Translate

viernes, 31 de diciembre de 2021

The Age Of Antichris: 666 looks like a luminous system that seems like it contains everything and can control everything

 

The Age Of Antichrist Is Here

By Rod Dreher

When I was a kid in the late 1970s, I happened upon a copy of Hal Lindsey’s megaselling The Late Great Planet Earth. It was an Evangelical account of the Last Days, purporting to explain how we were living in the times just before the return of Jesus Christ. All of this hit me like a bomb. I didn’t know Jesus Christ was coming back! Why did no one tell me? (I’ve told you before that we weren’t big churchgoers in my family.) And holy cow, I had no clue that the Soviet Union was mentioned in the Bible, and that the European Common Market was going to produce this guy called the Antichrist, and that there was this thing called the Rapture … et cetera. This was thrilling stuff. It electrified my imagination for a year or two. And then it burned out, and with it went my faith for some time.

As an adult Christian, I would laugh at myself, recalling how seriously twelve-year-old me took Hal Lindsey’s speculations, none of which came true. That End Times narrative is really narcotic, though. As a Catholic, I saw a version of it, usually involving devotion to Marian apparitions. A priest friend who had been converted at Medjugorje, but who early in his priesthood wearied of apparition-chasers, told me how frustrating it was to him to be unable to get his most enthusiastic parishioners to focus on the ordinary part of being Catholics. They wanted the spiritual fireworks. It’s a real temptation.

The thing is, the Christian tradition really does say that before the Second Coming of Christ, there will arise a messianic world leader called by Scripture the “Beast,” who is the “Antichrist.” He will lead a mass persecution of the Church, and will oversee a global dictatorship that controls people’s lives so thoroughly that, according to Revelation 13:

16Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead,17so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.18This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.

I hardly need to point out that there is a massive literature of speculation about the identity of the Antichrist, and how it is connected to the number 666. I find the theory of the Orthodox Christian thinker Jonathan Pageau persuasive: that the Antichrist 666 is not necessarily a single man (though it might be), but the number refers to a total godless system. He writes, in part:

So, we have to be very attentive as these patterns play themselves out. As these patterns start to appear to us in the world, we have to not look for the Ozzy Osbourne, dark Satanist who is going to be wearing all black and looking like a ghoul coming out of the Earth. That is not what 666 looks like. 666 looks like a luminous system that seems like it contains everything and can control everything. And that is why it is so seductive. That is why it can delude us if we’re not careful, because to not participate or to not, let’s say, worship this system can exclude you from the discourse. It makes it very easy to compromise in that sense.

Not long ago, I read that the Romans tattooed slaves on their hands or foreheads, so they would never be able to escape. It hit me, then, that the “mark of the Beast” seen by St. John was not necessarily a literal mark on the forehead or hand (though it might be), but that symbolically it meant that you had to be a slave to the system in order to participate economically — that is, to earn a living.

As a Christian, I certainly believe this dark, totalitarian world will one day come into being. It’s easy to fall down a rabbit hole of guessing when that might be, and that’s something I never do. But I gotta say, the shape of the thing really does seem to be coming into being. In 2019, I wrote this piece after two prominent Catholic cardinals warned that the age of Antichrist might be upon us — both of them referencing the confused teaching coming from Pope Francis as a dangerous sign of the times. The intellectual giant René Girard, a Catholic, wrote around the turn of the century that we were in perilous times:

The current process of spiritual demagoguery and rhetorical overkill has transformed the concern for victims into a totalitarian command and a permanent inquisition. … We are living through a caricatural “ultra-Christianity” that tries to escape from the Judeo-Christian orbit by “radicalizing” the concern for victims in an anti-Christian manner. … The intellectuals and other cultural elites have promoted Christianity to the role of number one scapegoat.

Girard says we are at the advent of what he calls “the other totalitarianism,” saying that it is

the most cunning and malicious of the two, the one with the greatest future, by all evidence. At present it does not oppose Judeo-Christian aspirations but claims them as its own and questions the concern for victims on the part of Christians (not without a certain semblance of reason at the level of concrete action, given the deficiencies of historical Christianity). The other totalitarianism does not openly oppose Christianity but outflanks it on its left wing.

As I wrote the last time I brought this up, this is the force of what in the Christian tradition is called Antichrist. You don’t have to believe in a literal Antichrist figure to grasp what Girard is saying here. Girard points out that in the symbolic language of the New Testament, Antichrist opposes Christ by imitating him and seeking to be better than him. More:

The Antichrist boasts of bringing to human beings the peace and tolerance that Christianity promised but has failed to deliver. Actually what the radicalization of contemporary victimology produces is a return to all sorts of pagan practices: abortion euthanasia, sexual undifferentiation, Roman circus games galore but without real victims, etc.

