If there are high moral expectations on people, and people think they can benefit from appearing to others as if they meet those high expectations (whether they do or not), that of course opens the door for hypocrisy. The only sure cure for hypocrisy is to lower your standards to such an extent that most people meet the standard easily. But then, you have low moral standards. Is that a good thing?
The only sure cure for hypocrisy is to lower your standards to such an extent that most people meet the standard easily. But then, you have low moral standards. Is that a good thing?
ReplyDeleteThis is taking the easy way out. The much harder path, but the one that leads to a high moral standard while also avoiding hypocrisy, is to spend as much time looking inward (including one's "group") as outward, and to be more invested in enforcing your standards for yourself and your own group than others.
Our increased polarization is a sure sign that we are failing to do this.
The ultimate in hypocrisy is, of course, any self-described "Christian" who still supports the serial blasphemer and trampler on all Christian values, Donald Trump. What follows is undoubtedly what they actually mean in their hearts as they mouth the words of Sacred Scripture:
ReplyDeleteOur Trump, which art in the White House,
Acquitted be thy name.
Thy dictatorship come,
Thy will be the only one that counts
On Earth, as it is in the Space Force.
Give us this day our daily Twitter storm,
And lead us not into affordable health care
As we deny help to those with preexisting conditions.
For thine art the golf courses, the emoluments, and the sharpies
Forever.
(Disclaimer: I stole this from The Washington Post)
Footnote: As I was writing "self-described", I missed being able to use the Russian language. They have an expression "kak nazyvaemyj" which is usually translated as "so called", but which means so much more. English has no equivalent to its sarcasm.
Hey. Being a dictator doesn't necessarily mean you can't be a Christian.
ReplyDeleteThe ultimate in hypocrisy is, of course, any self-described "Christian" who still supports the Democratic Party .
ReplyDeleteFixed it for you! And hence my first post.
Granted I think there is a giant difference between supporting Trump personally, and supporting the idea of Trump over any of these Democrats.
Not sure what you mean by that, Legion. Is supporting a candidate with a (D) after their name instead of Trump "supporting the Democratic Party? Were the Russians fighting Hitler "supporting" Stalin? For that matter, were American Republicans fighting the Axis "supporting" FDR?
ReplyDeleteI myself have repeatedly demonstrated on this site that I have over the years voted for both parties. But Trump is such a manifest evil and existential threat to my country (and to the world) that I would vote for just about anybody over him - even somebody that I was diametrical opposed to politically. Just as I would have cheerfully fought in the Red Army to defeat Hitler.
Uh.. "diametrically" opposed.
ReplyDeleteI'm actually pretty disappointed in Trump.
ReplyDeleteHere he's supposed to be the evilist dictator the world has ever seen and he's done a miserable job starting WW3. He's had 3 years to do it for crying out loud.
It rook Hitler 6 years to start his war.
ReplyDeleteI was promised The evilist dictator the world has ever seen. He should have been able to do it in 2. And now he's facing an election.
ReplyDeleteThat's another thing. What kind of evil dictator allows elections? Sad.
"What kind of evil dictator allows elections?"
ReplyDeleteStalin, Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe, Juan Peron, Ayatollah Khomeini, etc., etc.
But those guys installed weak ineffectual opposition candidates to run against. While now the Democrats have put up a slate of robust opponents to challenge........oh wait, I see what you're getting at. 😜
ReplyDeleteSo maybe he is a very stable evil genius. But I'm still not convinced.
Why isn't he making sure African-Americans stay unemployed? They have the lowest unemployment record of all time. Puny dictator.
More evidence for Starhopper's theory of Evil Trump's chicanery of installing opponent candidates who actually try to lose. Exhibit 1: Candidate calls possible voter a Dog-faced pony soldier
ReplyDeleteNow that you know, it's hard not to un-see.
hard to un-see that is.
ReplyDeleteIn 2024 when Trump leaves office and all Hitler comparisons have been conclusively proven to be ridiculous, I wonder how it will be spun to explain the difference between the assertions and reality.
ReplyDeleteEasy. They will accuse Pence of being Hitler and ignore anyone pointing out their Trump nonsense.
ReplyDeleteWhy isn't he making sure African-Americans stay unemployed? They have the lowest unemployment record of all time.
ReplyDeleteThe rate is still 50% higher than for white people. He hasn't done anything to help African American employment specifically, and all he's done for the economy is borrow money like crazy.
bmiller said...
