|
|
by Mark Malvasi
Brooding on power and revenge, tormented by suspicion, hatred, and fear, militant nationalists became ever more indifferent to truth and reality. They held to no objective standard of judgment. Actions were good or bad not according to their merits but according to who had undertaken them. Nationalists have not only failed to disapprove of the atrocities that their side commits, but they have also often minimized, ignored, or denied them. nationalism has not brought and will not bring such unity, if for no other reason than nationalism insists on uniformity and must always exclude those who do not conform. Yet, if there is a chance to achieve some measure of unity, patriotism might enable it... [MORE]
|
|
|
|
by Jacob Bruggeman
The Relentless Rationalist disregards the Kantian observation that out of the timber so crooked as that from which man is made, nothing entirely straight can be built. And that timber is so wickedly crooked. Nevertheless, the Relentless Rationalist knows of this timber and seeks to cut it out of the human constitution with today’s gadgetry. Removal is not enough, though; control is the ultimate answer. The Relentless Rationalist will twist humanity for a so-called greater good. Stability before all, even if it means forcing human faces under a boot and stamping on them forever. Totalitarianism is the only conclusion for Relentless Rationalists, but in it there remains room for the rest of us: hell for the human, paradise for the prophets-turned-gods.... [MORE]
|
|
|
|
by T. Adams Upchurch
For a long time, I wrote weekly opinion pieces for a local newspaper, mostly about the political issues in the news at that moment. Because of my educational background and academic accomplishments, and because an editor considered my opinion authoritative enough to warrant a regular column in his paper, I had a feeling of superiority to the masses. My feeling of superiority was constantly bolstered by the fact that I didn’t get much blowback from those readers, so I quite naturally assumed most of them agreed with what I wrote. Then Facebook came along, and I could get my opinions out there daily instead of weekly, and I didn’t have to worry about an editor’s approval. It was all just so easy and convenient. Except for one thing... [MORE]
|
|
|
|
by Richard H. Bulzacchelli
In the wake of President Trump’s decision to rescind the order, prominent voices have been raised in moral indignation, painting President Trump as a nefarious actor. But is that characterization fair? Given President Trump’s stated motives for rescinding DACA, the question before us is not whether President Trump is merciful or of good will, but whether he is correct or incorrect in his understanding of what the law prescribes and forbids, and thus, what falls within his discretion as president and what does not. There are rational and coherent reasons for him to take the action that he did, not for nefarious purposes, but for the noble purpose of discharging his sworn duty to defend and preserve the system of laws that makes civil society possible in the United States... [MORE]
|
|
|
|
by Joseph Pearce
What do The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings show us about ourselves and the world in which we find ourselves? They show us that we live in dark and dangerous times. They show us that the power of darkness appears to be winning. They show us that history is a “long defeat.” They reveal that the devil, or Satan, or Sauron, or whatever other name we care to give him, is the Prince of this world and holds it in his sway. And yet Tolkien’s epics show us that we are not the absurd creatures that the Dark Lord’s servants would have us believe that we are. On the contrary, we are those who look beyond ourselves to the goodness, truth, and beauty of objective reality; and we are those who see our lives as a journey, a quest, an adventure, the purpose of which is to get to the heaven-haven of the reward... [MORE]
|
|
|
|
by Bradley J. Birzer
When I finished The Conservative Mind for the first time in that fateful year of 1989, I was both intrigued and repulsed by it. I remember thinking quite clearly that Russell Kirk had gotten so close to truth, but, then, just when he had had the chance, he had failed to promote freedom—the proper answer to every single thing. At least I thought so then. I ended up writing a lengthy response to Kirk on three of four sheets of yellow legal-pad paper, explaining exactly where I thought he was wrong and what he could do to fix the eighth edition of the book. How utterly sophomoric, presumptuous, and stupid! To this day, I both regret and don’t regret having not sent that letter. What would Kirk have said to this stupid but interested undergraduate libertarian who knew exactly how to fix the world?... [MORE]
|
|
|
|
by Gleaves Whitney
“You are dealing with a tangle of myth, memory, and the politics of nostalgia," Professor Stephen Tonsor told me flatly. "Because the Civil War is the American Iliad, it is constantly being refought in the public memory. Much is at stake, for myths make meaning, meaning makes politics, and politics make myths. It will take time, but you will find a way to come to terms with your Southern legacy.” He added, in a softer register: “Maybe it’s harder for Texans because of the pride Texans have in the Lone Star State. But with time and perspective, you will sort it out. I understand your attachment to place, as well as your very complicated relationship to Texas and the South. The irrational attachment to place is one of the things that makes us human"... [MORE]
|
|
|
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario