Mob Rule, Mob Rules: Part 3, Section 1

(Part 1, Part 2)

Trumphantism: Donald J. Trump & The Post-Trump World

By: E. Kyle Richey

Earth to America: Crashing til Landed

Marred by 2020 the world braces for impact in 2021. Humanity has witnessed a paradigm shift, yet the dust still settles as outcomes and consequences remain to be decided. Donald J. Trump, United States 45th President has lost an election which determined the cascading trajectory of the United States of America. Now is the time to understand what we are leaving behind as American’s and the world enter the fragmented universe of 2021. 

The irony of collapse is eventually a replacement appears. No power, however impressive, lasts forever per the testimonies of time by empires that long lay in ruin. Ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome lay in ruin while continuing to influence the present; they may be in ruin yet their voices speak an eternality of what is to come, “an end and new beginnings,” they whisper.  

Transitions from beginning to end are never definite in degree, but shared similarities showcase potential possibilities for historians and political thinkers alike to study and consider. 

In 1992 a profound and controversial book was published, The End of History and the Last Man (1992) by Political and Social theorist Francis Fukuyama. Immediately in his introduction Fukuyama premised that liberal democracies are the pinnacle of a free and open society, an end of history, while acknowledging stable nations such as the United States or France would continue to have issues due to an “incomplete implementation of the twin principles of liberty and equality (p. xi).”¹ Within the end of history and fasts-forward to 2018 with the publication of Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment, both works acknowledge a demand for universal recognition (an idea from the philosopher Hegel) or dignity according Fukuyama, a place where all are seen heard, and known. Yet the ideal turns toward the ideological as demands of recognition include no forms of discrimination or disrespect felt by oppressed groups giving rise to a new totalitarianism, a “soft totalitarianism”² whose overarching hand comes largely from corporations whose cooperation with governments make them complicit actors of the state. This is Modernity’s present conflict and a test concerning history’s end due to its irreality and polarizing affect of identity politics: 

Being a citizen of a liberal democracy does not mean, moreover, that people will actually be treated with equal respect either by their government or by other citizens. They are judged on the basis of their skin, their gender, their national origin, their looks, their ethnicity, or their sexual orientation. Each person and each group experiences disrespect in different ways, and each seeks its own dignity. Identity politics thus engenders its own dynamic, by which societies divide themselves into smaller and smaller groups by virtue of their particular “lived experience” of victimization (p. 164).³

Specific to the United States of America, a serious conflict is taking place concerning its future in the world as it continues to dim in the night sky. Our nebulae is fading while false promises of return continue from Trump to Biden. The election of 2020 further marks a crisis of culture and legitimacy. Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, and additional Marxist movements in the areas of culture and political life are merely one revolt competing against another. Attempts in the final weeks of the Trump Presidency to override the Capitol was an extension of a radical right of QAnon conspirators and Alt-right fascism determined to prevent what they believe was an election stolen and an America quickly fading in front of their eyes. As Anne Applebaum from The Atlantic observed, extremists are emboldening one another.⁴ Events in America today are reminiscent of Germany as Marxist’s caused anarchy in the streets and out of frustration far-right extremist groups -began to take the streets ending in bloodshed and a revolution that brought about Adolf Hitler into power.

Would it be hard to believe that both sides of the the quarrel in America today carry legitimacy and illegitimacy? A conundrum for sure but a postmodern reality as conflicting interpretations⁵ swirl us into further disaster. Internally outcomes mean a warring between a weak versus strong state, however, a much larger powers hover over the once great nation. China, Corporatism, and Globalism each carry a new weight on the shoulders of Uncle Sam.

Socialist Technocrats riding of the back of Capitalism are aiming for a Great Reset in the midst of C-19.⁶ Spiraling out of control, disillusioned by their grander, they believe they can land a plane already in flames with President Biden and Vice-President Harris at the throttle. In order to comprehend the erosion and decay; to predict the outcomes that are likely to arise in 2021; and to understand the pinnacle of modernity—late modernity, a perpetual state⁷ of totalitarian incantations⁸—we must first review President Trump and the American ethos of 2016 that built up to this point. Mob Rule, Mob Rules did not develop overnight but it is rooted in the unsettled nature of mankind whose fears, wants, needs, and desires collide in a world of duality with the Self at the center of an unraveling universe that is the End of History & the Last Man.   

America’s Second Postmodern President

Donald J. Trump was an enigma and an archetype representative of the reverberating tensions in the modern world. America’s 45th President was not in the mundane category as he set a new standard for future leadership in the political landscape—an all gloves off approach. His own outrageous behavior polarized the most moderate into unmarked territories while enflaming political baselines. To call the man evil ignores the good he committed himself to doing while President, yet to call the man good evaporates his offensive oddities that perturbed Conservatives and non-Conservatives, Christians and non-Christians alike. The now former President was our first purely postmodern President; a genius capable of fragmenting and uniting in ways not thought possible in modern America.⁹ He successfully made the ecological landscape appear upside-down and right-side up, greatly due to the fact that American society at present is itself fragmented and united, engaged and disengaged, troubled and relived.

As I engaged on the EKR Report, it is important to reiterate here:

It is my belief that America’s 45th President Donald J. Trump was a complete postmodern President; a manifestation of late modernity’s yearnings for a hero and a villain. Trump just so happened to represent the radical right, the alt-right, but it is questionable if President Trump was indeed a man of the right or a man who took advantage of their woes. Previously I have mentioned that I believed Trump to be the first postmodern president, but I stand corrected as Barack Obama was the first (another topic to be sure). However, in reaction to thematics of Obama, Donald Trump entered center stage to fill a void in the political right, a strong arm who could MAGA his way though Washington. QAnon and the Alt-right are blatant examples of the modern malaise that is postmodernism. 