Girard wrote that in his 2001 book I Saw Satan Fall Like Lightning. He died in 2015, just as the trans craze was getting started. I don’t think he would have been surprised by any of it.

Why do I bring this up today? Because I just read the latest Substack essay, titled “You Are Harvest,” by Paul Kingsnorth, an English writer living in rural Ireland with his wife and kids. I am a subscriber, so I don’t know if it is behind a paywall or not. Click the link to see. Kingsnorth was formally baptized and confirmed as an Orthodox Christian earlier this year, but his thought expressed in the piece is not based on anything Christian. Rather it is based on a lifetime of observing and analyzing the culture. Read in a Christian key, though, what he writes is staggering, and look, if you can’t read this for free, you would do well to buy a subscription to read his entire series about what he calls The Machine.  Any time he refers to “the Machine,” I think “Antichrist.” It fits. Here are excerpts:

Many people see few problems with the march of the digital machine through every aspect of our lives. Many people have simply forgotten what it feels like not to be pulled and pushed and tugged and directed every hour of the day by the demands of the glowing screen.

Many people are not paying attention.

More:

A few days after I lost my game of chess, a couple of friends came to visit us from England. We hadn’t seen them for nearly a decade, and they hadn’t travelled anywhere since the pandemic began, so they were blinking excitedly in the sunlight. They had taken the ferry across the Irish Sea, which had necessitated them performing a particular technological ritual, one which went beyond even the longstanding norm of scanning their digitally-enabled passports and sitting on a boat full of CCTV cameras.

This time they had to have their photo taken, and show their digital proof of vaccination. They also, for some reason they didn’t understand, had to recite a string of numbers into a recording device. If I were being paranoid – and these days I usually am – I would guess that this was part of the creation of an embryonic digital voice recognition system, which will be used in future to supplement the eyeball scans, passport chips and smartphone-enabled health certificates which are already forming the basis of our glorious future of freedom and plenty.

More:

Sometimes I lie awake at night, or I wander in the field behind my house, or I walk down the street in our local town and think I can see it all around me: the grid. The veins and sinews of the Machine that surrounds us and pins us and provides for us and defines us now. I imagine a kind of network of shining lines in the air, glowing like a dewed spiderweb in the morning sun. I imagine the cables and the satellite links, the films and the words and the records and the opinions, the nodes and the data centres that track and record the details of my life. I imagine the mesh created by the bank transactions and the shopping trips, the passport applications and the text messages sent. I see this thing, whatever it is, being constructed, or constructing itself around me, I see it rising and tightening its grip, and I see that none of us can stop it from evolving into whatever it is becoming.

I see the Machine, humming gently to itself as it binds us with its offerings, as it dangles its promises before us and slowly, slowly, slowly reels us in. I think of the part of it we interact with daily, the glowing white interface through which we volunteer every detail of our lives in exchange for information or pleasure or stories told by global entertainment corporations who commodify our culture and sell it back to us. I think of the words we use to describe this interface, which we carry with us in our pockets wherever we go, as we are tracked down every street and into every forest that remains: the web; the net.

I think: these are things designed to trap prey.

 

Here, Kingsnorth comes to the end of a long passage in which he discusses Jacques Ellul and his theories about how our world is being taken over by “technique.” For Ellul, this means establishing by mechanical means a world in which all things are controlled:

But then, if Ellul is right, this is the direction in which the reign of technique will ultimately take us: towards the dictatorship of the Machine. Claiming in 1964 that technique had already ‘rendered traditional democratic doctrines obsolete’, he suggested that the new way of seeing would overcome any democratic objections, and would always tend towards total control. ‘Efficiency is a fact’, he wrote wryly, ‘and justice a slogan.’ Technique, through sheer dominance, would accrue power to itself until there could be no rational argument (the only kind of argument now accepted) against controlling the minutiae of our lives for the greater good:

Finally, technique causes the state to become totalitarian, to absorb the citizens’ lives completely. We have noted that this occurs as a result of the accumulation of techniques in the hands of the state … Even when the state is liberal and democratic, it cannot do otherwise than become totalitarian. It becomes so directly or, as in the United States, through intermediate persons. But, despite differences, all such systems come ultimately to the same result.

By using the word ‘totalitarian’, Ellul was not suggesting that all nations would become dictatorships, let alone adopt an ideological framework like Nazism or Marxism to guide them. In fact, he said, such ideologies interfere with the direction of technique, which seeks efficiency rather than ideology. ‘Totalitarian’, in this context, simply meant that it would be impossible to escape the Machine and its assumptions. Everywhere you looked, there it would be: staring you in the face, directing your actions, digging into every facet of your life, giving you fewer and fewer escape routes each year.