ReplyDeleteHere he's supposed to be the evilist dictator the world has ever seen and he's done a miserable job starting WW3.
As awful as Trump is, I prefer him to Pence because he doesn't like foreign wars (in fact, he let the bombing of an American airbase go unanswered) and he did sign criminal justice reform. I don't trust pence on either issue.
"Hitler comparisons"
ReplyDeleteI actually think that Mussolini is a far better analog to Trump than Hitler. Just as Mussolini slavishly sucked up to his fellow dictator Hitler, Trump is Putin's lapdog. Also, for all his undeniable evil, Hitler genuinely believed in something greater than himself (Der Deutsche Volk). Trump believes in nothing other than his own self-aggrandizement.
Trump is Putin's lapdog
ReplyDeleteUnlikely and seemingly irrelevant either way.
As awful as Trump is, I prefer him to Pence because he doesn't like foreign wars (in fact, he let the bombing of an American airbase go unanswered) and he did sign criminal justice reform. I don't trust pence on either issue.
Agreed. What I would call "traditional" Republicans suck on both issues.
It's amazing to me that so many of those who think Trump is worse than Hitler and Emperor Palpatine and Thanos combined also hold the belief that George W. Bush was a "good man".
That "good man" is responsible for hundreds of thousands of dead due to unnecessary wars, not to even get into how much money was lost with no return. He is responsible for the torture of enemy captives. He is responsible for the erosion of civil rights in the guise of "fighting terrorism". He didn't seem to really care about anything but the political fallout from Hurricane Katrina.
I could probably go on, but how precisely is Trump worse than Bush? Because he says meanie things while Bush was all polite and "bipartisan"?
I hope that no president will ever again approach Bush 43 in terms of actual evil. Trump's antics are petty child's play in comparison.
It's amazing to me that so many of those who think Trump is worse than Hitler and Emperor Palpatine and Thanos combined also hold the belief that George W. Bush was a "good man".
ReplyDeleteThey claimed he was Hitler at the time. Just like all Republican presidential candidates of recent memory.
And that is the real danger. If you keep claiming all your political opponents are Hitler, you've proven to your opponents that you aren't to be taken seriously as providing honest criticism.
It's actually a good disinformation tactic to amplify over-the-top criticism of the side you're supporting in order to disqualify true criticism. This is why I've reached the conclusion that Starhopper is really an agent of Trump! Or should we call you by your real name Eric?
"over-the-top criticism"
ReplyDeleteOver the top? Hardly. If I expressed here what I genuinely think of this administration, it would curl your toes! (And some of it would likely bring the Secret service to my door.) I believe I'm being quite restrained in my criticism.
Nice try Eric, but I blew your cover.
ReplyDeleteI've got no problem with Eric, as long as it's Eric Clapton, Eric Idle, Eric Satie, Eric Hosmer, Eric Burdon, or Eric the Red.
ReplyDeleteI'll go into radio silence now regarding your secret identity. I support your cause.
ReplyDeleteOver the top? Hardly.
ReplyDeleteHow is the Trump administration worse than what Bush did? What's the body count so far?
Eric Idle
ReplyDeleteBrave Sir Robin ran away, bravely ran away away!
I'm pretty sure Monty Python is now officially prohibited from being viewed by leftists except as a way of showing how racist, sexist, and (fill in the blank)-phobic white cis-gendered males used to be.
ReplyDeleteWonder what they think of Blazing Saddles.
ReplyDeleteHush your mouth!
ReplyDeletebmiller said...
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure Monty Python is now officially prohibited from being viewed by leftists except as a way of showing how racist, sexist, and (fill in the blank)-phobic white cis-gendered males used to be.
At least it made fun of the upper classes as well as the lower.
Legion of Logic said...
Wonder what they think of Blazing Saddles.
It's hilarious and subversive. Notice how all the jokes are at the expense of the racists?
It's hilarious and subversive. Notice how all the jokes are at the expense of the racists?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, but I don't think most of the outrage culture has a sense of humor.
I've actually never seen Blazing Saddles, so I cannot comment on it, one way or the other.
ReplyDeleteBut in general, I care not about former standards of what is permissible. I am, for instance, a huge fan of most James Bond films (except for most of the Roger Moore ones, which are not mentioned in polite society), despite their being incredibly "politically incorrect" nowadays. Same goes for Elvis Presley movies, of which I own a nearly complete collection.
