Friday, June 21, 2024

Feudalism 2030, Part Two

More on the coming Neo-Feudalism

Back in April, I wrote about what I see coming and described it as Neo-Feudalism.  Well someone else has seen it.


It's a fascinating conversation from beginning to end.  Oliver first uses the term feudalism at 58:30.  He goes on to use neo-feudalism as well.  He calls feudalism a natural state, and I do not disagree.

But afterwards he is more positive that I am on our ability to fend off the powers pushing for feudalism.  He feels duty bound to be optimistic about our fight.  But you know, people prefer a positive message, and maybe he is simply giving it to them.  In any case, it is impossible for me to share his optimism.

I believe neo-feudalism will be feudalism dressed up as some kind of progressive, technological utopia, with the trappings but not the substance of democracy.  That is, sure there will be elections.  But they will not mean anything other than providing the populace with the illusion that they are participating in a democratic system.  And most people today do not have enough capacity for critical thought to see through it.
𓐵

Wednesday, June 19, 2024

Schumer's Photo

The real problem with Chuck Schumer's Father's Day photo

My question is:  If the man will lie about something this simple and innocent and commonplace, can you just imagine what else he would (and does) lie about?  The answer can only be:  Just about everything.


And of course, he's bad enough.  But for the life of me, I just cannot imagine the type of person who would vote for someone like this.  Repeatedly.  As bad as he is, Schumer's not the real problem.  You are.

You absolutely have the government you deserve.  And I can only take solace in the fact that it is going to get worse...for you.  As the Instapundits like to say (quoting H.L. Mencken):  Gooder and harder.  You deserve it all.
𓐵

Thursday, June 13, 2024

Three Questions

Three questions we should all ask ourselves about Israel
As an American, is it better for our country to have a Jewish state in the Middle East than it would be without it?

As a Christian, is it better for us to have a Jewish state in the Holy Land than it would be without it?

Is the world a better place with a Jewish state in the Levant than it would be without it?
Now, why these questions?  Because without American assistance the state of Israel, which is surrounded by its enemies, would cease to exist.  The surrounding Arab states are too rich, too powerful, and too fanatical for Israel to survive without American support.  We are about two trillion petrodollars away from the Six-Day War.

When people argue that we should not help Israel, what they are really saying is that the state of Israel should not exist.  They may truly believe this, and it may in fact be a legitimate political, anti-Zionist argument (we will come back to this below).  But let's be honest about this existential question.

I think when you put it in the form of these three questions, to ask the questions, is the answer them.  Nevertheless, let's take them in turn:

As an American, is it better for our country to have a Jewish state in the Middle East than it would be without it?

What is the alternative?  The resulting Palestinian state would resemble every other Middle Eastern state.  That is, it would be either ruled by a strongman, like its next door neighbors Jordan and Syria, it would be a theocracy like Iran, or it would be a combination of these two, like Saudi Arabia.  Those are the only possible results.  So we can kiss a western-style democracy goodbye.  Meaning there will be no western-style democracy in the region.

As a Christian, is it better for us to have a Jewish state in the Holy Land than it would be without it?

The state of Israel protects the holy places of Christianity.  And welcomes tourists and pilgrims of all religions.  Without Israel, these places will simply be destroyed.  And how much Christianity would an Islamic Palestinian state allow?  How many Christian churches would they tolerate?  Tell me again how many churches you can find in Iran or Saudi Arabia?

Is the world a better place with a Jewish state in the Levant than it would be without it?

Again, what is the alternative?  Another Arab/Islamic country.  This question is really a summation of the first two.  You must decide:  Is the world a better place with or without Israel?

Now this is not simply a left-of-center dilemma.  There is a branch of the right that believes that Israel's problems are, and should remain, solely Israel's problems.  But they should all ask themselves the above three questions.  When they say, I don't believe in sending American money to other countries, any other countries, when we have so many problems here at home, that's fine.  I actually agree with this sentiment, with the one exception of Israel.  Why?  Again, ask these questions.  There's your answer.

