Dissident Veteran For Peace

In 1995, the Sackler family started producing and pushing oxycontin, a semi-synthetic opioid, via the Sackler-controlled company Purdue Pharma. Along the way they made billions of dollars in profits.

According to the CDC:

Nearly 500,000 people died from overdoses involving any opioid, including prescription and illicit opioids, from 1999-2019 ... The first wave began with increased prescribing of opioids in the 1990s, with overdose deaths involving prescription opioids (natural and semi-synthetic opioids and methadone) increasing since at least 1999.

Most states of the United States have some form of the "felony murder rule". This means a perpetrator can be held be criminally liable for murder if s/he caused the death of another person in the course of committing a felony. The perpetrator need not have intended the death of the victim and, in some states, need not have been the proximate cause of the death.

For example, if you merely drove the get away car for an armed robbery where one of your accomplices murdered a bank teller then you may held responsible for the murder. (If narrowly written and applied I think the felony murder rule is perfectly fair and just.)

I bring this up to point out that in America if you kill one person—even if you didn't pull the trigger—you can be punished for the murder. On the other hand, if you are a member of the Sackler family who had a key role in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans by opioid abuse then (so far) you won't be personally charged with any crime.

The Sackler family members who ran Purdue Pharma belong in prison. However, there are plenty of other culprits not directly connected to the Sacklers or Purdue Pharma who also belong in prison for their part in the opioid crisis and, as far as I know, none of them has been criminally charged, either.

To be clear, while the Sacklers et al. helped create the opioid crisis, the crisis itself is a form of collective suicide founded on America's nihilistic consumerism and culture of death. It's worth noting, too, that the death toll is mainly comprised of White Americans who are supposedly so privileged. This is undoubtedly fueled by unconcealed hostility to White people, generally, and White working-class people, in particular.

If you doubt this then try carrying a sign saying "It's Okay to be White" in public in any town or city in America and see what happens. Also, consider the remarks of Duquesne University Psychology professor Derek Hook who opined that “White people should commit suicide as an ethical act.” Hook says that he was speaking about suicide as the destruction of "Whiteness" but try publicly advocating that for any other racial, ethnic, or religious group.

Labels: crime, culture, government, health, medicine, race, White folks

Labels: culture, music, video

'You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD. - Leviticus 19:28 (NASB)

From now on let no one cause trouble for me, for I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus. -Galatians 6:17 (NASB)

In the Septuagint (Vetus Testementum Graece LXX Tischendorf 1856), the phrase "tattoo marks" in Lev. 19:28 above appears as γράμματα στικτὰ, which is transliterated as grammata stikta. Liddell and Scott indicate tattoo is indeed the correct translation.

In the Greek New Testament (Novum Testamentum Graece Nestle-Aland 28th ed. 2012), the phrase "the brand-marks" in Gal. 6:17 above appears as στίγματα. It is transliterated as stigmata and, according to Danker's The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (UChicago Pr., 2009), is defined as an "indelible graphic mark made on the body".

Lucian of Samosata's (born 120 A.D.) De Dea Syria is another ancient Greek text that mentions tattooing. Section 59 of that work says: "στίζονται δὲ πάντες, οἱ μὲν ἐς καρπούς, οἱ δὲ ἐς αὐχένας: καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦδε ἅπαντες Ἀσσύριοι στιγματηφορέουσιν". Strong translates this passage as: "They all tattoo [στίζονται] themselves—some on the hands and some on the neck—and so it comes that all the Assyrians bear stigmata [στιγματηφορέουσιν]."

The Coptic church of Egypt is believed to have been established around 50 A.D. Copts have long used tattoos with distinctive Christian motifs, sometimes to their peril. According to Carswell, as quoted in Coptic Christianity in Ottoman Egypt by Febe Armanios (Oxford UP, 2011; p. 208, n. 145) Syrian, Armenian, and Ethiopian Christians also followed this practice.

Coptic tattoo design print from John Carswell's Coptic Tattoo Designs, 2nd ed. (American Univ. of Beirut, 1958) via http://www.crosscrucifix.com/glossaryhome.htm

Labels: art and literature, Christianity, culture, history

I finally got around to reading Starship Troopers (1959, 2006) by Robert A. Heinlein and The Forever War (1974, 2009) by Joe Haldeman this summer. Over the years I've heard and read a lot about the books.