I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that the times we are currently living in would be regarded by many of our ancestors as apocalyptic. The degree of control and monitoring which we endure in ‘developed’ societies, which has been accelerating for decades and which has reached warp speed in the 2020s, is creating a kind of digital holding camp in which we all find ourselves trapped. The rising paranoia that extends now across the political spectrum and across the Western world – the anger and confusion; the sense of promises broken and established systems gumming up – all of this, I think, can be traced to the rise and consolidation of the Machine, this great matrix which strips from us our understanding of what a human life is, and makes us instead lonely cogs in its drive for self-creation.

Read it all, if you can — and if you can’t, then buy a subscription and read all nine of Kingsnorth’s essays about the Machine. Trust me, it’s worth it.

In this latest piece, Kingsnorth suggests that you watch this 10-minute video of Edward Snowden explaining how the Internet works, and why it leads to our slavery:

 

It is hard to know how to respond to this in one’s life. At the Touchstone conference recently, a woman asked me why, if I recognized all the evils that come to us through smartphones (primarily surveillance), do I continue to have one? It’s a great question, and the only feeble answer I could give her was that I have to have it to do my job. When I told my wife about the woman’s question, and how unhappy I was with my answer, she pointed out that our daughter’s “dumb phone” was going to be obsolete soon, because it would not be able to work on the cell system. They have made it where we all have to have smart phones if we are going to have cellphones at all. Could you do your job without a cellphone? I couldn’t. There’s no way in the world. So, I am lashed to the system, whether I like it or not. And so are you.

When I talk in Live Not By Lies about “soft totalitarianism,” I am not simply speaking of the particular policies the baizuocracy is putting into place. I am talking about the technical capabilities they have built into the system to control us. The other day I watched a video in which one of the leading Catholic integralists said that it was a shame that progressives understood better than us conservatives that the state ought to be in the business of “soulcraft,” and be guiding the people to virtue. I thought: this right-wing Catholic doesn’t object to the controlling state; he just objects to the fact that secular leftists are in command of it. Well, I don’t want to live in a society in the grips of Dostoevsky’s Catholic Grand Inquisitor any more than I want to live in one gripped by Huxley’s secular World Controller. But we have created, and continue to refine, a system that gives that kind of power to people.

China is where this future is being perfected:

Right now, in the West, this power is coming into the hands of progressives, who will use it to stamp out racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and the rest. They will be able to detect the existence of these things before people can act on them. The technology is already there; it just hasn’t been implemented. Yet.

The Age of Antichrist is not about Ozzy Osbourne and pale Goths. It’s about nebbishy Lin Jinyue, the head of Human Resources at major companies, and Silicon Valley. And it is here. They are going to use their power to establish a reign of virtue. There will be no room for non-compliant Christians in it (or non-complying anyone else). We were warned 2,000 years ago. We are warned once again by Paul Kingsnorth, whether he knows it or not.


Rod Dreher is a senior editor at The American Conservative. A veteran of three decades of magazine and newspaper journalism, he has also written three New York Times bestsellers—Live Not By Lies, The Benedict Option, and The Little Way of Ruthie Leming—as well as Crunchy Cons and How Dante Can Save Your Life. Dreher lives in Baton Rouge, La.


Read more - Source:  www.theamericanconservative.com

La técnica hace que el Estado se vuelva totalitario y absorba por completo la vida de los ciudadanos


La Era Del Anticristo Está Aquí




Cuando era niño, a fines de la década de 1970, me encontré con una copia del megaventas de Hal Lindsey The Late Great Planet Earth. Era un relato evangélico de los últimos días, que pretendía explicar cómo vivíamos en los tiempos justo antes del regreso de Jesucristo. Todo esto me golpeó como una bomba. ¡No sabía que Jesucristo regresaría! ¿Por qué nadie me lo dijo? (Ya les dije antes que en mi familia no éramos grandes feligreses.) Y santo cielo , no tenía ni idea de que la Unión Soviética se mencionaba en la Biblia, y que el Mercado Común Europeo iba a producir a este tipo llamado el Anticristo, y que hubo una cosa llamada el Rapto ... etcétera. Esto fue algo emocionante. Electrificó mi imaginación durante uno o dos años. Y luego se quemó, y con él se fue mi fe por algún tiempo.

Como cristiano adulto, me reiría de mí mismo, recordando lo en serio que yo, cuando tenía doce años, me tomaba las especulaciones de Hal Lindsey, ninguna de las cuales se hizo realidad. Sin embargo, esa narrativa del fin de los tiempos es realmente narcótica. Como católico, vi una versión, que por lo general implicaba devoción a las apariciones marianas. Un sacerdote amigo que se había convertido en Medjugorje, pero que al principio de su sacerdocio se cansó de los cazadores de apariciones, me dijo lo frustrante que era para él no poder lograr que sus feligreses más entusiastas se concentraran en la parte ordinaria de ser católicos. Querían los fuegos artificiales espirituales. Es una verdadera tentación.