Mel Brooks is usually just a tiny little bit over the top for me and Blazing Saddles had some parts like that more than some of his other stuff. For instance the bean scene. Funny, I got the joke, but then it just kept going and going.
ReplyDeleteHe did overdo it, and most of the movie wasn't very funny. But that opening scene is pure genius.
ReplyDeleteTalking about that bean scene just made me remember something.
ReplyDeleteI heard something happened at the SOTU but I wasn't watching so I want to know if it's actually true.
True or not true?
Nancy ripped one.
I'm not the cleverestest of lads, but I think you might have done something there.
ReplyDelete😏 Maybe.
ReplyDeleteThe question is, do the racist beliefs and policies of Mike Bloomberg warrant not voting for him? Or is blatant racism able to be overlooked in anyone not named Donald Trump?
ReplyDeleteWonder if CNN will spend time analyzing this?
There is no doubt in my mind that leftists will reject racist Bloomberg. To do less would be literally Hitler.
ReplyDeleteIf there is one thing that leftists are not it is they are not hypocrites.
You can take that to the bank because otherwise they would not be telling Evangelicals how immoral they are for voting for evil racist Trump and then turn around and vote for evil racist Bloomberg.
Legion of Logic said...
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, but I don't think most of the outrage culture has a sense of humor.
It's always easier to demonize those we don't like.
You can take that to the bank because otherwise they would not be telling Evangelicals how immoral they are for voting for evil racist Trump and then turn around and vote for evil racist Bloomberg.
ReplyDeleteWait a minute.
Are you suggesting that Christians should avoid promoting objective evil simply because they might get some "temporary strategic value" from it?
It's always easier to demonize those we don't like.
ReplyDeleteRegarding satire news sites (the ones that don't claim to be true news), one reason I've long liked The Babylon Bee more than The Onion is because BB, written primarily from a conservative Christian perspective, will nail both sides with equal candor. The Onion is heavily weighted toward criticizing the right, but not the left.
I value that even-handed approach.
What's funny is funny.
ReplyDeleteToo bad some people only want use comedy to demonize certain people or groups and then also demonize those who want to show how everyone or every group is worthy of being made fun of.
Are you suggesting that Christians should avoid promoting objective evil simply because they might get some "temporary strategic value" from it?
ReplyDeleteLefties should too.
Lefties should too.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I was quote-borrowing from a different thread.
Yeah. I figured.
ReplyDeleteSeems there is some bleed-over now between this one and that one.
bmiller said...
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt in my mind that leftists will reject racist Bloomberg.
If my choices are Libertarian, Trump, Bloomberg, or Stein, I cast no vote.
If my choices are Libertarian, Trump, Bloomberg, or Stein, I cast no vote.
ReplyDeleteI'm already planning on sitting this one out. None of the Democrats are acceptable and Trump, regardless of things he has incidentally done that I like, simply does not warrant my support.
The problem with not voting is that then you're not voting to keep Democrats out of power and that ends up meaning that you eventually won't have the option not to vote.
ReplyDeleteThey cannot stand people doing things without their approval.
"The problem with not voting is that then you're not voting to keep Democrats out of power"
ReplyDeleteThis is hilarious, because I have read on other sites the argument that a "no vote" is in effect a vote for Trump.
It can't be both things.
You should read the story.
ReplyDeleteI actually think it's OK not to vote. Democrats want to force people to vote whether they want to or not. I'm just doing the math.
"doing the math."
ReplyDeleteMeaning coming to a logical conclusion regarding not voting against being forced to vote.
BTW, who won the Dem primary?
ReplyDeleteOh, I mean the Iowa one ;-)
ReplyDelete"You should read the story."
ReplyDeleteMandatory voting? I think that's a great idea. Don't they have that now in Australia?
See what I mean Legion.
ReplyDeletebmiller said...
ReplyDeleteOh, I mean the Iowa one ;-)
Iowa doesn't have a primary.
I don't have an opinion on mandatory voting.
The late science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein, in and amongst his batshit craziness, was known for throwing out genuinely thought provoking ideas. For instance, in his militaristic fascistic novel Starship Troopers, he suggests that no one be allowed the privileges of citizenship unless and until they've done public service. In another of his novels (can't remember which one - it might be The Moon is a Harsh Mistress), he describes a society in which no one who receives government assistance is allowed to vote, on the grounds that you should not be in a position to compel others to give you money without their consent.