I also watched Paul Verhoeven's film treatment of Starship Troopers (ST) not long after its 1997 theatrical debut. Regarding the film, I am in general agreement with Joseph Sale's take (which I've edited slightly below):

Paul Verhoeven's 1997 film, while a masterpiece in its own right, misses much of the nuance of the original novel. He makes Starship Troopers into a satire of fascist states, casting Aryan, white, blonde, beautiful people in the lead roles to further his point, and it works brilliantly, but the novel itself is not an advocate of fascism to begin with. Johnnie is not an Aryan, he is Filipino (Juan Rico is his real name), and the [Mobile Infantry] is made up of people from all over the world. In fact, Heinlein bizarrely presents us with one of the most utopian and unified visions of future human society I have ever read. The film also makes use of over-the-top violence to contrast with its propaganda-interludes, no doubt highlighting how the lies of the state juxtapose with the realities of war. This is intriguing, almost a reverse of the novel which flits between Johnnie’s excruciating mental and physical training, which make explicit the gravity of war on every level of understanding, and the action sequences, which it's undeniable Johnnie seems to enjoy. In the novel, the state is far more responsible than Johnnie is.

It's interesting that at least one key didactic point that Heinlein wrote into ST was more or less faithfully preserved in Verhoeven's film. In the book, Major Reid, an Officer Candidate School instructor in History and Moral Philosophy asserts:

To vote is to wield authority; it is the supreme authority from which all other authority derives—such as mine to make your lives miserable once a day. Force, if you will!—the franchise is force, naked and raw, the Power of the Rods and the Ax. Whether it is exerted by ten men or by ten billion, political authority is force.¹

Why did Verhoeven leave this (without the reference to the fasces) in the film? I suspect it is because he believed it furthered his case concerning the alleged fascism of Heinlein and/or ST. In fact, it is a profound truth that force and violence underlie voting and political power. Yes, even in representative democracies.

Why is it acceptable to coerce people simply because 51% of the voting population agrees that people should be punished for doing or not doing x, y, or z? In nearly all cases, criminal laws are never even put to voters, they are enacted by politicians viewed unfavorably by large segments of the population.

The case that is made in ST is that the truth about voting logically leads to the following solution:

Since sovereign franchise is the ultimate in human authority, we insure that all who wield it accept the ultimate in social responsibility—we require each person who wishes to exert control over the state to wager his own life—and lose it, if need be—to save the life of the state. The maximum responsibility a human can accept is thus equated to the ultimate authority a human can exert. Yin and yang, perfect and equal.²

Approached from a slightly different angle it seems to me quite reasonable to expect from those who would wield the coercive power of the state against others to demonstrate some tangible civic virtue, to have some literal skin in the game.

However, there is an unspoken corollary that I find even more appealing. That is, by reducing the coercive power of the state—if you're going to have a state at all—one can expand the franchise and lower the bar to participation. That is, a widespread franchise would be appropriate only where the state has little or no coercive power. Steps in this direction might be to abolish capital punishment and military conscription and then to progressively redistribute centralized authority downward.

(The most interesting take I've read of 'the voting problem' in ST is in Dan Thompson's account of a discussion he was involved in at a WorldCon in Baltimore. I've included a link to it below in the See also section.)

Recurrent accusations of Heinlein's alleged personal and literary fascism are well known. Despite the many problems I have with some of Heinlein's later political positions, I think the charge of fascism is an unfounded example of the scurrilous name-calling too common among political ideologues.

It's interesting that Haldeman and Heinlein were friends. Moreover, in 1999, Haldeman was asked "about the whole 'fascist' argument, that ST is a novel about fascism, etc.?" He responded: " 'Fascist' is too easy an epithet. My problem with ST is more complex than that." Haldeman also penned the introduction to the 2018 Folio Society edition of ST (I have not read it yet though I would like to).

It is almost a commonplace that ST is an inadvertently dystopian novel meant to present a (fascistic) utopian vision. By contrast, The Forever War (TFW) is often taken as "an anti-war classic" and a refutation of ST. However, Haldeman himself has said that although he did not pen a reply to it, he was influenced by Heinlein's book.