El caso es que la tradición cristiana realmente dice que antes de la Segunda Venida de Cristo, surgirá un líder mundial mesiánico llamado por las Escrituras la "Bestia", que es el "Anticristo". Liderará una persecución masiva de la Iglesia y supervisará una dictadura global que controla la vida de las personas tan a fondo que, según Apocalipsis 13:

16 También hace que todos, pequeños y grandes, ricos y pobres, libres y esclavos, sean marcados en la mano derecha o en la frente, 17 de modo que nadie pueda comprar ni vender si no tiene la marca, es decir, el nombre de la bestia o el número de su nombre. 18 Esto requiere sabiduría: el que tiene entendimiento, calcule el número de la bestia, porque es el número de un hombre, y su número es 666.

Apenas necesito señalar que hay una literatura masiva de especulaciones sobre la identidad del Anticristo, y cómo está conectado con el número 666. Encuentro la teoría del pensador cristiano ortodoxo Jonathan Pageau persuasiva: que el Anticristo 666 no es necesariamente un solo hombre (aunque podría serlo), pero el número se refiere a un sistema total sin Dios. Escribe, en parte:

Por lo tanto, tenemos que estar muy atentos a que estos patrones se desarrollen. A medida que estos patrones comienzan a aparecer ante nosotros en el mundo, no debemos buscar al Ozzy Osbourne, un satanista oscuro que vestirá todo de negro y se verá como un demonio que sale de la Tierra. Eso no es lo que parece el 666. 666 parece un sistema luminoso que parece que lo contiene todo y puede controlarlo todo. Y por eso es tan seductor. Por eso nos puede engañar si no tenemos cuidado, porque no participar o no, digamos, adorar este sistema puede excluirte del discurso. Hace que sea muy fácil comprometerse en ese sentido.

No hace mucho, leí que los romanos se tatuaban esclavos en las manos o la frente, para que nunca pudieran escapar. Entonces me di cuenta de que la "marca de la Bestia" vista por San Juan no era necesariamente una marca literal en la frente o la mano (aunque podría serlo), sino que simbólicamente significaba que tenías que ser un esclavo de el sistema para participar económicamente, es decir, para ganarse la vida.

Como cristiano, ciertamente creo que este mundo oscuro y totalitario algún día llegará a existir. Es fácil caer en la trampa de adivinar cuándo podría ser, y eso es algo que nunca hago. Pero debo decir que la forma de la cosa realmente parece estar cobrando vida. En 2019, escribí este artículo después de que dos prominentes cardenales católicos advirtieran que la era del Anticristo podría estar sobre nosotros, ambos haciendo referencia a la enseñanza confusa que viene del Papa Francisco como una señal peligrosa de los tiempos. El gigante intelectual René Girard , un católico, escribió alrededor del cambio de siglo que estábamos en tiempos peligrosos:

El actual proceso de demagogia espiritual y exageración retórica ha transformado la preocupación por las víctimas en un mando totalitario y una inquisición permanente. … Vivimos un “ultracristianismo” caricaturesco que intenta escapar de la órbita judeocristiana “radicalizando” la preocupación por las víctimas de manera anticristiana. … Los intelectuales y otras élites culturales han promovido el cristianismo al papel de chivo expiatorio número uno.

Girard dice que estamos en el advenimiento de lo que él llama "el otro totalitarismo", diciendo que es

el más astuto y malicioso de los dos, el que tiene el mayor futuro, según todas las pruebas. En la actualidad no se opone a las aspiraciones judeocristianas, sino que las reivindica como propias y cuestiona la preocupación por las víctimas por parte de los cristianos (no sin cierta apariencia de razón a nivel de la acción concreta, dadas las deficiencias del cristianismo histórico). El otro totalitarismo no se opone abiertamente al cristianismo, sino que lo flanquea en su ala izquierda.

Como escribí la última vez que mencioné esto, esta es la fuerza de lo que en la tradición cristiana se llama Anticristo . No tienes que creer en una figura literal del Anticristo para comprender lo que Girard está diciendo aquí. Girard señala que en el lenguaje simbólico del Nuevo Testamento, el Anticristo se opone a Cristo imitándolo y buscando ser mejor que él. Más:

El Anticristo se jacta de llevar a los seres humanos la paz y la tolerancia que el cristianismo prometió, pero que no logró cumplir. En realidad lo que produce la radicalización de la victimología contemporánea es un retorno a todo tipo de prácticas paganas: aborto eutanasia, indiferenciación sexual, juegos de circo romano en abundancia pero sin víctimas reales, etc.

Girard escribió eso en su libro de 2001 Vi a Satanás caer como un rayo . Murió en 2015, justo cuando comenzaba la locura trans. No creo que le hubiera sorprendido nada de eso.

¿Por qué menciono esto hoy? 