Also, ask these questions regarding any other country, say Ukraine.  I think you will find completely different answers.  No, we do not have to treat Ukraine the same way we treat Israel.  The idea is preposterous.  

Now let's come back to the question of whether or not the state of Israel should exist?  Is this a legitimate political question?  Or is it anti-semitic?  Well, if you honestly believe that the state of Israel should not exist, I think you have a duty to explain what happens to all the Jews currently living there?  If you say:  They should go back to Poland; or, they should live under an Islamic regime; these are not serious answers.  And believe me, many Muslims have much more uninviting ideas.

Don't look to me for an answer to this question; I believe entirely that Israel has a right to exist.  This is a problem for those of you who say it does not have a right to exist.  So give us a reasonable answer to this question.

Or yes, you are simply just another garden-variety anti-semite.

Finally, what about those who say:  Yes absolutely, Israel has a right to exist...but that does not mean America should be supporting them with money and arms.  This is the Tucker Carlson position.  I completely agree with almost every other position he holds.  So I assume his heart is in the right place, and I absolutely give him the benefit of doubt on this.

But I do not see a difference in the result of this position and in the result of the they do not have a right to exist position.  Your motivations may be different, but we will end up with the same result.
𓐵

Sunday, June 2, 2024

Truth versus Hope

How to counter Islam:  Truth or Christianity

Richard Dawkins is skeptical of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's conversion to Christianity.  I was also skeptical when I wrote about her conversion last year.  But today (this was recorded a month ago), she does seem to accept, and claims to believe, at least some of the tenets of the Christian faith.

But listening to her, I am still led to believe that her newly professed faith is mostly a political, anti-Islam mission.  Her position seems to be that enlightenment values do not offer an adequate alternative to Islam, so she's going to try Christianity.  Her newfound faith seems to be based on the hope that Christianity offers a viable alternative.


As I see it, the problem with Hirsi Ali's argument is that she is setting aside truth for the sake of winning the hearts and minds of the masses as a counter to Islam.  She believes that Christianity is necessary to halt the expansion of Islamic tyranny.  Dawkin's position is that we should counter Islam the same way we counter all religions, with truth and rationality.  But here Hirsi Ali's point reigns supreme:  We must offer something rather than nothing.

I'm still not sure that she is a sincere Christian.  But she is so invested in offering an alternative to Islam, that she will call herself a Christian if that's what it takes.

I think the real difference between the two is that Dawkins believes the masses must respond to rationality.  Ultimately there is no other choice.  And Hirsi Ali believes that it is going to take more than that to appeal to the masses.  She believes that the masses need a better story than Islam.  Who cares if it's true or not.  It is a cynical and patronizing position.  Surely people will see that.

Besides, can we really rely on the beliefs of the masses in our existential fight with Islam?  The masses will always believe some nonsense.  That is a huge part of what makes them masses.  Just look how the masses accepted government propaganda on Covid.  Look at their social media addictions.  Look at how they vote in the United States and Great Britain and Western Europe.  Even if we continue to believe in democracy, I think we should be extremely cautious of the masses.

And regarding western masses' perspective on Islam, most people seem to believe that it is just another religion, and therefore, while they may have little knowledge of its teachings, they view it as a positive:  It is a religion, therefore it must instruct its adherents to behave righteously.

So while I agree that something must be done to counter Islam, it will not be a mass Christian movement that stops it.  It will not be the malleable hearts and minds of the western masses.  They are too soft and too unthinking.  And eventually the Muslims will kill them.  It is convert, submit, or die.

No, it will take sterner stuff.  Which will start with...truth.

We might start with the truth of what exactly do Muslims believe?  Forget a new story, or a better story.  Just tell the awful truth about their story.  Let's tell Queers for Palestine what happens to them when they get to, you know, Palestine.  Let's tell women the truth about life in Iran.  Let's be honest about Muslim apostasy and blasphemy and honor killings and anti-semitism and sharia.  And tolerance; let's talk about Muslim tolerance.  Not in the West, but in Saudi Arabia.  Let's tell the story of the history of Islam and its maniacal, murderous prophet.