ReplyDeleteBoth of these proposals are "over the top" at so many levels, but nevertheless are excellent food for thought.
I do agree with Heinlein that citizenship implies responsibilities as well as rights, and one of those responsibilities is voting.
Requirements to become a US citizen:
ReplyDelete• Be of the minimum required age (typically, at least 18)
• Continuously and physically live in the United States as a green card holder for a certain number of years
• Establish residency in the state or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) district where they intend to apply
• Have “good moral character”
• Be proficient in basic spoken and written English and demonstrate knowledge of U.S. history and government
• Register for military service (if a male of a certain age) and be willing to perform civil service when required
• Swear allegiance to the United States
Starship Troopers was a horrible story.
ReplyDeleteInstead of offering the "other" in with open borders and open arms, they shot at and killed as many of the "invaders" as they could. If military service was the requirement for citizenship, then certainly the "aliens" met that requirement. But noooo. They were called "illegal aliens" and killed mercilessly.
People actually rejoiced when they found that they instilled fear in the "aliens". How sick.
They even locked "aliens" in cages.
ReplyDeleteHere's a
secret video of what they did them. Disgusting!
correction: "to them"
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Heinlein that citizenship implies responsibilities as well as rights, and one of those responsibilities is voting.
ReplyDeleteIn America, citizens have both rights and responsibilities. One of those rights is the right to vote. But no one should be compelled to exercise their rights. For instance, citizens also have the right to free speech, but should not be compelled to exercise it. There are good reasons not to including getting whacked by antifa.
I find it interesting that people who are for open borders think there should be rules for citizens. Citizens of what?
"Citizens of what?"
ReplyDeleteOf wherever you live. If you move someplace else, then you're a citizen of that place.
I live in a house.
ReplyDeleteAnd I have a lock on the door.
ReplyDeleteMandatory voting might not be so bad if, in the event of unacceptable candidates, I also had the ability to use my vote to subtract a vote from whichever candidate I felt was the worst.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting idea, Legion. Reminds of yet another SF story, in which people paying their taxes indicated on their return where they wanted the money to be spent, and the federal government had no right to move monies from one thing to another. So, for instance, if no one offered to pay for the military, then we would not have one. (That was the case in this story.)
ReplyDeleteUnder such a system, I personally would divide my taxes between environmental protection, education, infrastructure, health care, and scientific research.
In Legion's scenario, you'd have to declare whoever had the least negative votes the winner. Doubt anyone would end up positive.
ReplyDeletebmiller said...
ReplyDeleteThere are good reasons not to including getting whacked by antifa.
The best way to not get whacked by antifa is to not swing a weapon at them.
If the place I live means I'm a citizen of that place and the place I live is a house then I am a citizen of my house. I share that citizenship with those who live in the house with me. The rule in my is that we have a lock on the door to keep other people from entering without our consent.
ReplyDeleteI would feel like a hypocrite to attempt to get citizens of other places to remove the locks from their doors while I keep mine in place and enforce entry rules. Do open border advocates have locks on their doors?
Ooops, S/B:
ReplyDeletethe rule in my house is
The idea of private property has nothing to do with the elimination of borders. Apples and bicycles.
ReplyDeleteJust using your definitions of citizen.
ReplyDeleteWant to change it?
A reminder of your definition:
ReplyDelete"Citizens of what?"
Of wherever you live. If you move someplace else, then you're a citizen of that place.
"A reminder of your definition"
ReplyDeleteAnd a reminder of the multiple meanings of words. "To live" in a house dos not mean the same thing as "to live" in LA.
And I'm asking for your definition. Citizen of what?
ReplyDeleteI'm asking for an unambiguous definition. Or is it your intention to be ambiguous?
The word "citizen" seems to be kryptonite to open border advocates that want to set rules for citizenship.
ReplyDeleteI also think it's interesting for anyone advocating open borders to claim to be a veteran. Veteran of what?
Veteran of the US Army, 1975-83. Department of Defense civilian until 2009. Service in Germany, Korea, England, Kuwait, and Turkey.
ReplyDeleteCurrent lifetime member (and I have the engraved brass membership card to prove it) of Veterans for Peace.
Open borders means no US.
ReplyDeleteNo US means no veteran of a US army. What is the US army's purpose anyway if not to protect the US?