In any case, of the two books I find TFW to be markedly more dystopian than ST. If forced to choose between living in the sci-fi future world of ST or TFW I would unhesitatingly choose ST.

I do not subscribe to the view that every act or idea in a work of fiction is endorsed by the author. Yet, authors generally do not let acts and ideas to which they object go unchallenged. Moreover, Haldeman has stated the TFW is based on his own experiences in the Vietnam War and, as others have pointed out the main character's name (Mandella) is a near anagram of the author's surname. Haldeman earned a degree in physics before he was drafted as did Mandella.³ Mandella's lover and companion is Marygay Potter while Haldeman's wife's maiden name is Mary Gay Potter.

So, I think it's fair, in this case, to assume that TFW reflects, in no small part, the author's personal views at the time he wrote the book. And Haldeman leaves a number of objectionable things in TFW unchallenged. For instance, in Haldeman's fictional world women are integrated into the military by requiring them to be sexually "compliant and promiscuous by military custom (and law)".⁴

In TFW, several dubious ideas about war are also left unchallenged: War is good for the general economy, the war in TFW is mainly the fault of bellicose veterans, and once begun, "only continued because the two races were unable to communicate".⁵

In fact, economists have shown that wars and unnecessarily large peacetime military establishments are macroeconomically detrimental. Arguably, wars may sometimes be necessary but as the authors of Economic Consequences of War on the U.S. Economy concluded, "Regardless of the way a war is financed, the overall macroeconomic effect on the economy tends to be negative." Wars benefit those who supply the weapons, munitions, and other material used to wage war but everyone else loses, especially the human casualties which seldom, if ever, include war profiteers.

As for bellicose veterans starting wars, it is perhaps just as likely that veterans will oppose offensive wars. For instance, in the aftermath of WW I, the American Legion was founded in 1919 proclaiming that a "large standing army is uneconomic and un-American" and pursuing "National safety with freedom from militarism ..."

In its early years the Legion was a major actor on the international stage in a citizen-led peace movement. Among other things, it actively supported and endorsed the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact "condemn[ing] recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounc[ing] it, as an instrument of national policy". Though largely ignored this treaty remains in force. While it has arguably drifted far away from it roots, the Legion, to this day, exists, in part, "to promote peace and good will on earth".

In any case, modern large scale wars are not initiated by a single individual or small group of people. One could argue that a veteran named Hitler started World War II but that war was set in motion by the outcome of World War I and Hitler could not have initiated it without the support of the German establishment and a large segment of the German population. Likewise, I am aware of no war in history that continued (or began) simply because of a miscommunication.

Sexual orientation in TFW is also problematic. Haldeman seems to see it as strongly dichotomous, culturally determined, and easily changed.⁶ In TFW, human sexual orientation collectively swings between extremes. Without going into further detail I am a bit troubled that Haldeman did not imagine a future where society was not so polarized in terms of sexuality.

Finally, Haldeman also tacitly endorse eugenics.⁷ His solution to ending war is to erase nearly all human diversity and individuality. At the end of TFW, most of "humanity" is comprised mainly of "clones of a single individual."⁸ In TFW, humanity's fate is to become something resembling the Bugs—with their "total communism"—in Heinlein's ST. ⁹

I'd like to hope that humanity will one day abandon war and I disagree with some of Heinlein's ideas. However, if the price of peace is a future like Haldeman imagines in TFW (and I don't think it is) then I would choose war in the ST-like world.

Notes:
1. ST, p. 193. Emphasis is in the original. All ST page references in this post are from the 2006 Ace trade paperback edition.
2. ST, p. 194. It is often asserted, mostly by those critical of Heinlein, that in the ST's Terran Federation the only way to earn the franchise is to serve in the military. Although Heinlein could have been clearer in ST on this subject there are several passages suggesting what is required is not necessarily military service (see pp. 32-33, 190-194). For an in-depth and fair discussion of this perennial controversy see "The Nature of "Federal Service" in Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers" by James Gifford.
3. TFW, p. 7. All TFW page references in this post are from the 2009 Thomas Dunne Books paperback edition.
4. TFW, p. 45.
5. TFW, pp. 139, 261, 281.
6. TFW, pp. 118, 129, 189, 197, 260.
7. TFW, pp. 197, 260.
8. TFW, pp. 260-262.
9. TFW, p. 261; ST p. 194.

