Stephen Roney's Blog, page 46
March 30, 2024
The State of Young White Males
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1773879171728691395?s=20
Posted by Elon Musk on Twitter with the simple comment "yup!"
Christ Is King
Jesus Pantocrator Chora, Istanbul
Daily Wire seems to be losing the PR war over their parting of ways with Candace Owens. But I believe their position is being misrepresented. People are upset because they supposedly called the statement “Christ is King” antisemitic. Christians are naturally offended by this.
But Jeremy Boreing did not say this. This is a straw man. He said that the statement ”Christ is king” was “weaponized” to be antisemitic, not that it was antisemitic in itself. I agree with him that it is at best obnoxious, and weaponizing the statement, to say it to a Jew in the course of an unrelated argument. As a Christian, I think he has a good case that it is an example of taking the Lord’s name in vain.
Others are saying this shows Daily Wire will not tolerate any criticism of Israel. This is the fallacy of overgeneralization, or drawing a conclusion from insufficient evidence. One cannot know this from a specific instance, One needs to consider and address Candace Owens’ actual statements and actual criticisms of Israel.
What were they? First, she sent out a tweet on November 3 saying “No government ever has the right to commit a genocide, ever. There is no justification for a genocide.”
Given the date, she was apparently accusing the Israeli government of genocide almost at the beginning of their response to the Hamas terrorist attack. Their ground invasion had begun only on October 27, seven days earlier. While the case that Israelis are using excessive force may have grown since, this was an almost immediate reaction to the Israelis’ invasion of Gaza. Notably, the Hamas raid that killed 1,200 Israelis and seized hostages was not officially a “government” attack, but done by “Hamas militants” (Wikipedia). So Owens was condemning the Israelis, not Hamas. The implication was that Israel had no right to retaliate, or indeed to defend its citizens.
I can understand any supporter of Israel considering such a position immoral and beyond what they could stomach being associated with.
Owens soon thereafter objected to Israeli apartheid on the basis that there was a recognized “Muslim quarter” in Old Jerusalem. “These are the Muslim quarters, this is where the Muslims are allowed to live.” This is no more true than that the Italians in New York are forced to live in Little Italy; yet I believe she has never retracted the comment. I suspect this is what Ben Shapiro was referring to when he spoke of her “faux sophistication.”
It very much looks to me as though Candace Owens is an antisemite. She is prejudiced against Israel, and by extension probably against Jews. Challenged by Ben Shapiro for her views on Israel, she responded “one cannot serve both God and money.” This seems to me to be a veiled endorsement of the racist stereotype that Jews are only interested in money, and unscrupulously so.
And, given the disingenuity of the case made by her supporters, I believe they too are primarily motivated by antisemitism as well; and by envy of The Daily Wire’s success. Envy also being the inevitable root of all antisemitism. They want an excuse to go after Jews and the Daily Wire, and Owens has thrown them some red meat.
It is disgraceful. I spontaneously use the same words Ben Shapiro used.
'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.
March 29, 2024
The Atheist and the Problem of Evil
I had an interesting conversation today with a thoughtful student in China. His view is not necessarily commonly shared in China; but it is interesting to see how an atheist, without Christian influences, thinks about morality.
His initial premise is that human nature is evil. We are animals. As animals, we are only programmed for survival. The example he uses is this: there is one bottle of water. Two people want it. If necessary, in nature, one will kill the other to take the water. This is evil.
The process of education is the process of making us “good.” Or rather, we do not really become good; our hearts, or desires, are still animal. But we are taught to behave differently in order be able to cooperate with other people, to fit into society. For one thing, this is necessary in order to find a mate and reproduce. It is also necessary so that society as a whole can function, without descending into chaos. The herd them protects each member.
It all makes good sense to me.
Except for this: now by what standard do we judge any action either “good” or “evil”? Why, to begin with, is individual survival good?
Would we agree that it is perfectly moral to steal the bottle of water, so long as nobody sees you? Would we agree that, if one person or group can indeed benefit themselves by destroying another, this is a perfectly righteous thing to do?
It all seems to require an absolute standard of good and evil; and where does that come from?
How can atheists even raise the problem of evil, without any standard for determining what is evil?
'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.
March 28, 2024
Shanahan In
I knew nothing about her until her name came up as a possibleRFK VP pick, but I think Nicole Shanahan was a good choice for that ticket. Thatshe has no political experience, in the current climate, is a plus. RFK isrunning to change things. She can at least pose as a “tech entrepreneur,” andthat’s a background demonstrated to be marketable by such figures as AndrewYang and Vivek Ramaswamy. Tech entrepreneurs are modern culture heroes. Heryouth contrasts well with old Joe Biden and old Donald Trump. She is aglamorous figure, which plays into the Kennedy brand: “return to Camelot.”