"OUR MISSION
ReplyDeleteOUR PURPOSE REMAINS CONSTANT
To deploy, fight and win our nation’s wars by providing ready, prompt and sustained land dominance by Army forces across the full spectrum of conflict as part of the joint force.
The Army mission is vital to the Nation because we are the service capable of defeating enemy ground forces and indefinitely seizing and controlling those things an adversary prizes most – its land, its resources and its population."
"Open borders means no US."
ReplyDeleteHardly. The member states of the EU now have open borders between each other (I know from having passed through them), yet there is still a France, a Germany, an Austria, an Italy, etc.
All we need to do is to expand this system to embrace the globe.
What nation do you think you served in the Army?
ReplyDeleteI'd assume that open borders would treat countries like states in the US. You can still serve in your state's National Guard.
ReplyDeleteA question the peoples of all the nations of the EU are asking.
ReplyDeleteOne recent answer.
You can still serve in your state's National Guard.
ReplyDeleteWho ultimately controls the National Guard?
Sorry. Legion beat me with his post splitting my 2 posts regarding the Army and EU.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the benefit to a nation's citizens to allow open borders?
ReplyDeleteThe benefit is you may live wherever you wish. Just as, if I wanted to move to Wyoming, I could. Once there, I would become a resident (a.k.a., citizen) of that state. Open borders between states does not eliminate states.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you talking about what happens inside a nation?
ReplyDeleteBecause I'm saying that's the way it ought to be between nations.
ReplyDeleteIf a person wishes to move from Virginia to Utah, he can. If a person wishes to move from Botswana to Albania, he ought to be able to.
And if a person wants to move into your house he should be able to also?
ReplyDeleteBefore you wave your hand about private property, in the US, we the people are joint owners of all that is not individually privately held. So you are telling your fellow citizens that they should unlock our door to any and all, while you keep your own locked and peer out of your peep hole.
States of a nation are subservient to the national government. Just like the colonies were subservient to the British government.
We the People rejected that tyranny. That is part of our national culture and is what makes us Americans. It's also why people flee tyranny and come to the US. It's pretty infuriating to totalitarians that this place exists outside of their control. They want to bring it to heel.
"Before you wave your hand about private property"
ReplyDeleteNo hand waving needed. It is an entirely different subject, and about as relevant to any discussion about borders as bringing up Elizabethan poetry or plate tectonics.
It's hand-waving when you dismiss an argument without engaging with it congently.
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what you're doing. But it's a little hard for me to see you doing it with you hiding behind your locked door.
What argument? Your bringing up private property is like me arguing that jaywalking ought to be illegal because mosquitoes breed in water ponds. Total non sequitur. There is no way to cogently engage with such an "argument".
ReplyDeleteYou could start by explaining to me why you keep your door locked to keep out people you don't want in your house.
ReplyDeleteThen you can go on to explain why our joint societal body does not have the same right.
ReplyDeleteWaving your hands and saying they're just different, that's why. Is hand-waving (behind a locked door BTW).
ReplyDeleteMost people are honest, hard working and would be a net benefit to your household. How could anyone with a heart lock them out of a place where they could better their lives. They have children for goodness sakes. Baltimore has tons of homeless. Let them in to your house and share your abundant fortune.
ReplyDeleteActually (although it is still totally irrelevant to this conversation), I never lock my door.
ReplyDeleteThere's even social services in Baltimore help get poor refugees into your house.
ReplyDeleteJon Stewart around 1:40.
I never lock my door.
ReplyDeleteSince you live with your daughter, does she lock the front door?
I have my own door. It's never locked. I'm not even sure where the key is.
ReplyDeleteYeah, thought so. Nice try at dodging.
ReplyDeleteI'll bet you don't even believe the open borders nonsense. You probably just thought it was a good idea to proclaim it so you wouldn't look like a hypocrite for attacking Orange Man Bad. Too bad that it makes you look like a hypocrite in a different way.
Wow another leading Dem candidate for President goes down. Michael Avenatti guilty on all 3 counts of extortion.
ReplyDeleteYou are such an untrusting person. I mean every word I write here. You have no reason to doubt my word. Have I ever given you one?
ReplyDeleteWell let me think. Oh, you just got done equivocating.
ReplyDeleteSee that didn't take long.
Equivocating? About what?
ReplyDeleteI wrote that I never lock MY door, and that is the absolute truth. See? No equivocation (unless you have some idiosyncratic definition of the word).