Continuing that thought-line I presented Donald J. Trump as a Postmodern Nebuchadnezzar:

Manifestation being the keyword President Trump embodies the essential postmodern stigma. He is the result of an ecological convergence within late modernity—a billionaire titan hungry for an abundance of power and wealth in order to make a legacy and the presidency was the perfect construct at a point of political strife…

President Trumps election and win in 2016 was understandably a response to the status quo, a push against the vanguard found in the Democratic and Republican parties that elected George W. Bush and Barrack Obama, respectfully, and a reactionary response from the public to the potential presidency of Hillary Rodham Clinton. People have grown weary of globalism, capitalism, socialism, war, and even peace. Citizens are worn.

And the election of Joe Biden is a reaction to Trump and Trumphantism, however, is also a response to the ills that minorities and progressives argue are repressing them. They too are enraged by hate speech, discrimination, low wages, and an expensive bloated healthcare system.

Combined a catalyst has been formed of good versus evil; light versus darkness. The postmodern stage has been set and the audience is watching:

In his book, Simulacra and Simulation, the postmodern thinker Baudrillard argues that within the United States a switch took place between the image relationship of art forms and reality; the image now has ontological priority over the real. Signs and Symbols have become the reality rather than the actual world itself thus resulting in life itself becoming “film-like” as he puts it:

It is not the least of America’s charms that even outside the movie theaters the whole county is cinematic. The desert you pass through is like the set of a Western, the city a screen of signs and formulas.”

Continuing:

A simulacrum is a representation of something or someone. Donald Trump, I am arguing, is a simulacrum due to the sociopolitical economic environment of the United States. He is a superficial force Americans had to contend with as either good or evil; right or wrong. Trump was not one but both. A master of media, Trump knew exactly how to market himself as savior and king as much as antichrist and tyrant. Christian professor and author of the book, Disruptive Witness: Speaking Truth In A Distracted Age, Alan Noble describes our media saturated society—what I see as a postmodern product of late modernity the emerged from secularism, technology, and science— Nobles writes that the:

[C]onstant engagement with media also invites us to unreflectively adopt ethical and political positions, creating a hodgepodge worldview. From a film on the treatment of animals in amusement parks we develop a fleeting concern for animal rights. A documentary on modern farming practices makes us see shopping local and organic a moral issue.

Are the events we are witnessing real? Who is telling the truth? What will become of the human estate? Former President Trump offered America one way forward and it was a way that now nearly half of America sought to maintain rather than surrender. So much so that a cabal raided the Capital. While another half, a half fearful of Trump and “his” America, elected Joseph Robinette Biden Jr to repose from a sudden decay in their vision of democracy.

Disturbingly there is a serious disconnect between needs and wants for the average American citizen versus the conflicting natures found in Washington. Following that logic, the innumerable hands influencing decisions in the American political system has designed a wide range of conflicts in terms of visions and, as I have termed it, a collision of ideas that relate to the competing visions of the nation and the world for that matter.¹⁰ 

If the controversial terminology Deep State¹¹ means anything it is that there are far too many actors involved in the decision making of the U.S. Government beyond its traditional capacity of the three branches of government and their inability of functional overwatch. Additionally, Deep State as I define is a clear cooperation, not conspiratorial, between the State (i.e. the Federal, State, and local governments including its many agencies) and private entities (i.e. Corporate entities such as Media conglomerates, Banks, and Private Military Companies); a layering of networks that has become the security state entwined with a global economy called neoliberalism. Modernity procured a “Too Big To Fail” attitude because our interconnected global economy is dependent upon its own continual success. Security and prosperity are its goals. Civilization is not post-modernity, its in the thicket of modernity. Postmodernism— philosophically and ideologically—acts a reflective state that mirrors modernity’s crisis. This is the present Market State¹² out of which Trump triumphed, at least, momentarily.

Never A One Man Show

Trump became President in the midst of a rise of authoritarian figures, nationalism, and Brexit.¹³ But he also stood as a bulwark against socialism, critical race theories, and leftist radicalism. Yet he adopted agendas that aligned with alt-right motives.¹⁴ A man who was bitter and vial towards those he disliked and quick to dispose all those who showed a lack of Trump style loyalty. Paradoxically, Trump was willing to stand against our greatest enemies in the world including China and rail against the greatest evils such as abortion; the paradox would also have bizarre relations with our greatest enemies—Russia and North Korea—that themselves left many perplexed.

Mob Rule and Mob rules goes both ways. Once a society or group accepts a particular culture to the extent of an unwavering obedience that is when the mere obedient citizen morphs into the crazed devotee.¹⁵ In such a state of mind the individual joins a collective consciousness that bestows an ideological framework with its authoritative structures, a tyrannical voice speaks over the disillusioned. Granted that both authority and legitimacy are each necessary means to gaining such societal clout. Without that respect the people protest, rebel, and eventually turn into revolutionaries. Todays status quo can be tomorrows tyranny as the vanguard can be heroes and mob alike. No modern government is unaware of the populist pull.

With the populist shift in the recent decade as seen in the election of President Trump a void continues to grow in the desire of American political stability. As previously written in part 2 of this series:

Donald Trump was not Russia’s (forever) President Vladimir Putin nor North Korea’s Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un, however, the current President fit well within mob tactics. Portrayed as a hero who was set on “draining the swamp” it was clear that the Washington outsider brought in his own muck. 

Biden is the pendulum swing further to the left. Hardly a stabilizing force considering the policies the President and the democratic party have adopted.