See also:

• "Who Deserves To Be A Citizen? A Reflection On Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers" by Farzan Sabet
• "Starship Troopers and the Right to Vote" by Dan Thompson
• "Over the hump: Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers" by Jo Walton
• "Blasting bugs is more complicated than you think" by Sam Jordison
• "Fascism and Starship Troopers, Once More" by hyperpat
• "Heinlein's Female Troubles" by M. G. Lord

Labels: anarchism, art and literature, communism, culture, eugenics, gender, Heinlein, human reproduction, LGBT, military, politics, quotations, voting, War

I haven't really followed the Covington Catholic school boys fiasco much since last Wednesday. Though, from what I've seen, even the few mainstream writers who've justly taken the media to task for aggressively pushing a false narrative can't quite resist the urge to still somehow find fault with the high school students who were demonized, on a national stage, by their colleagues at other media outlets.

For instance, Caitlin Flanagan's critique in The Atlantic is well worth reading but she just can't resist getting in some digs at the Covington students:

I have watched every bit of video I can find of the event, although more keep appearing. I have found several things that various of the boys did and said that are ugly, or rude, or racist. Some boys did a tomahawk chop when Phillips walked into their group. There is a short video of a group that seems to be from the high school verbally harassing two young women as the women walk past it. In terms of the school itself, Covington Catholic High School apparently has a game-day tradition of students painting their skin black for “black-out days,” but any attempt by the school to cast this as innocent fun is undercut by a photograph of a white kid in black body paint leering at a black player on an opposing team.

Flanagan faults "various of the boys" for unspecified "ugly, or rude, or racist" behavior. She says, "Some boys did a tomahawk chop". I'm not going to watch the videos again but the other accounts I've read say that one boy did a "tomahawk chop". I didn't notice the gesture(s) and I won't say it didn't happen.

However, here are a few questions: Who decided that a "tomahawk chop" is indisputably ugly, rude, or racist? How do these critics know that the gesture in question in the video actually was a "tomahawk chop" and not something that just looked like one? Does the kid's state of mind or intent matter? If so, how do you know what that was?

Flanagan writes: "There is a short video of a group that seems to be from the high school verbally harassing two young women as the women walk past it." After everything that Flanagan agrees went wrong with this story you'd think she'd stay away from bashing the kids over video that merely "seems" to show bad behavior. I've seen that video, too, and it's not clear those kids were Covington Catholic students, the same kids filmed at the Lincoln Memorial, or that they were harassing anyone.

Finally, I've seen the "black-out days" video, too. To start with I don't think that practice is necessarily, or even likely, racist although it certainly could be. Given the times in which we live might it be stupid and/or insensitive? Sure, but not every act or statement that offends someone is racist or motivated by racism. Surely, intent ought to count for something but I realize we abandoned that kind of fairness long ago.

In any case, the bigger problem is that the "black-out days" video, like the video initially used to indict the Covington boys, is ripped out of context. Caitlin Flanagan have you learned nothing? And "leering" is strange choice of words but that aside Flanagan is reading an awful lot into that image. Several kids, most of whom are not painted, are visibly jeering the player from the opposing team. So what?

The final, glaring issue is that most accounts admit that the "blackface" video was taken in 2012. So, using it to impugn kids who were at most 12 years old for something other kids at their school may have done is simply deceitful.

In addition to Flanagan's piece, here are a few more articles worth reading:

• Megan McArdle in the Washington Post: "The Covington students failed to act like grownups. So did the adults"
• Robbie Soave in Reason: "If You Still Think Nick Sandmann's Smile Is Proof of Racism, You’re Seeing What You Want to See"

McArdle, author of the Post piece, also tweeted extensively on the affair.

As an aside, I want to be clear: The agenda-pushing revealed by the Covington Catholic media witch hunt is nothing new. Narrative-driven—as opposed to careful, truth-driven—reporting is the order of the day in the mainstream media. What is new is that the media got caught and called out so strongly.


I've read George Orwell's 1984 at least three times and had forgotten about "facecrime" but not everyone has ...

