Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism - Gershom Scholem
Culture and Value - Wittgenstein
Faith in a Hard Ground - Anscombe

Why was there few if any protests over Biden and Obama's deportation numbers (~5 million each) yet mass protests for Trump (~2 million)?

Some news sources say Pretti was already disarmed when he was shot. The DHS version is that Pretti was shot while they were trying to disarm him.

Personally, I can't make heads or tails of the videos. I'll wait for the investigation.

I get where you're coming from, but even in the face of threats to a nation's sovereignty, it is often easier to bend the knee and secure one's own safety rather than to take a stand. Humans are first and foremost concerned with themselves and their families' safety — loyalty to the masses comes later. This applies to leaders as well.

But yeah, realism is a lens that has its uses.

EDIT: Perhaps my point is too much on a personal level as opposed to a state/social level, but what is a government if not a collection of people with their various allegiances? Maybe I am missing the sociology of it.

Primarily concerned with security — which makes sense.

I don’t completely agree with realism either, but I’d suggest reading further on it. It’s not as silly as you describe. Most of it is truism. Self preservation is key — although clearly not always rational. — Mikie

I don't think realism is silly. I love Kissinger's work.

Yes, self-preservation is key, but what does that even mean anymore? If we took the population of the UK and sent it to India, and brought 70 million Indians over to the UK, and granted them UK citizenship, is that not self-preservation? You have the same number of English citizens before and after - the UK has therefore been preserved. Or is there something perhaps essential to a country?

It’s a realist perspective.

One of the first (and best) books I read on foreign policy was Kissinger's Diplomacy. As a writer and intellectual, I hold Kissinger and his theory of foreign policy with great respect. These days, I struggle with realism or neo-realism. It just seems to be the idea that the state - or rather, the people running the state - are primarily concerned with the national interest and how to attain it. Perhaps I am wrong about this. I agree that there is such a thing as the national interest, but to say that politicians consistently grasp it or pursue it is not borne out by history. If humanity isn't really rational, why must we hold to the view that they all of a sudden become rational when they form state bureaucracies and governance structures?

I get that realism can be a lens with which to view things, but given its lack of interest in internal politics, it shouldn't be the only lens. I would not cling to a lens that routinely dismisses internal politics in favor of international conditions.

The constitution is a joke, a performance. It doesn’t mean anything anymore. Trump killed it. — Christoffer

Oh please. FDR and Lincoln, two of our greatest Presidents, went far beyond Trump in terms of suspensions of civil liberties and executive overreach. You underestimate America's tolerance for this type of thing.

I'm sympathetic to it also. For example it's a very reasonable etiquette let's say in a workplace. Yet if we talk about for example Middle East politics and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, not to take into account religion would be an huge error. — ssu

I'm talking about claims to absolute truth in the context of a community and its political processes. Connected with that would be the question of the role of outsiders who arrive into a community and claim to possess politically-relevant absolute truth and how that community should view them.

Yet politics in a democracy is about compromises to get agreements and a consensus. Political polarization makes that very difficult. — ssu

Exactly — politics is about compromise, so claims to absolute truth throw a wrench into it. Yet it is also true that religion is simply an inextinguishable part of life and does bear on moral/ethical questions. Previously, we would say things like 'religion is a private matter' or 'religion belongs in the private sphere.' I question the feasibility of this view, yet I remain sympathetic to it.

Centralization of power, usually to one leader, is a cause for corruption and the destruction of the institutions necessary in a republic. This has been the real problem in leftist ideology (which doesn't care about separation of powers and the necessary institutions), but can also lead the right-wing astray when people want "strong leaders" to fix things. — ssu

Any rational person should be cautious against the centralization of power. Yet sometimes it is necessary. FDR circumvented Congress to provide material aid to the UK prior to WWII, when the US public and Congress were largely isolationist. There are many examples of the centralization of power being used in beneficial ways. Of course, it is right to be cautious of such a thing.

It's about more than just politicians. Land. Universities. In any case, our original topic was the role of religion in political discourse, or the use of appeals to God/absolute truth in the political sphere.