Life’s A Riot

            Movements and the groups who fight for their beliefs can quickly be perceived as either just or unjust depending on which side a person stands. The avant-garde of the new or the progressive versus the conservative institutions or the reactionary, these are only a set of varying “stances” a person can be part of. However, where do hate groups, real hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, Nation of Islam, or Neo-Volkisch stand in the spectrum of differences between progressives and conservatives? They may share similar accepted norms and mores of general society, but their responses are dehumanizing, threatening, and often violent. Truthfully, they have no justification in relation to either the avant-garde or the establishment considering that these movements of hate are beyond even the fridge of accepted beliefs and are considered fraudulent in their cause. Yet liberalized governments tend to protect even the most hateful. Such a decision hardly premises legitimacy but it begs the question, How do liberal democracies successfully funnel extremist groups within their countries? That question relates to the United State most recent socioeconomic and political trajectories of riots and movements via Black Lives Matter and the Alt-Right. And it is a central topic as the 46th President Biden intend to tackle “white supremacy” after President 45 attempted to address the radical socialist left. It is therefore essential to understand Black Lives Matters, ANTIFA, and the Alt-Right; to see them as archetypical trajectories of what lays ahead in the radicalism that has overtaken the American Dream that is no more.

————

Next Time: Mob Rule, Mob Rules: Part 3, Section 2 Trumphantism: The Alt-Right, Black Lives Matters, ANTIFA, and the Fate of American Liberty

References

¹ Dreher, Rod. (2020). Live Not By Lies: A Manual For Christian Dissidents. New York, NY: Sentinel

² Fukuyama, Francis. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. New York, NY: The Free Press

³ —. (2018). Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 

⁴ Applebaum, Anne. (2020 October 30). The Answer to Extremism Isn’t More Extremism. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/left-and-right-are-radicalizing-each-other/616914/

⁵ As a point of reference I am using Jean Baudrillard’s usage as he explained this loss of the real in how we interpret events around us. In his example, he used Watergate. This is directly quoted from Simulations (1983) Translated by Phil Beitchman, Paul Foss and Paul Patton, “All hypotheses are possible, although this one is superfluous: the work of the Right is done very well, and spontaneously, by the Left on its own. Besides, it would be naive to see an embittered good conscience at work here. For the Right itself also spontaneously does the work of the Left. All the hypotheses of manipulation are reversible in an endless whirligig. For manipulation is a floating causality where positivity and negativity engender and overlap with one another; where there is no longer any active or passive (p. 30).”

⁶ World Economic Forum. The Great Reset. https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/; and for further commentary on events see: Doane, Thomas. (2020 November 1). The Convergence of the Progressive Telos. Truth In Focus. https://edwardkylerichey.org/2020/11/01/the-convergence-of-the-progressive-telos/

⁷ Richey, Kyle. (2020 October 26). PostModernity: A Perpetual State of Modernity. https://edwardkylerichey.org/2020/10/26/postmodernity-a-perpetual-state-of-modernity/

⁸ —. (2020 November 2). Totalitarian Incantations: Late Modernity’s Radical Manifestations. https://edwardkylerichey.org/2020/11/02/totalitarian-incantations-late-modernitys-radical-manifestations/

⁹ —. (2020 August 20). Mob Rule, Mob Rules 2020: Part 2. https://edwardkylerichey.org/2020/08/20/mob-rule-mob-rules-2020-part-2/

¹⁰ —. (2020 November 2020). Too Divided To Stand: Election 2020 & The Future of America. https://edwardkylerichey.org/2020/11/06/too-divided-to-stand-election-2020-the-future-of-america/

¹¹ Several references: Lofgren, Mike. (21 February, 2014). Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State. Moyers On Democracy. https://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/; Kaizen, Michael. (Fall 2017). The Rise of the Security State: From the Great War to Snowden. Dissent Magazine. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/world-war-i-aftermath-security-state-nsa; Healy, Gene. (1 March, 2015). National Security State. (Book Review) National Security and Double Government By Michael J. Glennon. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/national-security-state; Epstein, Richard. (20 October, 2019) How Bad Constitutional Law Leads to Bad Economic Regulations. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/how-bad-constitutional-law-leads-bad-regulations/600280/

¹² A great reference point for understanding the Market State is from Constitutional scholar Philip Bobbitt’s, The Shield of Achilles, including on page 347 where a small set of graphs or “plates” he calls them demonstrate the evolution of the state including a small definition of each entity. The Market State according to Bobbitt “will maximize the opportunity of its citizens.”

13 Greven, Thomas. (2016 May). The Rise of Right-wing Populism in Europe and the United States: A Comparative Perspective. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Foundation. http://dc.fes.de/fileadmin/user_upload/publications/RightwingPopulism.pdf

¹⁴ Wilson, Matthew. (2020 July 17). Donald Trump and the “Alt-Right”: How Much Connection Is There. ISPI. https://www.ispionline.it/it/pubblicazione/donald-trump-and-alt-right-how-much-connection-there-26990

¹⁵ Richey, Kyle. (2020 August 20). Mob Rule, Mob Rules 2020: Part 2. https://edwardkylerichey.org/2020/08/20/mob-rule-mob-rules-2020-part-2/

Target Takes Aim

(Special Series, Illiberalism In The World, Part 1)

By: E. Kyle Richey

Censorship Is Our Promise

Target Corporation has banned one book after Twitter complaints from LGBTQ advocates. Abigail Shrier author of Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters. And only a few days later Dr. Debra Soh author of The End of Gender Debunking the Myths about Sex and Identity in our Society, mentioned concerns that her book as well had been cut but it was quickly reinstate it by Target.

We will remain vigilant as to the direction Target takes toward more books concerning sex and gender. It is no surprise that Target has begun to take an illiberal stance in its corporate beliefs. Back in 2016 Target announced per in message of inclusivity that it would install genderless bathrooms but after some protesting it redirected $20 million dollars to install private, third options restrooms according to CNN.

Inclusiveness! Diversity! Equity!

Back in mid-october our own Kimberly Hagen took these photos of the propaganda that Target pushes now on its audience. Violence, gender confusion, and race baiting:

We are calling this propaganda because target has specifically decided to only push one side of an argument. It no longer is of a free market but it has chosen ideological grounds through means of identity and identity politics. No longer are legitimate views allowed that counter gender, sex or other forms of progressive, postmodern, and critical race theorist forms of identity. Clearly Target stores have abandoned all forms of rationality and intends to enforce its values on the general populace to the extent that it’s willing to ban books. Welcome to Soft-Totalitarianism.