Labels: culture, media, Orwell, politics, race, White folks

This is the time of year where, in certain quarters, one hears about a "War on Christmas" (WoC). In fact, a recent poll found that "39% of people believe that "There is a 'War on Christmas' happening in the US." There is, indeed, good reason to believe that Christmas is under attack.

Marc Daalder, writing in the Jewish Forward in December 2016, situates the WoC within "the zone of the culture wars" and asserts that "saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas" is "one of the preeminent issues" that "must be pressed". In Daalder's view: "The War on Christmas is really a War for Inclusivity, and it is essential as we look towards remaking and repairing American culture going forward from this divisive election. To abandon multiculturalism or identity politics because Middle America rejected them is to simply surrender after years of hard work. No, the work must continue and the war must be fought."

Adam Kirsch (whom Daalder quotes), writing in another Jewish publication, Tablet Magazine, claims "Talk of a war on Christmas is, then, at least implicitly anti-Jewish ..." As evidence he cites a 2009 op-ed by Garrison Keillor entitled: "NONBELIEVERS, PLEASE LEAVE CHRISTMAS ALONE". Keillor had the temerity to write:

Unitarians listen to the Inner Voice and so they have no creed that they all stand up and recite in unison, and that's their perfect right, but it is wrong, wrong, wrong to rewrite "Silent Night." If you don't believe Jesus was God, OK, go write your own damn "Silent Night" and leave ours alone. This is spiritual piracy and cultural elitism, and we Christians have stood for it long enough. And all those lousy holiday songs by Jewish guys that trash up the malls every year, Rudolph and the chestnuts and the rest of that dreck. Did one of our guys write "Grab your loafers, come along if you wanna, and we'll blow that shofar for Rosh Hashanah"? No, we didn't.

Christmas is a Christian holiday - if you're not in the club, then buzz off. Celebrate Yule instead or dance around in druid robes for the solstice. Go light a big log, go wassailing and falalaing until you fall down, eat figgy pudding until you puke, but don't mess with the Messiah.

Kirsch wasn't the only one to take umbrage to Keillor's remarks.

Also in 2009, Slate published an article by Benyamin Cohen noting:

The Jewish community has long had a tense relationship with Christmas ... As a public service announcement, I'm here to let you in on what the rabbis thought about Christmas Eve. Gather round, little ones. This is a scary tale.

The Talmud, with its share of rabbinic repudiations against Jesus, was never a big fan of Christmas. Call it the Grinch. Indeed, the rabbis looked at it as a day of mourning ...

And so the rabbis decreed that the public study hall be closed and that no Torah learning take place on this night [i.e. Christmas eve] ... the leaders were also concerned about the popularly held belief in Judaism that studying the Torah brings spiritual benefit to the world at large. Many didn't want to make this positive contribution on what they considered a "pagan" night.

In a similar vein Daniel J. Solomon writes about his "Hannukah bush" in the Forward: ".. to me, the bush isn't a sign of assimilation, a 'neither Jew nor Gentile' copout, a helping of potato love with bacon and cheese spread. It's a subversive act, claiming and reinterpreting an item historically representative of exclusion, and sometimes violence directed against us." Solomon concludes his piece:

... religious pluralism is now the norm. But there's still a need to create a more inclusive December. Some might call that fighting a "war on Christmas." Why not? There should be a "war on Christmas." We should de-center Christianity as the "reason for the season" in a diverse America.

American Jews have been doing that for a while. Irving Berlin helped transform Christmas into a celebration of snow, not Jesus. Jewish comedians have created "Reuben, the Red-Nosed Reindeer" and "Hanukkah Harry." The Hanukkah bush does something akin to this, both claiming and satirizing the Christmas tree.

My impetus for this post was reading, some time ago, Rabbi Joshua Eli Plaut's book A Kosher Christmas: 'Tis the Season to be Jewish (Rutgers UP, 2012). Early on Plaut affirmatively quotes "Jonathan Sarna, a preeminent historian of American Jewry". According to Plaut, Sarna argued that: "... American Jews have a 'Christmas problem.' Although American civil religion calls upon all Americans to join in the Christmas spirit, on the actual holiday of Christmas the religious overtones of Christianity are apparent throughout American society ..."