What immigrant group are you talking about acting this way? Americans in Latin America or what? I think you confuse those vocal people speaking on the behalf of immigrants, when it comes to Western countries. — ssu

Too many examples to name.

Usually migrants do understand the age old truth of "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". — ssu

Yes, there is mimicry and the adoption of what is useful. Sometimes this leads to full-scale assimilation where one group loses its identity and joins the other, but with Abrahamic religions, at least, this sort of thing is tantamount to annihilation. E.g., Jews could adopt Roman technology and dress, but they could never worship the Roman cult.

Who would tolerate cheap vagrants just strolling everywhere eating their own food or worse, just begging for food? — ssu

It's not this that concerns me. It's the foreigners who buy up large plots of land and make large donations to politicians and universities. Everyone notices the poor foreigner; the rich are more subtle but far more dangerous.

And that's basically it. — ssu

What of immigrant groups that claim to possess absolute truth and consider it their prerogative to spread or impose it on the native population?

He hangs out with Christian nationalists, but hasn't claimed to be one himself, — frank

He has said that Christianity is America's creed.

The people who are worried about "political Islam" are also anti-Semitic, homophobic, racist, and sexist. — frank

Ad hom.

I am just hoping that the new American Right after Trump can be one which still promotes liberty and justice for all -- and to do that, it's going to need a new political theory, beyond Trump's populism. — BenMcLean

It's likely to be Vance's Christian nationalism in 2028 if the Republicans win. Conservatives today are deeply concerned with mass migration and political Islam rather than free market capitalism. In any case, I haven't seen this level of polarization in my lifetime.

Maybe people will be glad Maduro is gone and will welcome a change? — RogueAI

I'm sure they are. Things were dire in Venezuela.

We should all be glad Maduro is gone. Now onto the democratic transition of power — Maduro did not represent the people of Venezuela.

I'm hearing reports that the US blew up Chavez's body, but this could be false.

The gospels make an interesting study, particularly if you take into account the gnostic gospels, which depict Jesus in an entirely different light. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, for example, depicts a young Jesus using his powers to kill and curse those who offend him, blinding neighbors of Joseph and Mary when they complain about his behavior, and magically doing other things while learning to control his powers. Being gnostic, they involve the teaching of secret knowledge you don't find in the canonical gospels. There are admirable teaching in those gospels, but it seems clear that the Jesus they describe is a persona developed over many years, and he was depicted as very different from the Jesus of the Canon by those who considered themselves Christian. — Ciceronianus

Interesting. I'll have to look into those gospels more to investigate that secret knowledge. Even the wisdom of the canonicals, at least from my perspective as someone who didn't grow up Christian, is often radical to me. It's radical in that it challenges foundational ideas. For instance Jesus's emphasis on the child - quite possibly brilliant and countercultural, but children are also very compliant and make the perfect subjects for authoritarian rule. Another feature would be that Jesus doesn't seem to care for his followers physical longevity — the emphasis is placed on embracing the moment and living naturally rather than worrying or planning about tomorrow — and of course avoiding hell.

When I read these types of texts I usually focus on the teachings over the miracles. I believe that's how Jefferson read them. Besides relating the miracles to earlier textual examples I struggle to make meaningful sense of them. Some of what Jesus does is comparable to what Elijah did, but as Robyn Walsh's scholarship has shown there's a strong Greco-Roman influence too re: the miracles.

This is obviously a large topic, but as a non-Christian I admire how the gospels teach correct socialization. I still remember teachings like "all who humble themselves will be exalted and all who exalt themselves will be humbled." I also love the advice Jesus tells his disciples when they go out into the world: "be as innocent as doves and as wise as serpents." They are simple but fruitful lessons to apply and pass on.

And of course they attached the entire Jewish bible to their canon.... with a few more books included until Luther took them out. Jesus as a character is fascinating and employs aspects of both Greco-Roman literature and Jewish lit.

We should also remember that the pressure to provide plays a role in Walt's decision. He's got Jr.'s college to pay for. And we should not forget that he's in the business ofempire.