Corporations over decades now have shifted from merely legal entities to political and social institutions that influence, control, and enforce similarly to the Federal Government. According to the research by Open Secrets, Center for Responsive Politics, in 2019 Target spent $1,520,000 in lobbying expenditures down from nearly $3 million in 2017. Also provided by Target Corporation is their 2019 Target Corporate Political Contributions.

A report from the Advocate suggests that in 2010 Target was boycotted by LGBTQ activists after it was discovered that the company had given campaign money to Republican Tom Emmer for U.S. Representative who, in the words of the Advocate, “Emmer was surely anti-gay.”

What Target and LGBTQ advocates refuse to acknowledge is that there is a legitimate difference between being “anti-gay” and holding the view that homosexuality is a sin, or a person believes that marriage should be between a man or woman, or even consider the scientific gender/sex research that counters transgender arguments. No, these advocates see only ideology.

Glenn Greenwald reported that the ACLU has begun to take a divergent and contradictory stance of its own toward the banning of books in the name of “Hate Speech” specifically advocated by  Chase Strangio, the ACLU’s Deputy Director for Transgender Justice of its LGBT & HIV Project. Greenwald writes:

My interview with Strangio was too long ago for me to comfortably summarize it, but suffice to say there was no question that his views on free speech are sharply divergent from those that caused me to regard ACLU lawyers and their free speech absolutism as among my childhood heroes. If you want to hear reasons why the ACLU should be more reluctant to represent the free speech rights of “dangerous” extremists and why free speech should give way to other, more important values — views I vehemently reject — Strangio is about the most thoughtful advocate I’ve heard in defense of that position.

See Greenwald’s full article here: The Ongoing Death of Free Speech: Prominent ACLU Lawyer Cheers Suppression of a New Book.

Target is not alone as larger companies like Amazon, Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Apple all push similar agendas. Terrifying when one considers the possibility of censorship compounded by these multinational companies. That is why it is important to speak out against this illiberalism that now threatens freedom and liberty for all.

Principles Over Politics: Integrity

(Special Series)

(Part 5: Final)

Whoever walks in integrity walks securely, but he who makes his ways crooked will be found out. – Proverbs 10:9

The truth is, wrote Kent Hughes, “American culture is in big trouble. The colossal slide of integrity (especially masculine ethics) has grim spiritual, domestic, and political implications which threaten the survival of life as we know it” (Hughes 2001, p. 125, Discipline of a Godly Man). Integrity is an issue of structure, a consistency that holds the entire weight of the framework or the system or the person in question. Corruption is not integral. Lying and cheating are not integral. Threats, injustice, harm, and murder are not integral. All are corrosive elements to the whole of nature. Inwardly Christians acknowledge original sin—that inner corrupted nature which the Enlightenment set out to deny. However, Christ is the Soul Changer. And under true conviction we do not ignore the faulty broken nature, our purest impure identity as humans. Rather we embrace the healer that condemned the sin that dooms us all. We seek to rise to each occasion though flawed. None are flawless. Integrity is always battling erosion. Maintaining institutions and ourselves are paramount practices to keep falsity and brokenness at bay. To walk securely means to bind one self to ideals outside the self and toward God and surrounding ourselves with people of integrity. Nothing lasts forever but we can build lasting impressions into the imprint of time. Preserving life by preventing evil. Speaking against divorce and sexual immorality. Helping the poor. Creating equal opportunity especially for the downtrodden. Standing up as truth-sayers when our own lie, cheat, steal, and abuse others. In the end, our actions will be judged along with our faith. The Gospel must always come first. Yet we can never ignore the least amongst us. Stand TALL. Stand for TRUTH. Build on the rock, not the sand.

Truth eternal, wise Creator, Fallen man’s illuminator! Light of reason, hope, ambition, Fire of love and true contrition… – W.S. Vale 1935, Cowley (Hymn)

Principles Over Politics: Moral Courage

(Special Series)

(Part 4)

Then David said to Solomon his son, “Be strong and courageous and do it. Do not be afraid and do not be dismayed, for the Lord God, even my God, is with you. He will not leave you or forsake you, until all the work for the service of the house of the Lord is finished” (1 Chronicles 28:20).

Aristotles’ mean for courage was between fear and recklessness. American author Henry van Dyke argued that there was a “sharp distinction between courage and recklessness” (Dyke, Courage Is the Standing Army of the Soul). Ignorance versus intelligence, according to Dyke, is that fine distinction that thrusts the drunkard into battle or equips the well-trained, studious solider who knows all that awaits them. Courage can come in several forms as well. Physical courage and intellectual courage both demand a surrendering of safety and peace. Leroy E. Mosher observed it was “easier to drift with the current than to oppose it” (Mosher, The Courage of His Convictions). While all of these are true statements, the highest form of truth manifests itself from the Christian pursuit of God as A.W. Tozer informed his readers that, “Our pursuit of God is successful just because He is forever seeking to manifest Himself to us” (Tozer 2006, p. 71, The Pursuit of God). Modern academia tells its students to cite their sources. Christians must acknowledge their source by which the God of David and Solomon gain their strength of moral courage.

Courage is the opposite of fear and no one can be courageous unless he first has fear. A courageous person acts despite being afraid; there is nothing special about doing that which he does not fear. Stimulating courage in one another is therefore a vital ministry. – R.C. Sproul

Fear and Courage

Principles Over Politics: Fidelity

(Special Series)

(Part 3)

[T]here are moral as well as practical consequences to intertemporal commitments. Gratitude, as well as loyalty and patriotism, for example, are all essentially commitments to behave differently in the future, toward individuals or societies, than one would behave on an impartial assessment of circumstances as they might exist at some future time, if those individuals and societies were encountered for the first time – Thomas Sowell

A Conflict of Visions

Fidelity is commitment; a place of assurance; bindings of loyalty; and a practice of faithfulness to a spouse, a friend, a job, or to God. It is the absolute expectation of those who profess, an oath, to their wives and husbands; God and Church; community and county; and resolute to helping their fellow man. Fidelity is the bonding of the soul to something greater than yourself.

