A wonderful summary of the lies we tell ourselves in order to promote the idea of our own righteousness. When being right becomes the centre of our universe all else must be cancelled to preserve our sense of self and, of course, self-righteousness.
The left is always more prone to this than the right but both end up promoting their own form of pragmatic end game which, of course, relies on power. And that should be the red flag for us all. If one can only win the argument by cancelling the other then the game is rigged and the words don't count. Argument + power = no argument at all. No free speech at all. No righteousness at all...
I like Nina Power's thoughtful essay. In the media heat of debate, the quiet voices are often the most important. I am 73 years old today. In my twenties, I was an ardent communist. After about eight years, when I gradually realized that the powerful of this project were unscrupulous liars and amoral worshippers of violence, I set off, away from it - but where to? Most of my comrades who, like me, found themselves in a crisis have somehow remained on the left to this day. They usually ended up with the Greens. Very few had the courage and the ability to suffer to leave the milieu and think for themselves in social isolation. I have great respect for Nina. I finally found new orientation in the school of thought of the classical liberals (Locke, Smith, Kant to Hajek and Popper). Today I realize that liberalism overshoots the mark and becomes destructive. It must be tempered with the help of conservative values. Again, a farewell is necessary. It will probably go on like this all your life if you love the truth more than consent. I have no illusions that when the right achieves cultural hegemony, it will be less authoritarian than the left is today. There is no room in the political struggle for those who love truth and freedom. This is located within thinking and feeling, outside of politics. That's why I feel at home with Ayaan, as I do with Konstantin, the non-binary philosopher.
240723: Compliments to Ayan Hirsi Ali on dealing with such a complicated subject. I am reminded of the profound mistake made by U S Congress when they provided immunity protection for social media platforms in The Communications Decency Act (1996). Section 230 expressly insulates such services from liability; nor are they regulated since they are not “publishers” such as radio stations and newspapers.As author Steven Brill advocates in his 2024 book, we must curtail the protections in Section 230. The European Union has led the way.James Hawley
I really love the ending. Our lineage and heritage are a bright light showing us the way.
"Fortunately, we have tradition and faith to draw upon. This is the collective wisdom of ages, available to all. Rather than attempting to start society from scratch again—a periodic human desire which always ends in catastrophe—we should begin with all that we already have. This includes our bodies and souls, our families, the places where we live, and the values passed down by our grandparents and previous generations. We are them; they are us. What they had to tell us we can recover: our lives are not our own, in the most profound way."
'Fortunately, we have tradition and faith to draw upon. This is the collective wisdom of ages, available to all.' Yes, but our masters of the moment are doing their best to eradicate this. Then what?
I hope you're right about that "palpable thaw." However, when it comes to public expressions concerning the attempt on Trump's life, I'm a little dubious. The forces of the counter-restoration (or whatever you want to call it) seem pretty ruthless to me. Hate to say it but, whatever they may say out loud, I think a lot of folks wouldn't have minded much if the assassin had succeeded.
I'm a non-affiliated citizen (I believe both participants in our duopoly care not a whit about their electorate nor our day-to-day struggles) and agree that the left has gone way overboard in their actions. I certainly don't agree with someone trying to assassinate Trump nor do I agree with those making light of it.
However, once again, the author is making a connection to the shooting with the rhetoric spewed about Trump while knowing nothing about the shooter's mindset or mental capacity. Did he leave any screeds about his hatred for Trump, the GOP, anything political? Would the "dangerous game of comparing someone to Hitler for years on end" include JD Vance, his now VP running mate calling him "America's Hitler" in 2016 (not to mention calling him "reprehensible", an "idiot")? Did that help?
My point, again, is for the second time in a week, Restoration is attempting to make a connection between the vitriol that has been spewed back and forth as to the reason that a young man tried to assassinate the President without any insight into the shooters psyche or motivation. For those old enough to remember, remember the shock of finding out that Hinckley Jr. shot Ronald Reagan to impress Jodie Foster?
I'm not sure I agree, Chris. Crooks has plenty in common with Hinkley, Guiteau (Garfield), and Czolgosz (McKinley). All were somewhat unpopular loners and socially alienated. All were influenced by the events of their time to "take action" or right perceived wrongs.
