#just dont undermine the religious elements | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

Where Are Republicans On The Political Spectrum

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/where-are-republicans-on-the-political-spectrum/

Where Are Republicans On The Political Spectrum

Republicans Have More Friends Across The Political Divide Than Democrats Study Finds

When David Huzzards friend posted some QAnon conspiracy theories on Facebook in the fall, Huzzard first assumed the best of intentions. He recalls thinking: Maybe they just got tricked.

Huzzard, a 40-year-old pet store owner in Virginia Beach, is well-versed in the art of maintaining friendships with people who dont vote like he does. Huzzard is a Democrat in a city that narrowly went for President Biden in the 2020 election.

Then his friends rhetoric got stronger. Shortly before the election, Huzzards friend posted on Facebook again, this time sharing falsehoods about how mail-in ballots were subject to fraud. Huzzard and his wife were taking extra caution to avoid covid-19 as they were expecting a baby in November and planned to vote absentee. Huzzarddidnt address the issue with his friend directly, instead publishing his own Facebook post saying: If youre against mail-in voting, youre against my voting rights and youre no longer my friend.

Still, Huzzard and his friend remained cordial whenever they saw one another in person. He considered inviting this friend and her husband over for dinner. But as the other couple continued sharing online disinformation about the efficacy of masks and the vaccines, Huzzard and his wife decided that for the safety of their family and their unvaccinated children, they would no longer socialize with them.

Emily Guskin contributed to this report.

Partisan Ideological Leanings Unchanged

Although Americans as a whole are a mix of ideological viewpoints, the two major political parties have become increasingly polarized over the years in their tenor.

The 51% of Democrats identifying as liberal matches the prior high from 2018, but it has been near this high-water mark for the past five years. The next-largest group of Democrats are ideological moderates, at 35%, followed by conservatives, at 12%.

While the conservative share of the Democratic Party is not insignificant, it has shrunk by more than half over the past quarter-century, falling 13 points since 1994. Moderates have seen similar shrinkage, down 13 points, while the percentage liberal has about doubled.

Line graph. Annual trend from 1994 to 2020 in Democrats’ ideology, with 51% in 2020 identifying as liberal, 35% as moderate and 12% as conservative. This marks a sharp change since 1994, when 48% were moderate, 25% liberal and 25% conservative.

Ideological uniformity is much higher among Republicans, 75% of whom now consider themselves conservative, up slightly from 73% in 2019 and the highest proportion yet in Gallup’s trend since 1994.

Meanwhile, one in five Republicans describe their views as moderate, down from 33% in 1994, while just 4% say they are liberal, similar to most years.

Line graph. Annual trend from 1994 to 2020 in independents’ ideological views, with 48% in 2020 identifying as moderate, 29% as conservative and 20% as liberal. This is consistent with the broad pattern since 1994.

How We Got Here

California is now all but synonymous with the Democratic Party, but for decades it leaned to the right. Republicans won the state in all but one presidential election between 1952 and 1988, and California had both Democratic and Republican governors during that period.

Republican recall hopefuls seek to differentiate themselves in San Francisco debate

Former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, Rancho Santa Fe businessman John Cox and Assemblyman Kevin Kiley of Rocklin traded views on issues such as homelessness, the minimum wage and Gavin Newsoms zero car emissions executive order.

The state was once known for producing moderate Republicans who tended to hold more liberal or at least libertarian positions on social issues than the national party. But as the state grew more blue overall, its shrinking GOP contingent became decidedly more conservative.

Consider Californias last two Republican governors, Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The whole way both men conducted their administrations, it was generally pro-choice, fiscally conservative, pro-environment, said Joe Rodota, an author and political consultant who worked for both Wilson and Schwarzenegger.

Experts say Wilson and Schwarzenegger embodied a more moderate California Republican ethos than the positions taken by most of the 2021 Republican gubernatorial field.

Party concentration has also moved inland, with Republican votes in Los Angeles and the Bay Area starkly declining.