Let us explain the difference between Muslim behavior when they are less than five percent of a population and when they are more than twenty percent.  This is very difficult for most western people to understand.  And it will quite literally be the death of them.  Here the United States has an advantage.  They can simply watch what happens in Europe.  But will they learn?

Let us be so busy telling the truth about Islam that we don't have time or need to preach an alternative.
𓐵

Friday, May 31, 2024

On Our Parchment Guarantee

An extra-constitutional response is necessary

Is anyone on the Right willing to do what it takes to stop the Left from behaving unconstitutionally?

I have written before that when one side acts unconstitutionally, the other cannot hope to win by adhering to the Constitution.  You may retain the moral high ground, but what does that gain you?  You think dictators care about the moral high ground?  No, they only care about power.

In the United States today, the situation is this.  The Democrats will do anything they can get away with to retain power.  Not anything constitutional.  Anything they can get away with.  And it is worth noticing how genuinely and smugly gleeful they are about it.

Will anyone stop them?

I have no faith that anyone will.  By the end of 2024, the United States will officially have become a one party state.  How long after that will it take to become fully Soviet?

They want to put Donald Trump in the gulag.  You think he will be the last?  No, no, they will find a way to imprison any serious opposition candidate.  Now that they know they can get away with it, this will become their go to strategy.

But what could be done?

Well, firstly, other states, other red states, could simply refuse to extradite Donald Trump to New York.  Nope, we are not going to honor our constitutional responsibilities simply to fulfill your unconstitutional kangaroo court orders.

Further, red states simply must be willing to not comply with US government policies and any court orders to enforce them.  For instance, red states should militarize the southern border.  That's what any other sovereign nation would have done already.

But these are really just intermediate steps that could eventually lead to civil war.  Sure one can hope to avoid war.  But we simply must not allow the possibility of war to deter us from appropriate (necessarily extra-constitutional) responses.  And I just don't think we have the moral leadership on the Right to act in this principled manner.

Could someone emerge?  I guess it's possible.  But it will not be Donald Trump.  How do we know this?  Because he was in power for four years, and did not really put up much of a fight.  He is a man who simply enjoys the trappings of power.  And like most people on the Right, he is under the misconception that the Constitution still matters.

That's what they all think.

In fact, the Right is so deluded that we still live in a constitutional republic that they will allow Trump to be jailed.  I guess as some kind of martyr who will eventually, constitutionally, prevail.  But even if he is not immediately jailed, Trump's appeals process must work its way through the New York courts before the US Supreme Court will consider it.  How many years will that take?  It's a game for suckers.  Even if Trump does ultimately prevail, it will be late in Michelle Obama's first term.  And by then, he will be too old to be a threat.  And even if there are aspects of this case that can be immediately appealed to federal court, they are not going to be resolved before Michelle takes office in January.

But if the constitutional process is over, just for fun let's imagine what could be done?  Well, Trump could go home to Florida and pick a fight with the New York judge (really the whole state of New York).  Campaign on the fact that the New York legal system has gone full Blue Kangaroo.  Disregard any gag orders.  DeSantis would have to reject any extradition request.  Same for other red states.

In other words, a unified Right must start fighting the Left under the new rules, the extra-constitutional rules, set by the Left.  Otherwise, the Left will happily put Trump in jail.  Like any other banana republic.  If this scenario sounds ridiculous or unlikely to you, it is.  But it is where we are today; the ridiculous has become reality.

I don't really think Trump has it in him.  And even if he could find the moral courage, I think he still loses the election.  The Democrats control the election process (the machinery and logistics) and they will not and cannot allow any Republican to win.

As I have written previously, I just cannot see the Right engaging in civil war.  Even if it becomes necessary.  That is, even if it becomes the only option available.

Even if it becomes the only moral option.