Porque acabo de leer el último ensayo de Substack, titulado "You Are Harvest", de Paul Kingsnorth, un escritor inglés que vive en las zonas rurales de Irlanda con su esposa e hijos. Soy un suscriptor, así que no sé si está detrás de un muro de pago o no. Haga clic en el enlace para ver. Kingsnorth fue bautizado formalmente y confirmado como cristiano ortodoxo a principios de este año, pero su pensamiento expresado en la pieza no se basa en nada cristiano. Más bien, se basa en una vida de observación y análisis de la cultura. Sin embargo, lea en clave cristiana, lo que escribe es asombroso, y mire, si no puede leer esto gratis, haría bien en comprar una suscripción para leer toda su serie sobre lo que él llama The Machine. Cada vez que se refiere a "la Máquina", pienso "Anticristo". Encaja. Aquí hay extractos:

Muchas personas ven pocos problemas con la marcha de la máquina digital en todos los aspectos de nuestras vidas. Muchas personas simplemente han olvidado lo que se siente al no ser jaladas, empujadas, jaladas y dirigidas cada hora del día por las demandas de la pantalla brillante.

Mucha gente no presta atención.

Más:

Unos días después de perder mi partida de ajedrez, un par de amigos vinieron a visitarnos desde Inglaterra. No los habíamos visto durante casi una década y no habían viajado a ningún lado desde que comenzó la pandemia, por lo que parpadeaban emocionados a la luz del sol. Habían tomado el ferry para cruzar el Mar de Irlanda, lo que les había obligado a realizar un ritual tecnológico particular, uno que iba más allá incluso de la antigua norma de escanear sus pasaportes habilitados digitalmente y sentarse en un bote lleno de cámaras de CCTV.

Esta vez tenían que sacarse una foto y mostrar su comprobante digital de vacunación. También, por alguna razón que no entendían, tenían que recitar una serie de números en un dispositivo de grabación. Si estuviera siendo paranoico, y en estos días generalmente lo soy, supongo que esto fue parte de la creación de un sistema embrionario de reconocimiento de voz digital, que se usará en el futuro para complementar los escáneres del globo ocular, los chips de pasaporte y la salud habilitada para teléfonos inteligentes. certificados que ya están formando la base de nuestro glorioso futuro de libertad y abundancia.

Más:

A veces me quedo despierto por la noche, o deambulo por el campo detrás de mi casa, o camino por la calle de nuestra ciudad local y creo que puedo ver todo a mi alrededor: la cuadrícula. Las venas y tendones de la Máquina que nos rodea y nos inmoviliza y nos provee y nos define ahora. Imagino una especie de red de líneas brillantes en el aire, brillando como una telaraña cubierta de rocío bajo el sol de la mañana. Imagino los cables y los enlaces satelitales, las películas y las palabras y los registros y las opiniones, los nodos y los centros de datos que rastrean y registran los detalles de mi vida. Me imagino la malla creada por las transacciones bancarias y los viajes de compras, las aplicaciones de pasaporte y los mensajes de texto enviados. Veo esta cosa, sea lo que sea, construyéndose o construyéndose a mi alrededor, la veo levantarse y apretar su agarre,

Veo la Máquina, tarareando suavemente para sí misma mientras nos une con sus ofrendas, mientras cuelga sus promesas ante nosotros y lenta, lenta, lentamente nos devana. Pienso en la parte de ella con la que interactuamos a diario, la brillante interfaz blanca. a través del cual ofrecemos voluntariamente cada detalle de nuestras vidas a cambio de información o placer o historias contadas por corporaciones globales de entretenimiento que mercantilizan nuestra cultura y nos la venden. Pienso en las palabras que usamos para describir esta interfaz, que llevamos con nosotros en nuestros bolsillos dondequiera que vayamos, ya que somos rastreados en cada calle y en cada bosque que queda:  la web; la red.

Pienso:  estas son cosas diseñadas para atrapar presas.

 

Aquí, Kingsnorth llega al final de un largo pasaje en el que analiza a Jacques Ellul y sus teorías sobre cómo nuestro mundo está siendo dominado por la "técnica". Para Ellul, esto significa establecer por medios mecánicos un mundo en el que todas las cosas estén controladas:

Pero entonces, si Ellul tiene razón, esta es la dirección en la que finalmente nos llevará el reinado de la técnica: hacia la dictadura de la Máquina. Afirmando en 1964 que la técnica ya había "vuelto obsoletas las doctrinas democráticas tradicionales", sugirió que la nueva forma de ver superaría cualquier objeción democrática y siempre tendería hacia el control total. "La eficiencia es un hecho", escribió con ironía, "y la justicia un lema". La técnica, a través del dominio absoluto, acumularía poder para sí misma hasta que no pudiera haber ningún argumento racional (el único tipo de argumento ahora aceptado) contra el control de las minucias de nuestras vidas para el bien mayor:

Finalmente, la técnica hace que el Estado se vuelva totalitario, absorba por completo la vida de los ciudadanos. Hemos notado que esto ocurre como resultado de la acumulación de técnicas en manos del estado ... Incluso cuando el estado es liberal y democrático, no puede hacer otra cosa que volverse totalitario. Se vuelve tan directamente o, como en los Estados Unidos, a través de personas intermedias. Pero, a pesar de las diferencias, todos estos sistemas tienen, en última instancia, el mismo resultado.