Plaut's book, then, is about how Jews have responded to this "Christmas problem". He claims:

Jews in the United States have, in fact, made great progress in resolving December dilemmas. Such an ongoing resolution is evolving out of the creative efforts of American Jewry to coopt the Christmas season by reshaping it to reflect uniquely Jewish ideas, concerns, and practices and by developing a variety of strategies directed toward neutralizing Christmas in America. American Jewry's success in challenging Christmas's vaunted status rests upon forging an identity that is at once separate from the religious and historical dimensions of Christmas, yet convergent with its underlying spirit. Jews in America, particularly during the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, employ a multitude of strategies to face the particular challenges of Christmas and to overcome feelings of exclusion and isolation. Jews have played a crucial role in popularizing Christmas. They have enhanced the national observance of Christmas by composing many of the Christmas songs beloved by all Americans. More secular than religious, these songs, among them Irving Berlin's "White Christmas," Walter Rollins and Steve Fletcher's "Frosty the Snowman," and, most recently, Paul Simon's "Getting Ready for Christmas Day," remind celebrants that Christmas belongs to all Americans who share in the spirit of patriotism, generosity, peace, and goodwill. It is ironic, however, that other Jews in the United States have developed strategies to downplay the significance of Christmas by composing poems and songs—in print, performance, and the media—that satirize and neutralize the religious nature of the holiday ...

Responding to the resurgence of Jewish identity in the United States, partially occasioned by support for the State of lsrael, Jews in America have reinvented the celebration of Hanukkah as an alternative to Christmas. This strategy has made it easier for Jewish parents to influence their children to avoid Christmas in favor of celebrating Hanukkah. [emphasis added]

On this note, the aforementioned Kirsch references "... how American Jews could develop Hanukkah, previously a fairly minor winter holiday, into such a successful counterpart to Christmas. Religiously and ideologically, Hanukkah is just about the worst holiday possible for such a purpose—it is, after all, a story about Jews resisting assimilation by violence." It would be more accurate to say that Hanukkah commemorates a bloody civil war where assimilationists were defeated by traditionalists.

However, even self-described "assimilated Jews" who believe "the story of Hanukkah" has "at its heart ... an eight-night-long celebration of religious fundamentalism and violence" will still celebrate it "Because at the end of the day, it's all about beating Santa." (On Hanukkah as a Zionist holiday see "Reinventing Hanukkah: The Israeli Politics of the Maccabean Holiday".)

Plaut also writes:

With a constitutional bravado emanating from a growing religious segment within the American Jewish community, the Hasidic Chabad-Lubavitch organization ... has waged war against strict separation of religion and state and has won from the courts the right to display menorahs in public venues. Members of the Chabad-Lubavitch group have been supported by Christian religious fundamentalists who want crèches allowed in these same municipally governed spaces. These religious groups, Jewish and Christian alike, have come up against the American Civil Liberties Union and Jewish organizations with a long history of winning court injunctions against any encroachment of religion on state.

Curiously, in his Introduction at least, Plaut fails to mention that while Jews were successful in 1989 in getting Supreme Court approval (6-3) for menorahs to be displayed on public property in County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) in the very same decision the Court ruled 5-4 that crèches or nativity scenes on public property were generally forbidden. I believe that County of Allegheny is still considered a valid precedent.

To sum up, I have presented a variety of mostly Jewish perspectives acknowledging and even applauding that Jews qua Jews are waging a War on Christmas. This is, apparently, okay for Jews to write about but not okay for folks like Garrison Keillor, however tepidly or tangentially they may address the subject. Perhaps, this is why the people at Fox News, the outlet that, arguably, did the most to popularize the idea of a WoC are too cowardly to say that—even as they are not the only ones waging the fight—Jews are front and center in the War on Christmas.

For an interesting review of A Kosher Christmas see " 'Twas the Day After Christmas ..." by Ethan Schwartz on Jewish Ideas Daily. Among other things Schwartz worries:

There is something disconcerting about [Plaut's] thesis, summoning up classic anti-Semitic images of conspiracy and sabotage. Without a trace of irony, Plaut recounts incidents in which fundamentalist Christian groups complained that "certain Americans, particularly Jews, were trying to take the 'Christ' out of Christmas." He adds that "anti-Semitic comments often ensued." Those Christian fundamentalists might well feel vindicated by Plaut's argument ...