So we either live under Democrat one-party rule, or we leave the country.
𓐵

Thursday, May 23, 2024

Ridiculous versus Interesting

How to be ridiculous

Tattoos
Piercings
More tattoos and piercings
Fake nails and eyelashes
Any bling whatsoever
Constant smartphone use
Social media presence
So-called content creation for social media
Keeping up with the Kardashians
Kardashian-like vocal fry and uptalk affectations
Plastic surgery
Computer/video games

Ridiculousness guaranteed.


How to be interesting

Get a job
Start a business
Read a book
Write a journal
Learn a new word everyday
Keep up with current affairs
Travel
Learn to cook
Learn to play the piano
Practice in-person conversation
Take a walk
Take a walk with a friend
Leave your smartphone at home
Go camping

Interesting guaranteed.


Both of these lists could be endless, but I think you get the idea.  My father used to call the type of people who partake in the first list common.  It was about the worst insult he could muster.  But I've never necessarily believed that common equated to bad.  I mean, we all eat at McDonald's occasionally.  But at some point it does seem that the ridiculous became common.  And things that used to be common (as most things in the second list were) became less common if not rare.
𓐵

Monday, May 20, 2024

Smartphone Nation

On the looming smartphone crisis

How many of us have been waiting in line in the supermarket only to witness the customer ahead of us not paying attention because she is on her smartphone and the cashier is waiting for her?  How many drivers are barreling down the road on their smartphones?  Have you noticed young people in restaurants not engaged with others at the table?  Evidently whatever is happening in their smartphone-world is more important.

The schools are an absolute disaster.  

And these users are not working or even doing something mildly important.  It's nonsense.  I mean whatever has them so engrossed in their smartphone, it is almost always absolute nonsense.

When I was a young commuter, it was common to read the newspaper on the train.  Today, understandably, people are on their smartphones instead.  But how many of them are reading the news?  Forget about it.

In fact, without being overly obvious, I have started to notice how people are using their smartphones.  It's social media, games, and frivolous chat (you can tell by all the emojis).  The most productive use might be dating apps because young people no longer have any interpersonal skills.  Everyone has a computer in their pocket more powerful than a Cray supercomputer.  And they are basically using it as a toy.

When I was a kid, I'll tell you something I used to hear all the time.  "Pay attention."  This was long before smartphones.  Sadly this seems to be a skill that is no longer taught or appreciated.

Pay attention and be present in the moment.  Or how about simple courtesy:  Give the person or people in front of you your attention.  If you do not or cannot, why are you there?

Why are you there?  You could simply go back to the pod you came out of.  Pod.  P.O.D.  Personal Opium Den.  Coming soon.  But for now, maybe do all the rest of us a favor, take your smartphone and go stand in the corner.  Then, at least, you will not be in the way.

Yet I am skeptical of the addiction argument.  I don't know, maybe so.  But I think it is more likely simple narcissism and rudeness.  Have we really created so many rude narcissists?  Again, I do not know.  But whether addiction or narcissism or both, or something else entirely, what are the larger implications for society?

Yes absolutely, this is the rant of an old man.  But this is not going to end well.
𓐵

Sunday, May 12, 2024

On Conscription

Concerning conscription, here is the only question that matters:

If a political leadership class cannot rally willing volunteers for their cause, should we allow them to conscript the unwilling?

Two follow-ups:

Is their cause a national cause?  Because so often, the answer is no.

Who should define a national cause, the political leadership or individual families with husbands and sons?  If the families agree with the politicians, they may volunteer.  If not, leave them alone, you murderous egomaniacs.

When I first discussed conscription, I used the US involvement in Vietnam as an example.  As I asked then, can anyone tell me the US national interest?  I don't think so.

I am talking to you, Lyndon Johnson.  And you, Vladimir Putin.  And you, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.  These monsters want to force others to die for their respective causes.  And since hundreds of thousand of Ukrainian men have fled the draft, Zelenskyy wants their current countries of residence to ship them back to his death machine.

