I’m sorry but I simply cannot take people seriously who hold any neo position when it comes to ideologies. Sure you are able to possess the paraphernalia and read the creeds of the particular ideology you adhere to. But are you not still maintaining the void that only actual practice of said ideology can fulfill? This seems to be a common trait among the followers of obliterated ideologies such as communism and national socialism who are only able to rummage through the remains of a glorious past that’s now defunct.
Archives For November 30, 1999
I’ve been watching the History Channel documentary series Vietnam in HD. It really saddens me when I see the behavior of the media coverage of this war and its effects on the general public. I can’t think of another war where public perception caused the eventual loss of the conflict as opposed to the actual ground fighting. Its embarrassing.
Hope all U.S. citizens had a wonderful Thanksgiving holiday with lots of joy and a bountiful feast. May God continue to bless and protect for another year.
Recently finished re-watching Band of Brothers and The Pacific mini series. What I enjoy about these series versus Hollywood propaganda war films is the realism and the open ended message being conveyed. They focus more on the unit and individual soldiering experience rather than try to hammer home their geo-political stances of “all conflict is futile” and “there are no causes worth fighting/dying for.” Due to over-saturation I have not read much about the World War II era in quite some time, but I plan to do so soon. I acquired many fascinating books in particularly concerning Nazi Germany and of course Hitler. I should be clear up front that I in no way agree with the social darwinistic aspects of the movement nor do I agree with many of the later military strategies being employed. But anytime you have elements of fervent nationalism it is interesting to study. After all, how can you defiantly state someone like Hitler is evil unless you read Mein Kampf for yourself? Remember that all things outside of religion aren’t so black and white.
- It is extra-literary.
- The pleasure of myth depends hardly at all on such usual narrative attractions as suspense and surprise.
- Human sympathy is at a minimum. We do not project ourselves strongly into the characters. We feel indeed that the pattern of their movements has a profound relevance to our own life, but we do not imaginatively transport ourselves into theirs.
- Myth is always in one sense of the word “fantastic.” It deals with the impossibles and preternaturals.
- The experience may be sad or joyful but it is always grave. Comic myth is impossible.
- The experience is not only grave but awe-inspiring. Its as if something of great moment had been communicated to us.
It appears one of the worst things people decided to do was bring the concepts taught in anthropology to the masses. Unfortunately people took the science and bastardized it into some ridiculous guilt tripping scheme to control peoples thoughts- much in the same way most sciences are abused. It is incredibly humorous to read through the racism, cultural appropriation, feminism, etc. tags and read all the bigoted and stupid thoughts that pop into peoples heads. It’s fascinating how people are now on the complete opposite spectrum in regards to assimilation and cultural appreciation. Why is everyone paranoid if someone appreciates another culture? Why are you not able to fully appreciate another cultural experience without facing potential annoyance from overzealous internet anthropology nerds? I find it fascinating that when I go to other places on my travels, the native people want you to experience what their culture has to offer. But here in western culture we are told essentially hands off. This seems very hypocritical from the championed liberal multi-cultural and global rhetoric preached in schools and work settings currently. Are we really going to throw a hissy fit every time someone not Irish wants a Guinness, someone black wants a mohawk haircut, someone Japanese wants a cheeseburger, someone not Chinese getting a character tattoo, etc. etc. etc.
People need to stop taking it upon themselves to defend trivial and perpetually changing abstractions that make up culture.
Been trudging along in Master and Commander for a while and decided to take small break to learn all these nautical terms. Hopefully I can then comprehend what exactly is going on but otherwise an excellent read.
Other books I am reading simultaneously:
An Experiment in Criticism – C.S. Lewis
Mere Christianity – C.S. Lewis
Fellowship of the Ring – J.R.R. Tolkien
Tao Te Ching – Lao Tzu
A History of Korea – Michael Seth
I would like to finish half of them plus Soccernomics by November.
Been getting into several discussions in recent times about the issue of homosexuality so I thought I should construct this little piece to get my views out in the open. These days simply stating the bland fact that the word marriage means the union of the two opposite, complimentary halves of humanity, is cause for hysterical hatred and accusations of bigotry from the liberals and gay activists. It’s simply what the word marriage implies. The words ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’ have different meanings too, but it’s not insulting or diminishing to gays in any way to simply apply those terms correctly – why should the correct use of the word marriage be an outrage? Businesses like Chic-fil-A, Barilla pasta company, and that poor chap in Seattle who was run out of business for insisting upon the actual definition of marriage, aren’t condemning, persecuting, or harassing gay people – they are merely defying Orwellian new-speak. Marriage only means one thing, even outside of religion – but the liberals and activists now demand to change the meanings of words, and the ancient institutions they describe, for the sake of political correctness alone. Many people, religious included, have no problem with gay couples receiving identical legal treatment as married couples – the problem arises when special interests insist upon mandating redefining words in order to accommodate the unique circumstances of a comparatively tiny percentile of the population. Everyone has the right to eat Pizza, but a small minority doesn’t like Pizza – so they drastically alter it to suit their specifications. They remove the tomato sauce, cheese, pepperoni and all the traditional toppings and replace them with say, cake icing, fruit and candy. The new innovation may be delicious – but it’s not Pizza anymore, and cannot accurately be named such. But, instead of accepting the logic of this reality, the government is called in to mandate that the official new treat of those who who have no taste for traditional pizza be called Pizza as well, simply in order to spare feelings. Soon, those who openly state that only the traditional Pizza is really Pizza are called food bigots and run out of business by zealous snack reformers. Silly analogy, admittedly. But this is the source of a great misunderstanding and division in society today – and it could all be solved if gays and liberals would simply concede that the word marriage does not apply to same-sex couples, even though love and commitment does apply. Gays are embarking upon a life partnership, certainly, but its not marriage, merely because gays don’t happen to be complimentary opposites – it has nothing whatsoever to do with inequality. That gay couples want legal obstacles removed is entirely reasonable. But when they cross over to tyrannizing language – it’s the hypocritical intolerance that only comes from pure ideological zealotry. Words have meaning – and 98% of the population shouldn’t be forced to alter their understanding of those words simply because gays have a different circumstance. Anyways these are my views on the matter presently and I will gladly answer questions. However, if you wish to dissuade me from my position it would be a real waste of your time.
It does get annoying when people group all people of Caucasian appearance into one group. People ought to be more specific when naming historical oppressors or wrong doers rather than put the blanket label of “white” as the culprit. People ought to specifically call out “white” southerners (not Italian, German, Jewish, etc. immigrants) for their slavery and discriminatory practices until the late 1970s. People ought to be upset at specific European powers for their squeezing of all resources in their specific colonies, not upset at Europe as a whole. Its far from fair to label everyone together simply due to the fact that not all “whites” have the same levels of culpability (or none at all) in relation to past global conflicts. Furthermore people need to understand the historical causes and see how it effects their lives today. But one should not bind their free will around these effects, especially if one understands the causes. Your ancestors may not have been treated with compassion and loved as the wonderful human creations they were but that does not mean you must harbor animosity presently. As the great sage Lao Tzu stated, “Care about what other people think and you will always be their prisoner."
Is a faith that is never challenged truly faithful? Is a faith that cannot stand up against arguments a worthwhile faith?
Acerbity [əˈsɜːbɪtɪ] 