That would depend on whether there is karmic retribution, in which case one's mortality would not be freeing at all. A lot of modern culture is fundamentally nihilist - nothing matters in the end, right? — Wayfarer

True, but he does attempt to maintain Judeo-Christian moral standards, at least early in the show. It's seemingly not possible once you're in Walt's line of work, as the show portrays it. Walt's initial motivation is a mix of money and ego, but his family is not well off in the beginning.

A man voluntarily chooses to spend his final days on earth destroying the lives of as many people as possible by getting them hooked on meth - what room for nuance is there in our judgement of such a person? — Tzeentch

He doesn't start off as a drug lord. He starts as a pathetic man who no one respects and has seemingly never stood up for himself, and is now faced with his own mortality, which is both terrifying and freeing. You cheer him on in the beginning.

As I noted above, this series is merely a successful illustration of the problems I would like to discuss:

1. The majority of screen time in such "masterpieces" is dedicated to the aestheticization and heroization of the sinner; the moral justification of atrocities.
2. The reckoning is presented as a "nod to the genre" or a payment for the right to glorify crime.
3. Punishment, even if inevitable, is perceived as the completion of the drama, as an atonement for all future sinners, and not as retribution.

I suggest we discuss this phenomenon if this topic resonates with you. — Astorre

I'm rewatching BB now, and I really don't see it this way. Walter's crime destroys his family and friends. At the end of the show, he is alone and miserable. In the moment the viewer cheers his victories, in the big-picture the show does not glorify Walt.

In Season 1, we're rooting for him, though. In S1, no one around him respects him. We cheer when he fights off the boys who are bullying Walt Jr. for his disability. We cheer those early victories where he puts assholes in their place and learns to stand up for himself. Over time, Walt turns less sympathetic, and by the time we hit season 5, Walt is a complete psychopath — but we've known him since S1 so it's a bit different than just turning on the screen and seeing a psycho.

So no, I don't see BB as glorifying crime upon reflection. If at the end of the show Walt lived in a giant mansion with all his friends and family, then yeah, I call it glorification. Walt's adventures are exciting and risky, but not ultimately good. In nearly all cases, financial success comes at the cost of family and friends.

EDIT: In the earlier seasons there's more of this in-the-moment glorification, for instance when Walt blows up Tuco's office. In season 5, it's much grittier, and you're likely terrified of Walt, e.g., when he coordinates the prison hit, it's conveyed in brutal detail. No one wants to be Walt in those later seasons.

dying unnaturally of natural causes(cancer, earthquake). — hypericin

Dying unnaturally of natural causes. :chin:

Medically, "old age" is never the cause. It's e.g., organ failure, heart disease, etc.

As long as man has free will, there will be evil in one way or another. God could remove our free will, then the problem of evil would be solved.

In any case, if we're all going to mindless oblivion, then whether one dies now or later makes no real difference. In the end, our minds will be destroyed, along with all our experiences and thoughts.

The end is nigh. :fear:

Both. In theory. But I’d like to see the destruction of the bigger terrorists in Likud. — Mikie

In theory, I'm ok with this. In the absence of Israel's enemies, there's no real justification for the Israeli right.

Because as long as Gaza is occupied in an open-air prison — Mikie

Do you really think this conflict is only about the "occupation" of Gaza and not the "occupation" of Palestine itself?

Historically, resistance movements — even those deeply rooted in a population — can be defeated.

Why is it not possible?

Also, notice I said "in theory." Are you, in theory, in favor of the destruction of Hamas? Or those who committed the massacre?

So you're good with Israel targeting Hamas and other terrorist groups who attacked on 10/7? You're ok with Israel destroying Hamas if Hamas refuses to surrender? About 3k Hamas fighters attacked on 10/7, and Hamas had around 40k fighters.

So you're saying you're fine theoretically with Israel destroying groups such as Hamas, but you want fewer civilian casualties and destruction?

Depending on the context, aggression can be either beneficial or detrimental. Sometimes aggression saves (or would have saved) many lives. It doesn't seem fruitful to me to discuss aggression per se.

"If you make me bleed, I make you bleed worse. That's the only way to be even." Unfortunately, you can see how it leads to a feedback loop when two unintelligent people (the only people who get into fights) get into a fight. — Outlander

This is not a fistfight between two individuals, but a clash of civilizations. My own fight history has no bearing.