Al usar la palabra 'totalitario', Ellul no estaba sugiriendo que todas las naciones se convertirían en dictaduras, y mucho menos adoptarían un marco ideológico como el nazismo o el marxismo para guiarlas. De hecho, dijo, tales ideologías interfieren con la dirección de la técnica, que busca la eficiencia en lugar de la ideología. 'Totalitario', en este contexto, simplemente significaba que sería imposible escapar de la Máquina y sus supuestos. Dondequiera que miraste, allí estaría: mirándote a la cara, dirigiendo tus acciones, indagando en cada faceta de tu vida, dándote cada vez menos rutas de escape cada año.

No creo que sea una exageración decir que muchos de nuestros antepasados ​​considerarían apocalípticos los tiempos en los que vivimos actualmente. El grado de control y seguimiento que soportamos en las sociedades 'desarrolladas', que se ha estado acelerando durante décadas y que ha alcanzado una velocidad vertiginosa en la década de 2020, está creando una especie de campo de concentración digital en el que todos nos encontramos atrapados. La creciente paranoia que se extiende ahora por todo el espectro político y por todo el mundo occidental: la ira y la confusión; el sentido de promesas rotas y sistemas establecidos engullendo - todo esto, creo, se puede rastrear hasta el surgimiento y consolidación de la Máquina, esta gran matriz que nos despoja de nuestra comprensión de lo que es una vida humana, y en su lugar nos convierte en engranajes solitarios en su impulso por la autocreación.

Léalo todo, si puede , y si no puede, compre una suscripción y lea los nueve ensayos de Kingsnorth sobre la Máquina. Confía en mi, vale la pena.

En esta última pieza, Kingsnorth sugiere que veas este video de 10 minutos de Edward Snowden que explica cómo funciona Internet y por qué conduce a nuestra esclavitud:

 

Es difícil saber cómo responder a esto en la vida. Recientemente, en la conferencia Touchstone, una mujer me preguntó por qué, si reconocía todos los males que nos llegan a través de los teléfonos inteligentes (principalmente la vigilancia), ¿sigo teniendo uno? Es una gran pregunta, y la única respuesta débil que pude darle fue que tengo que tenerla para hacer mi trabajo. Cuando le conté a mi esposa sobre la pregunta de la mujer y lo infeliz que estaba con mi respuesta, ella señaló que el “teléfono tonto” de nuestra hija pronto quedaría obsoleto, porque no podría funcionar en el sistema celular. Han logrado que todos tengamos que tener teléfonos inteligentes si queremos tener teléfonos celulares. ¿Podrías hacer tu trabajo sin un teléfono celular? No pude. No hay forma en el mundo. Entonces, estoy amarrado al sistema, me guste o no. Y tu también.

Cuando hablo en Live Not By Lies sobre el “totalitarismo blando”, no me refiero simplemente a las políticas particulares que está poniendo en práctica la baizuocracia. Me refiero a las capacidades técnicas que han incorporado al sistema para controlarnos. El otro día vi un video en el que uno de los principales integradores católicos dijo que era una pena que los progresistas entendieran mejor que nosotros los conservadores que el estado debería estar en el negocio del "soulcraft" y estar guiando a la gente hacia la virtud. Pensé: este católico de derecha no se opone al estado controlador; simplemente objeta el hecho de que los izquierdistas seculares están al mando. Bueno, no quiero vivir en una sociedad en las garras del Gran Inquisidor católico de Dostoievski más de lo que quiero vivir en una dominada por el Controlador Mundial secular de Huxley. Pero hemos creado y seguimos perfeccionando

China es donde se está perfeccionando este futuro:

Ahora mismo, en Occidente, este poder está llegando a manos de los progresistas, que lo utilizarán para acabar con el racismo, el sexismo, la homofobia, la transfobia y demás. Podrán detectar la existencia de estas cosas antes de que la gente pueda actuar sobre ellas. La tecnología ya está ahí; simplemente no se ha implementado. Aún.

La Era del Anticristo no se trata de Ozzy Osbourne y los godos pálidos. Se trata de Nebbishy Lin Jinyue, directora de Recursos Humanos de las principales empresas y Silicon Valley. Y esta aqui. Van a usar su poder para establecer un reino de virtud. No habrá lugar para cristianos que no cumplan en él (o cualquier otra persona que no cumpla). Nos advirtieron hace 2.000 años. Paul Kingsnorth nos advierte una vez más, lo sepa o no.