The immediate criticism from the right is that she is tooleft-wing. I don’t think most voters think in those terms. They simply eitherwant change or the status quo. She introduces an issue which is neitherobviously left nor right, but could appeal across the spectrum: chronic diseaseand what is causing it. This dovetails with Kennedy’s concern over vaccines andthe environment to make what looks like a coherent ticket and platform. Which speaksof sincerity, an important part of RFK Jr.’s appeal. And it serves to shift thepolitical discourse, which is the whole point of a third-party effort.
Something else occurs to me: she looks like a replacement forTulsi Gabbard. She ticks a number of the same boxes. As if Kennedy had his mindset on Gabbard, had his strategies worked out assuming she was his running mate,and then could not get her; so he went for a reasonable facsimile. There were indeedearly rumours that Gabbard would be his pick; at one point he went to Honolulu,in her home state, to make some rumoured announcement that did not happen. Ithought Kennedy-Gabbard would be a dream ticket.
Perhaps a planned announcement was called off becauseGabbard got a better offer. Perhaps Trump, seeing this about to happen, pickedup the phone and told Gabbard to hold off, and she would be his own VP pick. Thereare recent rumours that Ramaswamy is out of contention, and Gabbard hasrecently publicly said she would be honoured. This is not something apolitician usually says if they do not expect to be selected—it makes them lookneedy and embarrasses them when they are not chose.
Gabbard makes excellent sense for Trump as well. If Trumpdoes not pick a woman, when both Biden and Kennedy have, that could hurt hisimage with women, a huge voting block. Especially in the face of prior claimsby his Democrat opponents that Trump is anti-woman. As a Samoan and a Hindu,she also blunts charges of racism or “Christian nationalism” against Trump. Butas a woman of faith, she is probably also viewed favourably by his Christiansupporters. As an independent and former Democrat, she could broaden appeal toindependent voters and disaffected Democrats. She is, like Trump, ananti-establishment figure; this would send a reassuring message to hissupporters that he is not going to be controlled by the existing party bosses. BecauseTrump’s appeal is always that he will stand up to the “uniparty” and thebeltway mafia.
'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.
March 27, 2024
Owens Out
There is now a feud going on between Candace Owens and the Daily Wire. They recently “parted ways.” And the matter has split the entire right wing.
My own take is that Daily Wire is consistently right in this dispute, and Owens is consistently wrong—that is, on her veiled antisemitism and her criticism of Israel in Gaza. Moreover, in the current context of rising antisemitism everywhere, Owens’s comments are dangerous.
I think what is really going on is that Candace Owens loves a fight, and fighting has always been, after all, good for her ratings. It is her established MO. She has waded unprovoked into big public spats with Steven Crowder, Cardi B, Megyn Kelly.
She has been trying to provoke Boring and Shapiro. Tweeting “Christ is King” to a Jew in the middle of an unrelated argument may not be antisemitic, but it is deliberately provocative.
We want people like Owens around. Every now and then, we need a cat belled, or someone to notice the Emperor is naked.
On the other hand, while courage is the essential virtue, it does not ensure the presence of other virtues. Courage was Hitler’s one great virtue. Because he had this virtue, he was not the worst of men; but because he had this virtue, he did the worst of harm.
Were I the Daily Wire, I believe I too would have “parted ways” with Candace Owens. Not that I want to silence her; and the Daily Wire is certainly not silencing her by doing so. They are probably giving her free publicity. But I would not want to be associated with her; for I cannot see her principles.
'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.
March 26, 2024
Signs of the Times
Catholicism Is Growing in Korea
Canada Seen from Abroad
Peace at Any Price
The current fate of the left reminds me of the fable of the Boy Who Cried “Wolf.” They have gotten themselves into this situation, of nobody any longer taking them seriously, either because they were never taught this wisdom growing up, out of hubris, or out of desperation. They have repeatedly stirred up imaginary crises and called everyone to the barricades: the “climate crisis”; the Covid lockdowns and the urgency of vaccination; describing January 6 as an insurrection; pulling the cord on the Emergency Act over the truckers’ protest; declaring a sudden assault on and urgent need to protect aboriginal rights, gay rights, trans rights; warning of a white supremacist or a Nazi under every bed; and so on and on seemingly ad infinitem. The latest being the charge that Trump, if not elected, will somehow launch a “bloodbath.”
It worked so well for them, they kept doing it. Now I feel the general public is fed up. The general public wants peace and quiet. When appeasing the left’s concerns looked like the easiest path, they appeased. But they are never appeased; appeasement has not worked. There is always a new, and more extreme, demand.
Right about now, the general public is deciding that the only way to restore social peace is to turn decisively away from the left and refuse any more demands.
They should have stopped at the Sudetenland.
'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.
March 25, 2024
Now We're All Far Right
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1771934645380100570?s=20
