I've underlined the sentences that leapt out at me. False and misleading narratives? Narratives? I found that choice of words interesting, but I can't quite put my finger on why.
Also undermining trust in Government institutions is somehow a fast track to being a terrorist threat. All my life I've heard nothing but challenges to faith in our government. But now it's a potential threat?
I love the inclusion of conspiracy theories as terrorist threat. I notice that's a big thing now. Any challenge of an official narrative - Covid measures, BLM, voting legislation, or what have you - is dismissed as racist, bigoted, or similar. If you provide some amount of data or facts, you're told it's all part of a vast conspiracy. Naturally the conspiracy is driven by racism, bigotry, or similar.
It almost sounds like we're being told to sit down and shut up. Any questions or challenges to the official narrative will mark you as an enemy of Caesar.
Well... what you going to do about it? And remember you have to phrase the answer so it's perfect and doesn't give any ammunition to the other side. ;)
ReplyDeleteHa ha. Though at the rate we're going, I don't think what anyone says or what's true will matter one way or another. But I sleep better at night knowing we didn't do anything to shoot ourselves in the process on the way down.
Delete"We may have lost Ww2 To the Germans and Japanese, but at least we had no incidents of friendly fire."
DeleteAs the saying goes, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
That's certainly one way to see it. But in a war of ideals, when we're up against a side that almost relies on double standards, having a single standard and sticking to it might not be a bad way to go.
DeleteI would prefer the method of "rules of engagement" and "ending conditions." We've spent several decades trying to live on this "we're better than you" standard and how far has it gotten us? Maybe it's time to adjust things to, "We don't like to hit people, but if you hit us, we will hit back." Though to distinguish, we absolutely should have boundaries set as well as a proscribed method for forgiveness and reconciliation.
DeleteFor an example: With the recent truckers' protest, "end mask & vaccine mandates" is the end condition and it's quite clear and reasonable. Conversely a couple of years ago the BLM protests had no clearly defined goal or end condition that I could see. (Unless you want to count unreasonable ones like "end the family" or "remake all of society" or "let certain groups get away with crime.")
I don't know if it's a 'we're better than you', at least not in the case below. When it comes to childish leaders, I don't think it's helped our nation or society at all. This idea that adults are at their best by ignoring Paul and keeping our childish ways. I remember back when leaders were the adults in the room. It also made it enjoyable when one let his hair down and indulged in some lighthearted humor. But in this type of case, not only can they insist we're being no different than them - standards when convenient - but we're doing so by indulging in something that has been harmful to the very thing we're trying to defend. That's the sort of self defeating tactics I'm thinking on.
DeleteNot sure I understand your comment.
DeleteI'll just say this: during 2020 when the debate over Amy Barret was being held, Jonah Goldberg proposed that the nomination be put on hold for the next president with the promise from Joe Biden not to pack the court if he was elected.
My issue with it was, what if this agreement is made, and then Biden breaks his word and packs the court anyway? How will he be punished?
All contracts & agreements & deals are based around one of the sides getting punished if they break it. So in what way can the Left be punished? So far as I can see, not many. And sometimes during all this principles talk, it sounds just as good as a surrender. "We'll never punish the left because that would be against our principles" is just as good as self-destructing society from the start. Becuase you've just made the building blocks of civilization null and void. Not only is America lost, you've just set a game that's unwinnable from the start. The equivalent of trying to box without using your arms.
At that point, what is there even to mourn? This is the life and nation you have chosen, why do you weep?
I sympathize with the idea that we can't just go into it blind, accept in good faith they'll be fair and honest, and do so to take the higher ground. Shrewd as serpents and all. But in the example from the post we were discussing, I think a generation of children running the show does little good for society as a whole. Even if they're reps act like children, we shouldn't. Not just because we want to hold onto higher lofty standards. But because by not acting like adults, I believe we're helping perpetuate one of the problems hurting us. If we are going to play hardball with the other side, then at least let's not do it when playing that way will achieve the same results for the other side anyway.
DeleteThe point of the picture is not that believing there are conspiracies makes you an enemy of Caesar, it's that Caesar SHOULD have believed in a certain conspiracy.
ReplyDeleteThough, to be honest, his end seems to have been fated. "Fate goes always as it must", as Beowulf said.
That's certainly the point of it. The idea that any challenge to a narrative is a 'conspiracy' and therefore necessarily false overlooks quite a few moments in history.
DeleteFor some reason the government post reminds me of most national political campaigns of the last century. Could it be that politics is simply revolutionary conspiracy lite?
ReplyDeleteSome things never change I suppose.
DeleteThe definition of terrorism is always expanding. Same with genocide, same with rape. They used to have fairly specific meanings. Now they mean whatever the politicians want.
ReplyDeleteYep. I'd say we live in an age where almost any word is up for grabs.
DeleteThe people in power have an internalized, subjective "truth." Challenging "narratives," like appeals to objective truth, are a mortal threat because they undermine the delicate justification of their power. Pope Benedict called this a "dictatorship of relativism."
ReplyDeleteGood point. They lean on some vague subjectivism, and yet defend it as if it's science and dogma at the same time. The speed with which they malign anyone who dares even think about challenging them suggests they're well aware of the flaws and inconsistencies of their positions.
Delete