Leer aquí  .  Fuente: www.theamericanconservative.com

Scholz is doubling down on Merkel´s failed foreign policies vis-a-vis autocracies. It will end in tears...

Germany's New Government: Business as Usual with China

by Soeren Kern 

  • Olaf Scholz, who succeeded Angela Merkel as chancellor on December 8, pledged [in a telephone call with China's President Xi Jinping] to strengthen economic ties with China, but he failed to mention human rights or the destruction of democracy in Hong Kong.
  • The telephone call will disappoint those who had hoped that Germany's new government would break with the past and take distance from Merkel's policy of appeasing dictators and sacrificing human rights on the altar of financial gain.
  • If Scholz promised to advance bilateral economic relations without linking them to the protection of human rights, it would be a direct violation of Germany's coalition agreement, which pledged to make human rights the centerpiece of German foreign policy.
  • The Merkel government, apparently under pressure from German industry, largely ignored human rights abuses in Xinjiang.
  • China is Germany's biggest trading partner, with €212 billion in goods exchanged in 2020, according to the German Foreign Ministry. More than 5,000 German companies operate in China, according to the German Chamber of Commerce in China.
  • "Did the new German Chancellor pressure the Chinese dictator during their phone call over the Chinese blackmail of Lithuania, EU and NATO ally of Germany? Or does Germany still not care about the strategic reality and is its foreign policy still driven by greed and appeasement?" — Jakub Janda, Director of the Prague-based European Values think tank.
  • "Merkel will be judged harshly by future historians. She has done little to prepare Germany and the European Union for the challenges that the Putin and Xi regime pose to liberal democracies. And Scholz is doubling down on her failed foreign policies vis-a-vis autocracies. It will end in tears." — Andreas Fulda, German political scientist and expert on EU-China relations.
Germany's new chancellor, Olaf Scholz, has had his first telephone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Scholz, who succeeded Angela Merkel as chancellor on December 8, pledged to strengthen economic ties with China, but he failed to mention human rights or the destruction of democracy in Hong Kong.

The telephone call will disappoint those who had hoped that Germany's new government — a three-way coalition consisting of the center-left Social Democrats (SPD), the environmentalist Greens and the pro-business Free Democrats (FDP) — would break with the past and take distance from Merkel's policy of appeasing dictators and sacrificing human rights on the altar of financial gain.

Continue Reading Article


Read more   -   Source:  www.gatestoneinstitute.org

jueves, 30 de diciembre de 2021

Most Americans live on either end of the political spectrum


Welcome to the ideological heartland


by Ryan Streeter

It’s not a place you can find on a map, but it’s where most Americans live—at a remove from the extremists on either end of the political spectrum.

Lost in the play-by-play coverage of the Democrats’ internecine Build Back Better battles the past few months is how foreseeable their current debacle was. Not just because of Joe Manchin’s steadfastness, but another factor: a lot of Americans.

We were told repeatedly that Build Back Better was popular, but there was plenty of evidence that a good many Americans just weren’t as into it as much as President Biden and congressional Democrats believed. For instance, more than half of Americans told pollsters last summer that the child tax credit should not be made permanent, and despite more than 60 percent of survey respondents receiving the credit, only a quarter of them in October “strongly” supported expanding the policy. Twice as many independents oppose the idea of a permanent child credit than support it, and majorities across the political spectrum are uncomfortable expanding such benefits permanently without conditions such as work.

These data points are yet another expression of a growing problem on the left and right: the centrifugal pull of America’s political poles distorts the vision of the political class that sets agendas, covers politics, and spends too much time on Twitter.

They cannot see that most people dwell in an ideological heartland, removed at least a few steps from the febrile world of both the political class and the minority of Americans who comprise the splenetic, noisy grassroots.

The ideological heartland is filled with what we might call domestic realists. They don’t succumb to the centrifugal polar forces. They may sympathize with the tenets of the poles on a variety of hot-button issues, but they don’t want to go to war over them. They are comfortable with the idea that people can disagree and still live together peaceably. And they greatly outnumber the polar rabble rousers.

If you can imagine for a moment a third-party presidential candidate capable of winning a majority of electoral votes, the ideological heartland would be the reason why.

Domestic realists are not just the “exhausted majority” or whichever other appellation you prefer for centrists who are tired of the noisy extremes. They have priorities and commitments. They just want a politics scaled to their concerns rather than to the adrenalized anxieties of the politically obsessed.

Domestic realists would rather hear politicians explain how they will take care of the basics, such as public safety, good schools, cost of living issues, and an environment conducive to good jobs and career options. They rate crime, taxes, and drugs as the biggest problems in their communities, far above politically charged issues like immigration or climate change. They are the Americans who kept the Build Back Better plan from being as popular as its supporters told us it was, the Virginians who elected Glenn Youngkin their next governor, and the urban residents across the country who were trying to tell their supercilious overlords 18 months ago that crime was their top concern. They are a majority of voters, and their motto these days might as well be, “We’re not stupid, y’all.”

