

 

The temptation to dismiss the alt-right should be resisted. Like Christians in late antiquity, we ought to see ourselves through the eyes of our pagan critics and their growing ranks of online popularizers. They distort many truths, through both malice and ignorance, and lead young men into espousing views and defending authors they scarcely understand. Yet we can learn from their distortions, and in doing so show how Christian theology, whose failings have contributed to the movement’s rise, might also be its remedy.

The alt-right’s understanding of human identity is reductive, and its rejection of Christian solidarity premature. “Christianity provides an identity that is above or before racial and ethnic identity,” Richard Spencer complains. “It’s not like other religions that come out of a folk spirit.” Spencer is right that the baptismal covenant transcends our local loyalties and identities. It does not, however, eradicate them.

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2018/03/the-anti-christian-alt-right#login

On Oct. 1, he predicted, Catalonia will be swept up in “a democratic tsunami,” as its streets fill with citizens casting their vote in favor of independence. Democracy, Mr. Puigdemont argued, is “to listen to citizens,” while Mr. Rajoy is doing “another thing” by threatening punishment, with the support of Spanish judges.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/world/europe/spain-catalonia-independence.html?referer=http://drudgereport.com/

It’s a strange argument. Is Andrew Anglin, who runs the neo-Nazi site The Daily Stormer, more mainstream than Linda Sarsour? Are KKK rallies in Virginia better attended or more prominent than leftist anti-Jewish marches in Chicago? Of course they’re not. Why, then, the systemic focus on the alt-right? I pressed Gutnick for an answer; I never heard back.

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/241213/new-adl-guide-blasts-right-wing-anti-semites-gives-left-leaning-bigots-a-pass?utm_content=buffer85d2d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s philological gerrymandering has been far too influential for far too long. Liberals and conservatives who want more for the public square than echo chambers and outrage factories should hope that Maajid Nawaz wins his lawsuit, and that the SPLC learns a costly lesson about bearing false witness.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/06/the-southern-poverty-law-center-bears-false-witness

I recently was entangled in a contentious discussion with a mutual acquaintance in which a political topic was dissected namely whether there is more credence with the social selection versus the Darwinian sexual selection theory. At the conclusion of this discussion the individual proceeded to espouse the belief that I am not only bigoted but not taking politics seriously and thus giving off “bad vibes.” To this balderdash I am perfectly content to not have this individuals approval. I believe that everyone ought to not seek the approval of other men but rather the eternal and this is why I have no qualms with disagreeing with anyone in my life even those I love. On the surface it may seem a bit rigid of me to not concede a point in an attempt to be conciliatory but I believe in standing behind your convictions. If there is anything I have learned from my walk in life as a 21st century Christian is that certain tenets and positions are not going to be wildly accepted by the masses and I accept this reality. In today’s relativistic society we live in it is viewed as a moral imperative to not judge others on their actions or question the popular activist ideologies of the day. The political left leaning ideologies in particular have shown an intolerance to evidence that counters their dogmatic claims about how societies are and function. They place human pleasure, disguised as personal autonomy, higher than anything else. To be accepted in public life as a good person, any man or woman must publicly accede to certain pillars of secular faith, above all personal autonomy in matters of sex and cohabitation, (and drugs). This is why I am not particularly interested in serious political discussions nor do I take them especially serious. Often they involve discussions between opposing views that are so entrenched that neither is willing to step off their ideological cliff into the abyss which leads to a stand still from the start. Moreover these discussions involve a particular party in the discussion appearing to be interested in conversing but in actuality is more interested in attempting to set an ideological trap under the guise of genuinely being interested in your thoughts. These kind of silly games that take place on social media disinterest me which is why I rarely if ever commentate on the postings of others. The political landscapes and evolution of political ideas interests me greatly but in practice it is merely dreary and dull partisan games. Furthermore I see constantly on social media platforms where individuals are clearly far too emotionally invested in the particular topic to discuss it in any meaningful way. This is why although I can empathize with the individual I am addressing I am in large part unable to be that emotionally invested in a position even one where I am personally effected. Many cannot do this.

I thought in this second part I would address another personal happening which is that lately I have had multiple sources relate that I make someone uncomfortable either due to body language or otherwise. This seems to be a new phenomena which I have not really dealt with but I will do my best to explain my thought processes. Firstly I often feel that I am living in a bygone age whilst still trapped in the modern society that we have today. I believe this is in large part manifested by my love of antiques as well as history coupled by the fact I learned the classics in school (Roman and Greek). My rather stoic demeanor was in large part effected by the environments which I lived in and the experiences that I had during my childhood. When I was younger I like many people was a very talkative individual who spoke when it was not wise and refused to be quiet unless told. However this greatly changed as I have matured over the years. I have since become far more introspective of a person and much more prone to thinking than talking. After all countless proverbs give the great wisdom which I agree with that silence is often one of the greatest tools that you can use. vir sapit qui pauca loquitur (that man is wise who talks little),  qui moderatur sermones suos doctus est (He that hath knowledge spareth his words), stultus quoque si tacuerit sapiens putabitur (Even the fool, if he holds his tongue, is considered wise), si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses (If you had kept silent, you would have remained a philosopher.) These are just some examples off the top of my head. This is in large part why I am rather cautious when speaking around groups of people especially if the topic of discussion is something outside of my knowledge or expertise. Unfortunately this approach seems to be getting construed as an inability to conduct conversations or address individuals at all which I believe is utter nonsense. I simply speak when I have something to say and believe that by saying little it magnifies the impact when I do speak. I reject the idea that I must behave in certain ways to appease individuals whose approval I care nothing for. Other than my significant other whom I adore and cherish I have little desire to be predictable for others to digest easily. I see no issue with listening intently to conversations and contributing what I see fit. 

Apologies for the rather long screed but I felt compelled to write these thoughts down as I reflected on this interaction and respective feedback. Perhaps if I can think of more to address I will add a part two.