What Is The Difference Between Republicans And Democrats

Republicans and Democrats are the two main and historically the largest political parties in the US and, after every election, hold the majority seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate as well as the highest number of Governors. Though both the parties mean well for the US citizens, they have distinct differences that manifest in their comments, decisions, and history. These differences are mainly ideological, political, social, and economic paths to making the US successful and the world a better place for all. Differences between the two parties that are covered in this article rely on the majority position though individual politicians may have varied preferences.

Climate Change And Pollution

Pollution in the United StatesClimate changeClimate change denial

Trump rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, repeatedly contending that global warming is a “hoax.” He has said that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” a statement which Trump later said was a joke. However, it was also pointed out that he often conflates weather with climate change.

Although “not a believer in climate change,” Trump has stated that “clean air is a pressing problem” and has said: “There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of climate change. Perhaps the best use of our limited financial resources should be in dealing with making sure that every person in the world has clean water.”

In May 2016, during his presidential campaign, Trump issued an energy plan focused on promoting fossil fuels and weakening environmental regulation. Trump promised to “rescind” in his first 100 days in office a variety of Environmental Protection Agency regulations established during the Obama administration to limit carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants, which contribute to a warming global climate. Trump has specifically pledged to revoke the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the United States rule, which he characterizes as two “job-destroying Obama executive actions.”

Trump wrote in his 2011 book that he opposed a system to control carbon emissions.

Parties Favouring Populist Rhetoric Are More Likely To Be Nationalistic

What do we know of populism? Populist movements are typically nationalistic, critical towards immigration and cynical about liberal democratic principles.

The above chart illustrates a pretty clear trend: the more multilateralist you are, the less populist you will be. There are, however, some quite clear outliers. Both Syriza and New Zealands National Party are classed as multilateralist populists. And then,of course, there are Denmarks Social Democrats. Sensitive to the collapsing support for the hard-right Danish Peoples Party, the Social Democrats tacked right on migrants issues in their 2019 election campaign as they sought to tempt voters to their side. Party leader Mette Frederiksen told one televised debate: You are not a bad person just because you are worried about immigration. The party topped the poll – albeit with a reduced vote share – and Frederiksen became prime minister.

Since this is the first year the survey has been carried out, we cannot measure change. We cannot say, for example, to what extent Trump has changed the way the Republicans are positioned. We can only say that – right now – the world sees his party as highly populist, poor on ethnic minority rights, and prone to undermining basic democratic principles. That might be a concern for us, but its probably not for him: insular populists tend not to care what the rest of the world thinks.

Confidence In Scientists And Other Groups To Act In The Public Interest

Though the survey finds that climate scientists are viewed with skepticism by relatively large shares of Americans, scientists overall and in particular, medical scientists are viewed as relatively trustworthy by the general public. Asked about a wide range of leaders and institutions, the military, medical scientists, and scientists in general received the most votes of confidence when it comes to acting in the best interests of the public.

On the flip side, majorities of the public have little confidence in the news media, business leaders and elected officials. Public confidence in K-12 school leaders and religious leaders to act in the publics best interest falls in the middle.

Fully 79% of Americans express a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in the military to act in the best interests of the public. The relatively high regard for the military compared with other institutions is consistent with a 2013 Pew Research Center survey, which found 78% of the public saying the military contributes a lot to societys well-being.

Confidence in the news media, business leaders and elected officials is considerably lower; public views about school and religious leaders fall in the middle.

More Negative Views Of The Opposing Party

Beyond the rise in ideological consistency, another major element in polarization has been the growing contempt that many Republicans and Democrats have for the opposing party. To be sure, disliking the other party is nothing new in politics. But today, these sentiments are broader and deeper than in the recent past.