Oswald, himself a weirdo communist, might be the outlier, but we still don't know the whole story behind the Kennedy assassination.
What's interesting to me with the current event is how the assassin's family has been given a complete pass. No apology. No condolences for Comperatore's family. They immediately lawyered up and have gone into hiding. Why? What did they know that prompted this unnatural response to a potential national tragedy? Why haven't they been subpoenaed?
Don't know a lot about the Garfield and McKinley assassins but I seem to remember the take on Hinckley was that he was suffering from acute psychosis when he tried to assassinate Reagan, motivated by a desire the impress the actor Jodie Foster. It was 1981 and I don't believe there was anywhere near the vitriol in politics that we have now but maybe that's just the passage of time or my bad memory.
I can't imagine how his parents feel at this point but would guess they're in shock and having an extremely hard time processing the events which would seem to be a reason for going into hiding. Maybe they don't feel like they have the right to apologize to anyone at this point or that it would be taken as empty apology? As for the lawyers, my guess is that they anticipate being sued for some reason pertaining to the weapon that was used but a total guess.
That makes sense, and I agree - they're probably worried about their own liability. They seem to be behaving that way.
You're right about Hinckley trying to impress Jodie Foster, and that he also suffered from mental disorders, which is the common denominator among many of these individuals.
My recollection is that the vitriol directed against Reagan was similar to that directed against Trump, particularly around the placing of theatre nuke missiles in Europe. While, as Governor of California, Reagan had a much more robust resume than Trump (pre 2016) or Harris (today), he seemed to rely on his common sense instincts and optimism about America more than on so-called expert advice.
I do remember the vitriol about the nukes being placed in Europe but I remember that coming more from the Europeans that people in the US albeit the "No Nukes" concert was held here in 1979.
I believe many would welcome some common sense (hell, common) candidates for President but then who with common sense would want to be President anymore?
Love the ending.
A wonderful summary of the lies we tell ourselves in order to promote the idea of our own righteousness. When being right becomes the centre of our universe all else must be cancelled to preserve our sense of self and, of course, self-righteousness.
The left is always more prone to this than the right but both end up promoting their own form of pragmatic end game which, of course, relies on power. And that should be the red flag for us all. If one can only win the argument by cancelling the other then the game is rigged and the words don't count. Argument + power = no argument at all. No free speech at all. No righteousness at all...
This is brilliant. Thank you.
Excellent, excellent post, Nina. I look forward to reading more from you.
I like Nina Power's thoughtful essay. In the media heat of debate, the quiet voices are often the most important. I am 73 years old today. In my twenties, I was an ardent communist. After about eight years, when I gradually realized that the powerful of this project were unscrupulous liars and amoral worshippers of violence, I set off, away from it - but where to? Most of my comrades who, like me, found themselves in a crisis have somehow remained on the left to this day. They usually ended up with the Greens. Very few had the courage and the ability to suffer to leave the milieu and think for themselves in social isolation. I have great respect for Nina. I finally found new orientation in the school of thought of the classical liberals (Locke, Smith, Kant to Hajek and Popper). Today I realize that liberalism overshoots the mark and becomes destructive. It must be tempered with the help of conservative values. Again, a farewell is necessary. It will probably go on like this all your life if you love the truth more than consent. I have no illusions that when the right achieves cultural hegemony, it will be less authoritarian than the left is today. There is no room in the political struggle for those who love truth and freedom. This is located within thinking and feeling, outside of politics. That's why I feel at home with Ayaan, as I do with Konstantin, the non-binary philosopher.
240723: Compliments to Ayan Hirsi Ali on dealing with such a complicated subject. I am reminded of the profound mistake made by U S Congress when they provided immunity protection for social media platforms in The Communications Decency Act (1996). Section 230 expressly insulates such services from liability; nor are they regulated since they are not “publishers” such as radio stations and newspapers.As author Steven Brill advocates in his 2024 book, we must curtail the protections in Section 230. The European Union has led the way.James Hawley
I really love the ending. Our lineage and heritage are a bright light showing us the way.