What are you proposing Israel do after 10/7? Is Israel allowed to go after the savages who murdered its civilians in cold blood? Does it have your permission?

Japan only killed ~2800 of us at Pearl Harbor, why did we need to mobilize and kill hundreds of thousands? We should have stopped once we had 2800 Japanese dead. Then we say "war over" and both sides return home in peace.

Israel is a state, but before that, yes, there is a history of Jewish non-state resistance/terror groups.

You're the genocide apologist and fascist.

Weak doesn't mean good. Going from house to house murdering, raping, and torturing certainly doesn't mean good. Kinda even sounds like genocide, dontcha think?

At this point we should change this thread to genocide apologism”. — Mikie

Great idea — the Palestinian political leadership has been openly attempting to genocide Israel since its inception: "from the river to the sea."

I totally get the frustration, though. In any case, it helps to know when pieces are under attack.

It is a feeling beyond any and all description. — Outlander

Such is losing at chess.

Who are you? I know you're not cheating. But you might as well be. — Outlander

Looks like @praxis is just a chess god. I don't see grounds for cheating accusations.

Back to admission of condemnation, then. — jorndoe

What do you say we talk about all the Union's war crimes, and when anyone tries to ask about the Confederacy, we continue obsessing over the Union? We could have this discussion, so hurry up and condemn the Union. Condemn your favored side in every war. Do you see why this line of inquiry is generally unhelpful?

It depends. Many Westerners consider the US the Great Satan and Israel its sidekick in the Middle East. Besides, the reason why there are those in the West who consider the US "the good side" despite the evil committed is that the West has actually benefited for decades of the US protection and the support for Western-led international order. It's not clear to what extent the current war is benefiting Western countries and the Western-led international order (for example, Israel has not engaged in a direct, large-scale military campaign against ISIS, nor was it part of the official US-led anti-ISIS coalition, Israel has mostly refrained from strong, visible support for Ukraine, particularly in terms of military aid, compared with other Western countries, while the current war has lots of troubles: genocidal accusations, ambitions for territorial annexations, destabilized commercial routes to the West). Even more so after Trump's re-election. And Netanyahu's confrontational attitude showing a sort of full commitment to war in all directions, as long as possible doesn't bode well. — neomac

My earlier post was referencing WWII.

Islamic fundamentalism is more than ISIS. Israel currently fights Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. It also provides valuable intel, but apparently, it's stopped giving intel to the UK. I fear the "Western order" is crumbling from within, but hopefully it's not too late. The West needs to be able to stand up for its values, but this would require a rejection of multiculturalism. I genuinely fear for the future of the West, particularly Europe. Fighting ISIS in Syria or elsewhere in the Middle East should be the least of their problems.

It's not "the Jews." It's Soros and maybe a handful of others. He's like Magneto.

I mean, he was a devout evangelical Christian, and it's not like he was talking about Soros all the time.

There do seem to be some influential Jews who hate Israel and the West more generally. Soros would be among them. As mentioned, there are wonderful and not-so-wonderful Jews. I think it's clear at this point that influential NGOs, some funded by Jews like Soros, have been financing the pro-Palestine movement and facilitating the flow of mass migration to the West. There seems to be a long history of contributions to left-wing causes.

I just think the strategy is reprehensible and not to be used by an actor that wishes to be in the moral highground. — ssu

Recently, pro-Palestinian sources, including Francesca Albanese, have reported 700k dead Palestinians, including nearly 400k Palestinian babies under 5. According to AI, there aren't even that many babies under 5 in Gaza. The figure jumped quickly from ~100k dead to ~700k. What I'm saying is, we're simply not getting a complete, accurate, or objective picture of this conflict. What I do know is that Israel has supplied unprecedented amounts of aid to Gaza. Access to Gaza itself is dangerous and limited, and all reporting from it requires the approval of Hamas; thus, an independent, objective investigation is not possible at this time.

I also recall that the Allies used a blockade against Germany in WWI. The blockade was considered decisive.