Why?  For Zelenskyy's glory of course.

These men have made the decision that Ukraine is not worth fighting and dying for.  Who can say they are wrong?  Many young American men made a similar decision about Vietnam.  And with all due hindsight, they were absolutely correct to do so.  Who should have died for Lyndon Johnson's murderous pipe dream?

I don't think conscription would work today with American young men.  What, with their participation trophies and social media and video games.  But just as an exercise, can you imagine any cause where the American leadership class would be willing to draft young men to fight and die?  I think a good number of them, the leadership class, would be willing to draft young men to fight for Ukraine.  But if Lindsey Graham wants Americans to fight for Ukraine, give him a gun.

Thankfully, we have a willing and able, professional warrior class.  Let them do their thing.  Ripping some kid away from his video game is not going to help.

But this post is not so much about the unlikely idea of a twenty-first century American draft.  It is about the concept of conscription itself.  I have come to believe that it is never justified, and most often immoral.  I mean, can we consider confederate conscription moral?  How about Nazi Germany conscription?  If American families were unwilling to volunteer their children to fight the Nazis, then we should have stayed out of it.  For what it's worth, I do think Americans would have volunteered.  Enough anyway.  Just as we do today.

Here's another question:  How many Russians would volunteer to invade Ukraine?  I'm guessing it would be close to zero.

Point is, whose decision is this?  Should we allow corrupt politicians, with questionable motives, to make this decision?  Or should we retain this decision for individual families to make?
𓐵

Friday, May 10, 2024

A Culture of Cheating and Shortcuts

We need to stop worrying about China

If you read Thomas Friedman, you might come to believe that China will lead the world in the twenty-first century.  But the man knows little to nothing about China or Chinese culture.  He seems to only regurgitate CCP propaganda.


If you watch Winston Sterzel or Chris Chappell you will come away with a new understanding of just how ridiculous China has become.

Both Sterzel and Chappell lay a big part of the blame on the CCP, and I am sure they deserve it.  But I spent a number of years immersed in the Chinese-American community, where I came to understand Chinese shortcut culture.  At least that is how I started thinking about it.

Yes, the CCP are dangerous thugs.  For their own citizens and for everyone worldwide.  Both Sterzel and Chappell have made the point that there is little difference between the CCP/Chinese government and actual criminal thugs.  In fact, the criminals have taken to pretending to be government agents in order to insure victim compliance.  Works like a charm because who can tell the difference?

Sure, because of family ties to mainland China, Chinese-Americans, both residents and citizens, are still heavily influenced by the CCP.  But I would say that the CCP is just as much a result of Chinese culture as the other way around.  If there is any society in the world today that has the government it truly deserves, it is China.

Because the Chinese have a culture of cheating and shortcuts.  This culture and attitude leads to incompetence, lack of seriousness, and dishonesty.  About anything and everything.  Of course, not everyone falls into this.  But is it half?  I don't know, but it is enough that you have to worry about everyone you deal with.  Are those red chili peppers actually red, or have they just been painted red?  Why would you even take the chance?

And I would guess that practically all government functionaries fall into the dishonest category.  Watch a few of these videos, and you will be a lot less concerned about Chinese aggression.  Chinese hypersonic missiles?  Most likely just another scam.  They only recently mastered the ballpoint pen.  And I'm not even sure that is believable.

What about China's nuclear weapons?  Here the risk is so high that we have no choice but to consider it a legitimate existential threat.  And act accordingly.  But I would not be a bit surprised to learn that it, too, is all smoke and mirrors.

All we know for sure is that the Chinese can produce a working water cannon.  It is worth noting that they use their water cannons, and their spy balloons (not satellites), against people who they know will not fight back.  It's typical Chinese government thuggish behavior.  And we all know, thugs only respond to force.