"Fortunately, we have tradition and faith to draw upon. This is the collective wisdom of ages, available to all. Rather than attempting to start society from scratch again—a periodic human desire which always ends in catastrophe—we should begin with all that we already have. This includes our bodies and souls, our families, the places where we live, and the values passed down by our grandparents and previous generations. We are them; they are us. What they had to tell us we can recover: our lives are not our own, in the most profound way."
'Fortunately, we have tradition and faith to draw upon. This is the collective wisdom of ages, available to all.' Yes, but our masters of the moment are doing their best to eradicate this. Then what?
The churches are still standing, just about.
I hope you're right about that "palpable thaw." However, when it comes to public expressions concerning the attempt on Trump's life, I'm a little dubious. The forces of the counter-restoration (or whatever you want to call it) seem pretty ruthless to me. Hate to say it but, whatever they may say out loud, I think a lot of folks wouldn't have minded much if the assassin had succeeded.
I'm a non-affiliated citizen (I believe both participants in our duopoly care not a whit about their electorate nor our day-to-day struggles) and agree that the left has gone way overboard in their actions. I certainly don't agree with someone trying to assassinate Trump nor do I agree with those making light of it.
However, once again, the author is making a connection to the shooting with the rhetoric spewed about Trump while knowing nothing about the shooter's mindset or mental capacity. Did he leave any screeds about his hatred for Trump, the GOP, anything political? Would the "dangerous game of comparing someone to Hitler for years on end" include JD Vance, his now VP running mate calling him "America's Hitler" in 2016 (not to mention calling him "reprehensible", an "idiot")? Did that help?
My point, again, is for the second time in a week, Restoration is attempting to make a connection between the vitriol that has been spewed back and forth as to the reason that a young man tried to assassinate the President without any insight into the shooters psyche or motivation. For those old enough to remember, remember the shock of finding out that Hinckley Jr. shot Ronald Reagan to impress Jodie Foster?
I'm not sure I agree, Chris. Crooks has plenty in common with Hinkley, Guiteau (Garfield), and Czolgosz (McKinley). All were somewhat unpopular loners and socially alienated. All were influenced by the events of their time to "take action" or right perceived wrongs.
Oswald, himself a weirdo communist, might be the outlier, but we still don't know the whole story behind the Kennedy assassination.
What's interesting to me with the current event is how the assassin's family has been given a complete pass. No apology. No condolences for Comperatore's family. They immediately lawyered up and have gone into hiding. Why? What did they know that prompted this unnatural response to a potential national tragedy? Why haven't they been subpoenaed?
Thanks, appreciate the comments.
Don't know a lot about the Garfield and McKinley assassins but I seem to remember the take on Hinckley was that he was suffering from acute psychosis when he tried to assassinate Reagan, motivated by a desire the impress the actor Jodie Foster. It was 1981 and I don't believe there was anywhere near the vitriol in politics that we have now but maybe that's just the passage of time or my bad memory.
I can't imagine how his parents feel at this point but would guess they're in shock and having an extremely hard time processing the events which would seem to be a reason for going into hiding. Maybe they don't feel like they have the right to apologize to anyone at this point or that it would be taken as empty apology? As for the lawyers, my guess is that they anticipate being sued for some reason pertaining to the weapon that was used but a total guess.
That makes sense, and I agree - they're probably worried about their own liability. They seem to be behaving that way.
You're right about Hinckley trying to impress Jodie Foster, and that he also suffered from mental disorders, which is the common denominator among many of these individuals.
My recollection is that the vitriol directed against Reagan was similar to that directed against Trump, particularly around the placing of theatre nuke missiles in Europe. While, as Governor of California, Reagan had a much more robust resume than Trump (pre 2016) or Harris (today), he seemed to rely on his common sense instincts and optimism about America more than on so-called expert advice.
I do remember the vitriol about the nukes being placed in Europe but I remember that coming more from the Europeans that people in the US albeit the "No Nukes" concert was held here in 1979.
I believe many would welcome some common sense (hell, common) candidates for President but then who with common sense would want to be President anymore?