What you have inherited from your forefathers, earn it, that you might own it. – Sir Roger Scruton

England and the Need for Nations

Principles Over Politics: Industry

(Special Series)

(Part 2)

A rich old farmer, who felt that he had not many more days to live, called his sons to his bedside.

“My sons,” he said, “heed what I have to say to you. Do not on any account part with the estate that has belonged to our family for so many generations. Somewhere on it is hidden a rich treasure. I do not know the exact spot, but it is there, and you will surely find it. Spare no energy and leave no spot unturned in your search.”

The father died, and no sooner was he in his grave than the sons set to work digging with all their might, turning up every foot of ground with their spades, and going over the whole farm two or three times.

No hidden gold did they find; but at harvest time when they had settled their accounts and had pocketed a rich profit far greater than that of any of their neighbors, they understood that the treasure their father had told them about was the wealth of a bountiful crop, and that in their industry had they found the treasure.

Industry is itself a treasure.

The Farmer And His Sons, Aseop Fable

Industriousness isn’t merely hard-work, it is proactive and driven with a purpose beyond greed, lust, and revenge. True work leaves eternal value for friends, family, church, and the community at large. Ken Harrison, chairmen of Promise Keepers, tells us that real men see the needs and seek to accomplish them, “He doesn’t look around for someone else to accomplish the task. He doesn’t make excuses. He doesn’t complain, slander, or gossip. He chooses to make a difference where he is” (Harrison 2019, p. 116, Rise of the Servant Kings). Whether manhood or womanhood, single or a family, young or old we are called to be a people who work for the good, the true, and the beautiful. Enterprise, merit, honesty, and empathy are positive externalities from industry derived from a people whose actions carry forth goodness and faithfulness rooted in Jesus Christ and Scripture. True Conservatives accept that their stances may be refuted and even result in death, but set on being industriousness because of its lasting benefits.

After all the very highest and most fundamental work of good citizenship is to leave the next generation in right shape… – Theodore Roosevelt

Principles Over Politics: Virtuous Individualism

(Special Series)

(Part 1)

But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side.  So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.” (Luke 10: 29-37).

Hyper-individuality has spread infectiously throughout the world producing a toxic malaise over the minds, hearts, and souls of mankind. In reaction to it a dangerous collective desire of Identity and Identity Politics now stands to shatter any real sense of the individual beyond the group.

The term hyper-individualism can be described as a state of an individual acting in such a way that completely disregards the community. An attitude that carries over into the belief that an individuals identity of race, gender, sex, or personal background is the end all, be all position. Nothing another person has to say or do matters beyond the self. This attitude follows into their daily actions as the individual can do no wrong, demand a life to be lived without any form of judgement, and expect little in consequences to their actions. Rising tensions within harmful political environments make respect for differences of opinion a place of distain, yes, but that is only one part of a larger problem. Rather increasing tensions cause differences of opinion to intensify to the point of extremes, blinding individuals from seeing the faults in one or more positions.

Neither the radical beliefs of neoliberal individualism i.e. hyper-individuality nor the radical movements of collective solidarity (e.g. Marxism or Fascism) can suffice without calamity. Truthfully no system is perfect nor ideal, however, at the heart of the Christian faith and a philosophy of Primitive Conservatism is the individual who demonstrates mercy; whose actions are sacrificial not for their own vain glories but with the sole purpose to do right and to help others in-spite of differences.

“Justice without mercy is cruelty. Mercy without justice is the mother of all dissolution.” — Thomas Aquinas

Principles Over Politics: Exordium

(Special Series)

What then is a Christian to make of conservatism? The danger, it would seem, is not in conserving, for anyone may have a vocation to care for precious things, but in conservative ideology, which sets forth a picture of these things at variance with the faith. The same is true of liberalism. From time to time Christians may find themselves in tactical alliance with conservatives, just as with liberals, over particular policies, precepts, and laws. But they cannot be in strategic alliance, because their reasons for these stands are different; they are living in a different vision. For our allies’ sake as well as our own, it behooves us to remember the difference. We do not need another Social Gospel—just the Gospel. – J. Budziszewski

The Problem With Conservatism (1996)

Conservatism at its purest form is philosophical though it inevitably holds political weight in decisions of property, rights, laws, war, and nearly every other area of socioeconomic and political consequence. Richard M. Weaver reminded us in 1948 that Ideas Have Consequences, what we believe and follow, can reverberate throughout all of human history. “The modern position,” wrote Weaver, “seems only another manifestation of egotism, which develops when man has reached a point at which he will no longer admit the right to existence of things not of his own contriving” (Weaver, p. 154). Faith is more than tradition. Christ is beyond any philosophy. Historic Christianity is rooted in truth and reality that centers on the wholeness of Jesus Christ. Conservative philosophy at best recognizes the need for God and the institutions of the Christian faith, but it is not a practice of faith. As Professor Budziszewski of government and philosophy at the University of Texas in Austin and author of the blog, UndergroundThomist, distinctly makes clear: there is the Christian Faith and there is Conservatism and Liberalism and every other philosophical, ideological, and political system. At the end of the 1996 article (the article can be read in full at First Things website) he notes the essential truth of Christ and His Kingdom:

Christians can no more be others on the right than others on the left. Citizenship is an obligation of the faith, therefore the Christian will not abstain from the politics of the nation-state. But his primary mode of politics must always be witness. It is a good and necessary thing to change the welfare laws, but better yet to go out and feed the poor. It is a good and necessary thing to ban abortion, but better yet to sustain young women and their babies by taking them into the fellowship of faith. This is the way the kingdom of God is built.