Singapore and Taiwan are both overwhelmingly ethnic Chinese.  While it takes decades, both prove that a society can change its culture and behavior.  But there must be incentives in place.  Judicial or market-driven or even just media-driven.  But you will not find any such incentives in mainland China.  I once read that culture is what a society tolerates.  If you tolerate bad behavior, then you have a culture of bad behavior.  And yes, it is just that simple.  If you don't believe me, you should visit Singapore.

Anyway, here's some practical advice.  It is difficult to avoid Made in China products entirely.  But I would never buy or use any such product with the potential to kill you or cause you serious harm.  China has become a large exporter of automobiles.  I would avoid them like the plague.  And I would never allow myself or my family into one.  Likewise, avoid any food product made in China.  Because you simply have no way of knowing what's in it.  You certainly cannot trust the packaging.

Point is, we cannot and should not take China seriously.  Whether we are talking about overseas aggression or the safety of food exports or automobile manufacturing.

As for the ridiculousness of China's internal culture, treat it like a Keystone Cops movie.  Because that is exactly what it is.
𓐵

Sunday, May 5, 2024

Falling Bricks

A morbid fascination with the decline of Western Civilization

There is something going on in the West.  I have been writing about it for the last five years.  At its most basic level, it seems to be a culture wide loss of confidence.  It is self-imposed, coming from collective guilt of our history, internally and externally, and how well the West has done compared to the rest of the world.  Surely we have been exploiters and now the bill has come due.

This has had countless deleterious effects on our society, including the death of meritocracy, both historical and contemporary.  And of course, as ever, the grifters pounce on the guilty and the incompetent.  In any case, it is undeniable that the West is falling apart.  Brick by brick, in sort of a slow motion entropy of the physical and the intellectual.

I have always been a news junkie.  In the past, I concentrated my curiosity on politics and business.  I would wake up, and couldn't wait to see what had happened.  Did Boeing get that big order?  It was my curiosity about these issues that kept me going.  But today it is different.  I have developed a morbid fascination with the ongoing decline of Western Civilization.  Today I wake up with a new, fearful curiosity about what fell apart overnight.  Did another Boeing jet make an emergency landing?

I knew Boeing was in trouble twenty years ago, when they made the genius decision to move their headquarters from Seattle to Chicago.  But that is just one example; most businesses today struggle mightily with good decision making.  Our so-called leadership class just can't seem to do it any more.  They have lost all capacity for critical thought.  And here I'm not even going to get into what is going on with our government.  But it is a mess, we all know it is a mess, and in my opinion it is unfixable and irredeemable.  It will take us all down with it.

In fact, I would say that more than anything else, it is the United States government that is leading the retreat of Western Civilization.  As I sit here writing this, I ask myself:  What is the last good decision that the US government made?  What is the last positive development that it accomplished?  It is worth considering, and even if you are more optimistic than I am, ask this instead:  Does the US government do more good than harm?

I don't know anyone who would say yes.

So anyway, my curiosity has switched from progress to decline.  It's horrible, but just like a horror movie, it has an entertainment value.  If you can avoid the bricks falling on your own head.  But I am not sure a horror movie is the correct analogy.  It is more like a long-drawn-out snuff film.  But instead of some pretty coed, the victim is western civilization itself.  And as with any such movie, it would be best to turn it off.  But how?

If the nineteenth century was about the building of America, brick by brick, I predict the twenty-first century will be about the demolishing of America, brick by brick, institution by institution, principle by principle, truth by truth.  And as others have pointed out, building is difficult, destruction is easy.

We of a certain age can watch this with some amusement.  I mean, what is the alternative?  But our children and grandchildren are in trouble.  No matter what side of the current university chaos your children happen to be on, surely we can watch these events and know it's over.  The university systems are hollowed shells of their former selves.  The mission irrevocably devalued.

So add academia to government and big business, throw in the media landscape, and K-12 education, all of these institutions are contributing agents of our decline.  It is just one big spiral.