I'm good with Merriam-Webster's definition.
ReplyDeleteThe topic regards what is commonly known as the entry/exit doors to your house, not your bedroom door.
I think it speaks volumes that you persist.
It speaks volumes that you do not kn ow what the f..k you are talking about.
ReplyDeleteAll I can know about your situation is what you've told us.
ReplyDeleteYou've told us you live with your daughter. Does your daughter lock her front door?
If you and your daughter leave the front door unlocked and will allow anyone in, then you cannot be labeled a hypocrite.
ReplyDeleteHow many homeless have you taken in?
ReplyDeleteI give money to a number of charities, mostly Catholic Church sponsored, to help the poor and homeless.
ReplyDeleteBut I still keep my door locked and don't invite strangers to live with me in my house with my family. If you do, I would advise against it.
All of which still has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of national borders.
ReplyDeleteYes it does.
ReplyDeleteAha! I just realized the source of your confusion. You were imagining "my" door to be an interior door, separating my living space from the rest of the house. It is not. It is a separate exterior entrance into the house, and opens on to the street.
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, my daughter only sporadically locks her door. If she intends to be gone only an hour or so, she does not bother doing so.
Yes. That's what I pictured. Most houses are not separated into separate living spaces.
ReplyDeleteSo I believe that you don't lock your exterior door.
And I am looking forward to this summer when I can walk through your front door with my duffle bag for an extended stay. Imagine how much more detailed discussions like this will be when we are face to face for months.
ReplyDeleteThis one practice of mine you should prepare yourself for though. I practice indoor nudity.
No walls between us brother, right? No walls whatsoever. ;-)
ReplyDeleteThis picture of me was when I was in shape. Afraid I've let myself go a bit since then. But I still think it's close enough so you'll recognise me when I show up.
ReplyDelete"I practice indoor nudity."
ReplyDeleteUm.. careful there. So do I. In fact, right now...
You are truly my bruuuuttttther.
ReplyDeleteBut that does explains why you don't have to lock your doors.
ReplyDeleteAll right, I surrender. With that last comment, you DEFINITELY win this exchange!
ReplyDeleteNow if only Victor would give us a philosophical, religious, or scriptural topic to debate. Something with zero politics.
In fact, I'll suggest a topic. (Are you reading this, Victor?)
ReplyDeleteHere: A Coming Singularity?
Now if only Victor would give us a philosophical, religious, or scriptural topic to debate. Something with zero politics.
ReplyDeleteRight? It went from zero politics to nothing but politics. Lot's of people stopped posting because of it.
Hear that, Victor? Vox Populi! Let's get back to why this website was established.. to discuss C.S. Lewis and associated philosophical/religious matters.
ReplyDeleteLet's make this a no-politics zone!!!
Starhopper,
ReplyDeleteI read the article and was expecting it to be about the Singularity. It was just a really long (long) article about Yuval Harari. Did you link to the right thing?
I linked to it because Harari has just written a bestselling book on the singularity, Homo Deus. It actually sounds like a hell on Earth, it it ever does come about.
ReplyDeleteC.S. Lewis warned of such things way back in 1942, in his novel That Hideous strength (one of my all-time 10 favorite books).
N.I.C.E.
ReplyDeleteI must have read that novel at least 5 maybe 6 times over the course of the years (I believe the first time was in 1968) and I still learn something new with each re-reading. Whenever I am recommending Lewis to someone who's totally unfamiliar with him, I usually point them to his Space Trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, That Hideous Strength) - that is, if they prefer fiction. For non-fiction fanatics, I recommend God in the Dock.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if sometimes evil people read dystopian fiction and use it as a blueprint.
ReplyDeleteFor example the Corona virus.
I have heard (although never read) of white nationalist fiction, often describing a future race war.
ReplyDeleteEven discounting the moral analysis, a race war would be a pretty ridiculous undertaking. They going to force everyone to submit to a genetic background check?
ReplyDelete"They going to force everyone to submit to a genetic background check?"
ReplyDeleteIn Nazi Germany, all it sometimes took was an accusation that you were Jewish. No need to "prove" anything. Small tradesmen were known to denounce their competition, and neighbors envious of another's apartment would falsely "accuse" people of being Jews, and voila!, empty apartment.
neighbors envious of another's apartment would falsely "accuse" people of being Jews, and voila!, empty apartment.
ReplyDeleteJesus that's sick.