Based on large national surveys at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), some telling fault lines emerge between domestic realists and those on the left and right with distorted polar vision.

Consider this: Committed progressives—people who say they are “very” liberal—are more likely to strongly favor changing the names of statues and street names than they are to support affirmative action, greater racial diversity in school districts, or more affordable housing. Fervent conservatives—those who are “very” conservative—are more likely than progressives to believe politics is a zero-sum game (that is, if one side wins, the other loses) and that individuals can make a difference in Washington, D.C.

That committed progressives care less about the situation of lower-income Americans than their culture-war battles, or that fervent conservatives have lost their sense of the properly-scaled relationship between the individual and the state, is no longer surprising to anyone paying attention to the breathless (and often mindless) “discourse” that passes for conventional wisdom these days. When you add national news consumption and how important people consider their political identity as factors in the survey data, the breathlessness only increases on both sides, leaving very little oxygen for clear thinking.

Committed progressives and fervent conservatives comprise only about a quarter of U.S. adults, while domestic realists—who lean right or left or say they are moderate—comprise about two-thirds of us. Domestic realists share with committed progressives and fervent conservatives a measured view of the future. Roughly a third of each group expect things in America to improve in five years and half expect things to stay the same. Slightly more than half of each group believe America’s best days are ahead.

But the groups quickly diverge in a number of important ways. For starters, 37 percent of domestic realists do not follow national politics closely, compared to 18 percent of those who say they are “very liberal” and 29 percent of those who are “very conservative.” Realists are the only group in which a majority believes liberals and conservatives have about the same amount of political power (people at the poles always believe the other side has more power).

On hot-button issues such as policing and immigration, domestic realists lean toward conservatives on the former and progressives on the latter, even though their position would generally be described as moderate in every case. Two-thirds of them oppose cutting police funding, compared to the 90 percent of fervent conservatives who are also opposed and the three-quarters of committed progressives who support defunding. Committed progressives are the only group in which a majority opposes more policing in their neighborhoods, while roughly 80 percent of both realists and fervent conservatives would like to see more police on their streets. Similar patterns exist in the levels of trust each group has in the police.

On the other hand, a modest majority (58 percent) of domestic realists oppose deporting immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally, compared to large majorities on the left and right on polar opposites on this issue. These data are consistent with other large national surveys showing that a majority of Americans—both native and foreign-born—want both modest levels of immigration and pathways for illegal immigrants to naturalize. Realists are, well, realists when it comes to thinking about the issue.

On racial diversity, they defy easy categorization. Fifty-five percent of realists support redrawing school district boundaries to increase racial diversity, compared to more than 8 in 10 progressives who support the policy and two-thirds of conservatives who oppose it. At the same time, 61 percent of realists oppose giving black people and other racial minorities preference in college admission, compared to 85 percent of conservatives who share their view and 76 percent of progressives who support affirmative action.

Especially notable in the survey data is intensity. Committed progressives and fervent conservatives are more likely to “strongly” favor or oppose any number of hot-button issues, whereas realists are more likely to simply favor or oppose something, but not “strongly” so. They simply don’t care as much about controversial issues as the polar crowd. This doesn’t mean domestic realists don’t have principles or strong views. They simply want issues scaled appropriately to what is most important.

For instance, more than half of them believe anyone can start a business and two-thirds believe they are living the American Dream or on their way to doing so, an optimism that outpaces progressives who are gloomier on both accounts. At the same time, 7 in 10 domestic realists favor adding affordable housing for lower income people in their communities, more than the roughly half of conservatives who think the same. They are also considerably more likely than not to believe that the economic system is rigged in favor of powerful interests. They are, on the one hand, optimistic that the little guy can make it in America, while on the other, concerned that it is harder than it should be due to the structure of our economy.

When it comes to views of government, majorities of committed progressives, fervent conservatives, and domestic realists distrust the federal government. Only 39 percent of realists trust the feds, compared to 47 percent of progressives and 20 percent of conservatives. But approximately 60 percent of all three groups trust local government. Once again, the political class in Washington—in both its left-wing progressive and right-wing national conservative varieties—has misinterpreted how most Americans think. The majority are not likely to want even views they agree with imposed on them and others from the nation’s capital.

For anyone who cares about the intersection of policymaking and politics, especially heading into an election year, it is important to note that “moderate” is a better moniker for a disposition than policy views. Domestic realists care about important issues and respond to agendas that focus on them. Their moderation has more to do with how they view the frenzied attachments around which our political poles are organized. If our political parties ever get around to learning this lesson, America will be the better for it.

Ryan Streeter is the director of domestic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

Read more  -  Source: www.aei.org