Labels: Chabad, Christmas, conspiracy, culture, Jews, religion, United States

National Public Radio did an almost 6-minute infomercial today on the music of the new Ubisoft release, Far Cry 5. FC5 is a first-person shooter game where the player is a sheriff's deputy and the bad guys belong to Eden's Gate, an evil cult in Montana. I haven't played the game but various media reports indicate the cult is Christian-based (see here and here). One of the cover art pieces (see image at right) is a clear reference to Da Vinci's "The Last Supper" and then there's the baptism trailer.

The game also calls to my mind the massacres at Ruby Ridge and Waco, along with the M.O.V.E. massacre. According to the game's creative director, Dan Hay, FC5 was partly inspired or influenced by the 2016 armed protest at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge but mostly by his own insecurities:

"[That] brings us to the creative of the game," Hay said. "We are going to Montana. We are going to the frontier of Montana in present day. What we learned there is this concept of 'freedom, faith, and firearms.' People in that region, they don't want to be fucked with. We're applying that to Far Cry. We did that two-and-a-half years ago. But even today, this morning when I turned on the news, this concept of dissatisfaction, feeling like something is wrong, something is off. It brings me very much back to when I was a kid. I don't know that I feel safe."

Hay's words seem to also echo Obama's notorious bitter clingers remark.

I realize that my limited engagement with the game is no substitute for having actually played it. My analysis here though is not really so much about the game itself as about the mainstream media response to public representations of FC5.

Thus, listening to the fawning NPR piece left me wondering how they would cover a mirror-image game where the first person shooter is a militia member or a deputy sheriff who is gunning down a caricature of the Left, say evil prominent Lefty gun controllers who are surrounded by armed guards and based in New York, for example. What about a game taking out protesters run violently amuck, based loosely on Black Lives Matter or Antifa?

Methinks Ari Shapiro et al. would not similarly overlook the dynamics of who was shooting whom and why in such a game. A gamer friend made a search and found no such parallel games to FC5 with contemporary center-Left villains so we needn't worry, I suppose.

See also:

• Some Lessons of "Unintended Consequences"
• Cho not McVeigh

08 April 2018 update: I've done a bit more reading of and about responses to FC5. Unsurprisingly, I'm not the first or only person to think about the ramifications of using an identifiable, albeit exaggerated, contemporary American political/cultural subgroup as the targets of an FPS game.

Last year, Chris Plante wrote in The Verge: "But Far Cry 5, should it commit to the direction the key art suggests, will be the biggest and most aggressive game to adjust the sights of the first-person shooter genre against people in the United States .... The game promises a conversation about ... why it became acceptable to murder virtual versions of one group of people, but not another." Unfortunately, I see very little evidence of the promised conversation taking place.

There have been complaints about why the "bad guys" aren't more clearly identifiable as members of the real "alt-Right" and other perceived nemeses of the Left. As Adi Robertson put it, writing more recently in The Verge: "many reviews have criticized Far Cry 5’s cult for not drawing on real Christian Fundamentalist or neo-Nazi ideology" (that would likely be the Left's insupportably expansive definition of neo-Nazi ideology).

Relatedly, some are also unhappy that the "good guys" aren't more clearly not conservatives. The two links below astutely critique in much greater detail some left-of center responses to FC5.

See also:

• "SJWs Complain That Far Cry 5 Isn’t Anti-Conservative, Anti-Christian Enough"
• "Gamespot Whines About Far Cry 5 Portraying Conservatives As Good Guys"

Labels: culture, gaming, guns, National Public Radio, politics, terrorism, United States, violence

Creative Maladjustment Week is July 7 - July 14. Here is a bit about the event from cmweek.org:

Philosophy and Principles

"There are some things in our world to which I'm proud to be maladjusted." ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Who are the Creatively Maladjusted?