The Problem With Conservatism (1996)

Therefore what comes first in terms of principles must be through and by the means of Christ, the Scriptures, and the Church. Christendom can be the only root source of a Primitive Conservative. Politics is secondary. Our identity is tertiary. Philosophy a helpmate. Surrender is strength not a weakness. Intersection is inevitable in the world of questions concerning morality, law, justice, or economics.

The Common Good

Tom Nelson, President of Made to Flourish, a network that works with churches in helping people flourish for the common good, argues that one of the best ways to achieve an act of common good is through our daily work (Nelson 2017, pp. 78-79, The Economics of Neighborly Love). By no means against the Free Market, Nelson seeks to make the case for a “triple bottom-line approaches that take into account not only profit but also promoting the flourishing of people as well as the planet” (pp. 79-80). One of several approaches to economic revitalization, the real father of economics can be found in the ideas of Thomas Aquinas whose central doctrines and dogmas remain as a central, though controversial, voice within Catholicism and broader Christianity.

Gloria L. Zúñiga at Acton Institute explains that “Thomistic economic thought… is grounded on private property and voluntary exchange as the principle for determining licit contracts.” Mary L. Hirschfeld, professor of economics and theology, wrote the book Aquinas and the Market: Toward a Humane Economy (2018), arguing that there are intrinsic values modern society can learn from Aquinas for the sake of redeeming a neoliberal society from its moral shortcomings.

Alternatives and reforms to a capitalistic society are nothing new to conservative thought as the late Sir Roger Scruton explains that “to be a conservative at best is to be a reluctant Capitalist you have to acknowledge the free-market… but it has to be tempered.” Our source for the “good life” derives from a similar stream but diverges from its source as to the ultimate purpose over ones life. Economics is simply one example for indeed Jesus Christ did not come to establish an economic doctrine or political order on the Earth. He came to die for the sins of the world and to redeem all that is His. Yet he tells believers not to be anxious or to worry but to build up for the Kingdom of Heaven:

Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also (Luke 12: 32-34).

Giving, charity, helpfulness are virtues to be practiced for they are goodness in of themselves; eternal values of immense worth as conservatives understand them to be. However the Christian does not simply do good, he does it at the service of God who commands them to do good. A distinct difference not because of a total lack of will to do any good but that Christians acknowledge the source by which goodness is bequeathed. For none do good, not even one (Psalm 14:3; Rom. 3:11). A secular reader shall fail in their attempt to decipher its meaning without close inspection as much as new Christian in the faith who fails to study the scriptures. Acts of “good” can be accomplished by all men but their heart remains corrupted. Christ is the redeemer of the heart—that is the Gospel. Secondly, all life comes from God the creator. He is worthy of acknowledgement. And lastly Christians source their life around the Gospel. Good works follow after it but virtue is not their source or it is simply vanity. Harry Blamires succinctly summarizes this truth in his book, The Christian Mind (1963), between the Modern mind and the mind of the Christian:

If Christians think carefully and prayerfully, they will come to understand what the Incarnation means for them in terms of their twentieth-century vocation… They will learn what are the proper twentieth-century modes of judging the world, of identifying the self with its sins, of being in and yet of being out of this world which our Lord inhabited and yet was not of. But these vital insights will be achieved only if there is among us a Christian mind sharp enough as an instrument of discrimination to cut cleanly through the befuddling mental jungle which constitutes the practical ethic of our secular society (pp. 104-105).

Christ is the source of our Common Good; He is the Principle; the Rule of Thumb; and the Sole Being Worthy of Adoration. A.W. Tozer tells us that to be a follower of God means to be “other-worldly” (Tozer 2006, The Pursuit of God, p. 63). Or as Dietrich Bonhoeffer hammered it out straight for his readers in The Cost of Discipleship (1995), “Faith can no longer mean sitting still and waiting—they must rise and follow him. The call frees them from all earthly ties, and binds them to Jesus Christ alone” (pp. 62-63).

This week will be a week of explanation of what it means to hold to principles over politics; truth over lies; reality over irreality. A foundation that built from faith in Christ and Christ Alone. Sourced from Christian Doctrines and Dogmas in the face of a world that fails to love; fails to do justice; and fails in establishing dignity for all.

Mob Rule, Mob Rules 2020: Part 2

(A Special Report Series)

(Link part 1)

Liberty can no more exist without virtue and independence than the body can live and move without a soul.

– John Adams

Mob Mentality & The Era of Trump

In 2014 researchers Alan Fiske and Tage Rai published their book, Virtuous Violence: Hurting and Killing to Create, Sustain, End, and Honor Social Relationships. Their main argument: Throughout history average people have committed violent acts by means of moral justifications. They call it virtuous violence theory. Fiske and Rai defined violence as an:

[A]ction in which the perpetrator regards inflicting pain, suffering, fear, distress, injury, maiming, disfigurement, or death as the intrinsic, necessary, or desirable means by the intended ends (p. 2).¹ 

Furthermore the authors explain morality under two psychological relationships between the emotional and the evaluative state of mind:

When we posit that most violence is morally motivated, we mean that the person doing the violence subjectively feels that what she is doing is right: she believes that she should do the violence, and she is actually moved by moral emotions such as loyalty or outrage. As the same time, moral refers to the evaluation of action, attitudes, motives, and intentions with reference to an ideal model of how to relate (p. 5).² 

Morality has a powerful influence over the decision-making of an individual. What he or she believes to be true or right holds inwardly and deeply an assurance that “they” are doing what is “right” for themselves, their families, their nation, their science, their truth, their gods. From human sacrifices to world wars societies have made moral justifications for violence throughout all human history. Nevertheless what is moral or immoral remains debatable. Philosophers have long debated the subjectiveness/objectiveness of emotive responses and their ties associated to morality.