And something drastic will have to happen to address US and state government debt levels.  I will leave it to people smarter than me to predict what that will look like and when it will happen.  But I have to point out that Joe Biden has a social worker serving as his chief economic advisor.  Of course he does.  So even I can say for sure, something dire will happen.  As Herbert Stein famously said:  If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.

At that point, none of us will be able to avoid the falling bricks.
𓐵

Saturday, May 4, 2024

Individual Accountability Warfare

Here's a question:  Why do we say that Russia attacked Ukraine?  Sure, it's true.  But what is more true is this:  Putin decided to attack Ukraine.  Because it surely was not the thousands of conscripts he sent to do the job or die trying.  Or their families.  No, one man started this war and one man could end it.  Why on God's earth are we killing a bunch of non-decision-makers for the decisions of one man?

Well because that is how war has always worked, right?  But let's think about it....

How many actual decision-makers were involved in German aggression during the Second World War?  Hitler and a few others.  How many Germans had to die for those decisions?

Did the Iranian people decide to fund Hamas and Hezbollah?  Or was it a small group of ayatollahs? 

What if we could have just killed Hitler early on in the war?  Not only would many lives have been saved, but the decision-maker would have been held accountable for his decisions.  Sooner, prior to countless deaths.

Could we possibly just kill Putin?  Maybe not.  But we sure as hell could kill the ayatollahs.  We know where they are and we have the capacity to kill them.  We should hold them accountable for their decisions.  Hamas leadership is reportedly living in Qatar.  No doubt the NSA knows exactly where.  Don't ask the Qataris; just send a team.

Here's a proposed new rule for twenty-first century warfare:  Whenever and wherever possible, instead of killing a bunch of twenty-year-old conscripts, hold the decision-makers solely and individually responsible, and kill them.  Tell everyone in advance that this is how you will respond to any attack.  No, we are not going to kill the children of your country, we are going to kill the decision-makers.  In fact, I would simply make this US policy moving forward.  No more skirmishes off the coast of an aggressor nation.  No, no, we will target the leader, and we will kill him.

Now, I can hear the naysayers already:  But without a trial, this is simply murder.  But here is my response to that:  How is killing conscripts any less wrong?

Today we have the technology for this.  Maybe not against Russia or China, but surely against a country like Iran or Venezuela or Cuba, or against any African tinpot dictator.  It is the difference between our technology and their technology that would make this new type of warfare possible.  Exploit this delta to save lives.

In this developing century, let's bring individual accountability to warfare.
𓐵

Monday, April 29, 2024

The Faith of Atheists

Atheists are among the most religious and faithful of us all

Even among people who do not consider themselves particularly religious, most of us need something to fill the role that traditional religion provides its adherents.  It does not have to be a traditional religion.  It can be astrology or a cult or some new age gibberish.

But what is that role?  That is, what purpose does religion serve?  What do its members get out of it?

I can think of three primary benefits from religion, though I know there are others.  One, explanation.  People want an explanation for things that science cannot yet explain.  Two, order.  People crave order and religion provides it.  Three, guidance.  Moral guidance.  Most people cannot, or are unwilling to, provide this for themselves, so they turn to religion to do so.  It is a crutch for the intellectually lazy.

Without some kind of religion, most people feel a void, and they are desperate to fill it.  They will turn to some religion, old or new, or they will search until they find something to answer their questions, order their society, and guide their lives.

As for our atheist friends, if they rule out a divinity or divinities, what are they left with?  Because I can assure you, like everyone else, they still crave explanation, order, and guidance.  So where would an atheist turn to find these qualities?

Government, of course.

I have come to believe that the vast majority of atheists are among the most fervently religious of us all.  They have simply replaced faith in the divine with faith in government.  Their willingness to believe in the efficacy of government, without evidence and often in the face of evidence to the contrary, is indeed an article of faith.  In fact, it is a whole faith system, otherwise known as a religion.

While certainly not true in every case (see the self-described secular conservative, Heather Mac Donald), the correlation between secular beliefs and leftist political thought is astounding.  Government is their religion, and the irony is completely lost on them.
𓐵