• Critical thinkers: The creatively maladjusted focus on a problematic area of society (something to which people of good will simply can't be adjusted) with critical thought, examining the history of a bad idea, its branchings and consequences — the better to weed it out, roots and all.
• Architects of alternatives: Not merely content with tearing down an existing structure, the creatively maladjusted offer alternatives and are willing to demonstrate those alternatives with good cheer and positivity in public places. They believe that loving and loud public action is the foundation of a true non-violent revolution.
• Believers in humanity: Most importantly of all, the creatively maladjusted resist the pressure to dehumanize any and all of their fellow men. They believe in the inherent uniqueness and worth of every individual and demonstrate this belief in every action they take.

Creative maladjustment is a natural human response to oppression, an organic and highly adaptable way to oppose injustice.

What are they creatively maladjusted to?

The Creatively Maladjusted are active on a variety of important societal issues, including:

 • Racial equality • Religious tolerance • Economic fairness • Peace • Ecological sustainability and energy security • Individual liberty • Fighting psychiatric profiling and human rights abuses in the mental health system • Transparent and corruption-free government • Community and family values

The creatively maladjusted are incredibly diverse in the societal problems they aim to solve, but they are united in their opposition to the basis of all oppression: "man's inhumanity to man."

See also:

• "Martin Luther King on the International Association for the Advancement of Creative Maladjustment"
• Ambrose Bierce's definition of "mad"

Labels: critical thinking, culture, psychology

About 25 years ago I was a computer technical assistant at a large public university. I remember then being struck and puzzled by the cult-like loyalty of my boss and two of my co-workers to Apple and its products. The Macintosh GUI was superior to what Microsoft had on offer at the time but the devotion to Apple exceeded what such a difference could rationally command.

Having recently watched Alex Gibney's excellent documentary Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine I now have much greater insight as to why so many Apple consumers have invested themselves into the products of a huge multinational profit-making entity. Steve Jobs and his PR team deliberately and deftly branded Apple as a countercultural corporation (an oxymoron, to be sure) and the siren call of this manipulative marketing (a redundacy, to be sure) seduced tens of millions and helped changed society for the worse.

Labels: culture, film & television, psychology, technology, video

And I know that it's dangerous to judge
But man you've gotta find the truth
And when you find that truth don't budge
Until the truth you found begins to change

And it does I know, I know
When you love the truth enough
You start to tell it all the time
When it gets you into trouble
You discover you don't mind

'Cause if good is finally gonna trump
Then man you've gotta take stock
And you've gotta take your lumps
Or else they trickle down
Into someone else's cup below

Source: "People" by David Bazan on the Strange Negotiations album.

Labels: culture, music, truth, video

War is nasty and brutish. War is no good for anyone ... but at least it's fucking real.

Source: "Brothers in Civilianland" by Max Black on Takimag.com

Labels: culture, philosophy, quotations, War

The George Carlin bit above is self-explanatory but the video montage (YouTube deleted the original montage video) below from John Carpenter's 1988 film, They Live (THEY = The Hierarchy Enslaving You), could stand a little explanation. The 'sermon' soundtrack is from the opening scenes which feature a Christian minister preaching in a Los Angeles park until the police stop him. Part of the text of the Street Preacher's (his name in the film's closing credits) sermon is taken from Paul's epistle to the Romans (3:13-18), which, in turn, hearkens back to Isaiah 59. Here are some of the representative verses from Romans 3: "... they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. ... in their paths are ruin and misery ... There is no fear of God before their eyes."

12 Sep 2021 addendum: As noted in Reason, more than four years ago, John Carpenter issued a Tweet that said: "THEY LIVE is about yuppies and unrestrained capitalism. It has nothing to do with Jewish control of the world, which is slander and a lie." Okay, it's pretty clear who the "yuppies" and capitalists are but who do the alien ghoul overlords disguised as humans represent in the film?

Elsewhere, Carpenter has said the film was a critique of Ronald Reagan, his policies, and the 1980s cultural milieu. All of this make perfect sense and is persuasive but how do Carpenter's ghouls fit in and why are they aliens?

By the way, I read Jonathan Lethem's book about the film (mentioned in the Reason article) and thought Lethem did a poor job. Among other things, he makes no mention of the opening sermon by the Street Preacher and, thus, he does not analyze it's biblical origins or its relevance to the film's overall theme.

Labels: class, critical thinking, culture, film & television, repression, United States, video