Moving from morality to violence mental health professionals identify two forms of violent action, 1) instrumental and 2) reactive:

Instrumental violence refers to violence that is employed as a means to attain a subsidiary goal, and can be contrasted with reactive violence, which involves a response to a perceived threat or provocation.³

Responding to perceived threats considered detrimental to a group or a society was the very foundation of the War on Terror after 9/11; a foundation that continues to define even the most recent movements of Black Lives Matter or groups like the Alt-Right. Both feel a sense of loss and a moral obligation to regain that which has eroded, or been taken away, or obtain that which is necessary for their survival even if that requires violence.

Fundamentally when enough people feel threatened via an act of injustice, a loss of liberty, or a perceived attack against personal dignity, individuals tend to form into groups and construct movements which can lead to altercation and violence. Not all movements are violent, just as not all groups are dangerous, and not only groups commit acts of violence, but regardless of violent or nonviolent intentions, moral or immoral justifications, when like-minded individuals form into groups and movements, polarization is bound to occur for good and for bad.⁴ And “when groups move, they do so in large part because of the impact of information” (p. 22).⁵ The more shared and agreed upon the information, regardless of skew, people are moved into action.

Hence the power of conspiracy theories in the last eight years from Flat Earthers and far-right Birther groups to #SaveTheChildren, Pizzagate, and Wayfair sex trafficking conspiracies. After September 11, 2001 left-wing conspiracies floated around for a decade that 9/11 was a hoax orchestrated by Vice-President Dick Cheney, “a new pearl harbor.” Never-mind the mass volume of books arguing that the Bush Administration’s War In Iraq was part of a neoconservative ploy to take control of resources and claim position in the Middle East for a “New American Empire.” Such predispositions concerning information have lead people to take extremist stances and potentially even violent action. This is the mentality of the herd. 

Herd Mentality

In a repetitional cascade, people think that they know what is right, or what is likely to be right, but they nonetheless go along with the crowd to maintain the good opinion of others (Pp, 95-96).⁶

On July 22, 2020 the CATO Institute published a national survey finding 62% of the American population believe they are being prevented from saying their real opinion due to a tumultuous political environment.⁷ That view was held by every ideological category except “staunch liberals” who by 58% believed that they could voice their opinion freely.⁸ As diverse public opinion grows more silent there is serious concern surrounding the harmful extent such silence will have on institutions to objectively uphold their responsibility to all citizens rather than being swayed by extremist tendencies.  

NeuroImage, a scientific journal focusing on the brain, published an article titled, Reduced self-referential neural response during intergroup competition predicts competitor harm (2014). Researchers for that study asked the question, “Why do interactions become more hostile when social relations shift from “me versus you” to “us versus them?”⁹ Results from that study suggested “intergroup competition (above and beyond inter-personal competition) can reduce self-referential processing of moral information, enabling harmful behaviors towards members of a competitive group.”¹⁰ Essentially as peer-pressure increases, objective moral decision-making decreases. There is a mental tipping point where people give into a set of beliefs regardless of their original moral objections (e.g. burning down buildings or killing someone). Birds of a feather flock together takes a whole new meaning when subscribed to the effects of herd mentality: 

Herding is a form of convergent social behaviour that can be broadly defined as the alignment of the thoughts or behaviours of individuals in a group (herd) through local interaction and without centralized coordination. We suggest that herding has a broad application, from intellectual fashion to mob violence; and that understanding herding is particularly pertinent in an increasingly interconnected world.¹¹

Unless capable of withstanding mob madness, movements, groups and institutions are susceptible to extremist views. Colleges and Universities, hospitals, government agencies, and corporations are all susceptible to varying pressures as much as BLM and the alt-right.

People tend to fall prey to extremism where there are unmarked boundaries, a lack of checks and balances, no transparency, and are closed off from oppositional opinions including “inside” and “outside” the group. Overtime those actions turn toward a mindset of dehumanization, a process now being reclassified by researchers.

Dehumanization & Infrahumanization

Dehumanization is a process whereby people fail to view others as human beings. Instead, the others are perceived as nonhuman animals or objects, unworthy of the same moral treatment.¹²

President Donald J. Trump, an enigma, who has potentially set a new low standard for future leadership in the American political landscape—an all gloves off approach. Radical times have been met with radical responses. Fighting fire with fire. President Trump’s outrageous behavior polarizes even the most moderate into unmarked territories. Famous for over 11,000 tweets¹³, the President of the United States behavior is often belittling, combative, and dehumanizing.¹⁴

Modernity is covered in dehumanizing events including the mass genocides of Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Rwanda, and of most recently Syria. Coalesced with infrahumanization, when an “in-group” believes they are more human than an “out-group”, as occurred during Segregation in the United States and Apartheid in South Africa. American Slavery was both in nature. 

There are several studies important to highlight in relation to mob rule, mob rules. First, a study that included Tage S. Rai, co-author of Virtuous Violence (2014), that challenges past research concerning dehumanization by providing data that suggests instrumental violence is increased by dehumanization but not moral violence.¹⁵ Secondly, Tage Rai’s study aligns with multiple studies affirming that while dehumanization practices, such as propaganda used during Nazi Germany or Rwanda, may provide a means to violence such practices do not necessarily precede the road to violence: 

In sum, whether in Germany during the Holocaust or Rwanda during the genocide, we still lack clear evidence that dehumanizing propaganda convinced ordinary civilians to change their minds about their neighbors and kill them… in any conflict, multiple mechanisms may be at play, motivations can change over time, and the same individual can vary their behaviors from killing to not killing and even saving during a genocide. It is therefore impossible to attribute any one motivation to why people kill, let alone to why the same individual kills over time, during a genocide.¹⁶

But the author warns:

Extreme perspectives can become normalized when dehumanization becomes central to political discourse.¹⁷

Thirdly, tensions tend to magnify as groups confront one another over past or present atrocities. In an experiment where an in-group was made aware of atrocities committed against an out-group researchers found that infrahumanization increased while simultaneously, though unrelated, collective guilt also caused an increase of infrahumanization towards the effected out-group.¹⁸ 

All groups are prone to violence, misinformation, and zealousness. Today’s toxic atmosphere is no different. Leaders, thinkers, and journalist are all culpable.

Twitterpated 

Americans need stable leadership at a time when tensions are peaking over Covid-19, identity politics, economic instability, and external threats from China and Russia. Leveling polarization and herd instincts is a priority the President can potentially help in. There are real fears felt by mass populations across the nation from black to white, middle class and poor, politically left and right. Inappropriate behavior by the President has only intensified rather than rectified polarized groups and movements. Addressing the hurt of American citizens may help pacify blistering wounds but it must be conducted in a fair manner.

The old adage, “Sticks and stones may break my bone but words will never hurt me” works as a theoretical principle by which to justify the protections of hate speech, but it completely fails in the day to day lives of people who are hurt and enraged by the words spoken against them. There is a clear difference between having the right to speech versus knowing when to speak. Prudence can go a long way for this White House. 

As one study called the President, Tweeter-in-Chief: A Content Analysis of President Trump’s Tweeting Habits (2017), Trump has in fact criticized more Republican than Democratic lawmakers.¹⁹ Though likely politically motivated according to another study that found four stylistic variations (conversational, campaigning, engaged, and advisory discourse) in the President’s tweeting patterns.²⁰ Regrettably, President Trump has proven himself incapable of holding his tongue for long.

Not to focus entirely on Donald Trumps twitter habits as much as to demonstrate the mind of a controversial businessman turned President of a nation in the midst of a paradigm shift. Emperors, kings, queens, and lords have all been in similar shifts. While present history unfolds before us, the past speaks to us explaining possible outcomes. What awaits the U.S of A? Trump was elected out of fear and a spinning lack of control felt by middle class citizens whose jobs and way of life are changing for better or for worse in a globalized technocratic, scientific, and secular society.

The news media wrongfully portrays the President either as a bad character or the man of the people, a dictator set on doing evil in the world or an outsider fighting evil. Media bias only bolsters fake-news narratives regardless of political leanings. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and other major news networks are all active participates in disinformation and hate.²¹ 

Donald Trump is not Russia’s (Forever) President Vladimir Putin nor is he North Korea’s Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un, however, the current President fits well within the rule and rules of mob tactics. Portrayed as a hero set on “draining the swamp” it became clear that the Washington outsider brought in his own muck. Now the world watches and waits for what will happen next. 

God Help Us. 

Coming Up: Part 3 — Trumphantism: Donald J. Trump and the Trump Administration

References

¹Fiske, Alan. P., & Rai, Tage. S. Tage. (2014). Virtuous Violence: Hurting and Killing to Create, Sustain, End, and Honor Social Relationships. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press. 

² Ibid., 5.

³ Sears R.R., Maccoby E.E., & Levin H. Patterns of child rearing. Oxford: Row & Peterson; 1957. 

⁴ Sunstein, Cass. (2009). Going to Extreme: How Like Minds Unite and Divide. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.

⁵ Ibid., 22.

⁶ Ibid., 95-96

⁷ Ekins, Emily. (2020, July 22). Poll: 62% of Americans Say They Have Political Views They’re Afraid to Share. Cato Institution. https://www.cato.org/publications/survey-reports/poll-62-americans-say-they-have-political-views-theyre-afraid-share

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ M. Cikara, A.C. Jenkins, N. Dufour, R. Saxe. Reduced self-referential neural response during intergroup competition predicts competitor harm, NeuroImage, Volume 96, 2014, Pages 36-43, ISSN 1053-8119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.03.080. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811914002420)

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ Raafat, Ramsey M. et al. Herding in Humans.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Volume 13, Issue 10, 420 – 428. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.08.002. (https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(09)00170-3?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS1364661309001703%3Fshowall%3Dtrue)

¹² Thyberg, J. (2019). Dehumanization in the brain. (Dissertation). Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet.  http://his.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1355126&dswid=-8480

¹³ Shear, Michael. D., Haberman, Maggie. Confessore, Nicholas., Karen Yourish., Larry Buchanan., & Keith Collins. (2019, 2 November). How Trump Reshaped the Presidency in Over 11,000 Tweets. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/02/us/politics/trump-twitter-presidency.html

¹⁴ Lang, Java. (2019, October 26). The 65 worst Trump tweets of the 2010s. The Week. https://theweek.com/articles/870368/65-worst-trump-tweets-2010s

¹⁵ Rai, T. S., Valdesolo, P., & Graham, J. (2017). Dehumanization increases instrumental violence, but not moral violence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(32), 8511–8516. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1705238114 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5559031/)

¹⁶ Luft, Aliza. (2019, May 21). Dehumanization and the Normalization of Violence: It’s Not What You Think. Social Science Research Council. https://items.ssrc.org/insights/dehumanization-and-the-normalization-of-violence-its-not-what-you-think/ 

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Castano, E., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2006). Not quite human: Infrahumanization in response to collective responsibility for intergroup killing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 804–818. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.804 (https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.90.5.804)

¹⁹ Anderson, Bryan. Tweeter-in-Chief: A Content Analysis of President Trump’s Tweeting Habits, Vol. 8, 2017, No. 2, Pages 36-47. Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications. https://www.elon.edu/u/academics/communications/journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/153/2017/12/04_TwitterInChief_Anderson.pdf

²⁰ Clarke I, Grieve J (2019) Stylistic variation on the Donald Trump Twitter account: A linguistic analysis of tweets posted between 2009 and 2018. PLoS ONE 14(9): e0222062. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222062 (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0222062)

²¹ Hedges, Chris. (2019, Mat 27). The Mass Media Is Poisoning Us With Hate. Truthdig. https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-mass-media-is-poisoning-us-with-hate/