In 1994, hardly a time of amicable partisan relations, a majority of Republicans had unfavorable impressions of the Democratic Party, but just 17% had very unfavorable opinions. Similarly, while most Democrats viewed the GOP unfavorably, just 16% had very unfavorable views. Since then, highly negative views have more than doubled: 43% of Republicans and 38% of Democrats now view the opposite party in strongly negative terms.

Among all Democrats, 27% say GOP policies are a threat to the well-being of the country; among all Republicans, more than a third think Democratic policies threaten the nation.

Even these numbers tell only part of the story. Those who have a very unfavorable impression of each party were asked: Would you say the partys policies are so misguided that they threaten the nations well-being, or wouldnt you go that far? Most who were asked the question said yes, they would go that far. Among all Democrats, 27% say the GOP is a threat to the well-being of the country. That figure is even higher among Republicans, 36% of whom think Democratic policies threaten the nation.

Foreign Policy And National Defense

Republicans supported Woodrow Wilson‘s call for American entry into World War I in 1917, complaining only that he was too slow to go to war. Republicans in 1919 opposed his call for entry into the League of Nations. A majority supported the League with reservations; a minority opposed membership on any terms. Republicans sponsored world disarmament in the 1920s, and isolationism in the 1930s. Most Republicans staunchly opposed intervention in World War II until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. By 1945, however, internationalists became dominant in the party which supported the Cold War policies such as the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and NATO.

Issues For Which Location Plays Some Role

Though taxes and concern about the budget show relatively little geographic variation, one topic that touches on similar issues of government size and scopeopinions of Obamacareshows more . Support is strongestbetween 60 and 70 percentin the Bay Area and central and coastal LA, and weakestless than 40 percentin the rural far north and east of the state. Yet most of our places remain lukewarm toward the law, with support between about 40 and 60 percent. This includes most of the Central Valley and most of the coast outside of central and coastal LA and the Bay Area.

Where Do Trump And Biden Stand On Key Issues

Reuters: Brian Snyder/AP: Julio Cortez

The key issues grappling the country can be broken down into five main categories: coronavirus, health care, foreign policy, immigration and criminal justice.

This year, a big focus of the election has been the coronavirus pandemic, which could be a deciding factor in how people vote, as the country’s contentious healthcare system struggles to cope.

The average healthcare costs for COVID-19 treatment is up to $US30,000 , an Americas Health Insurance Plans 2020 study has found.

Inglehart: Traditionalistsecular And Self Expressionistsurvivalist

World Values Survey

In its 4 January 2003 issue, The Economist discussed a chart, proposed by Ronald Inglehart and supported by the World Values Survey , to plot cultural ideology onto two dimensions. On the y-axis it covered issues of tradition and religion, like , , and the importance of the law and authority figures. At the bottom of the chart is the traditionalist position on issues like these , while at the top is the secular position. The x-axis deals with self-expression, issues like everyday conduct and dress, acceptance of and , and attitudes towards people with specific controversial lifestyles such as , as well as willingness to engage in political . At the right of the chart is the open position, while at the left is its opposite position, which Inglehart calls survivalist. This chart not only has the power to map the values of individuals, but also to compare the values of people in different countries. Placed on this chart, European Union countries in continental Europe come out on the top right, Anglophone countries on the middle right, Latin American countries on the bottom right, African, Middle Eastern and South Asian countries on the bottom left and ex-Communist countries on the top left.

The Republican Party General Policy And Political Values

The Republican Party is often referred to as the GOP. This abbreviation stands for Grand Old Party. Its logo is an elephant. The Republican Party is known to support right-leaning ideologies of conservatism, social conservatism, and economic libertarianism, among other -isms. Thus, Republicans broadly advocate for traditional values, a low degree of government interference, and large support of the private sector.

One main standpoint of the Republican Party platform is a strong focus on the family and individual freedom. Generally, the Republican Party therefore often tends to promote states and local rights. That means that they often wish for federal regulations to play a lesser role in policymaking. Furthermore, the GOP has a pro-business-oriented platform. Thus, the party advocates for businesses to exist in a free market instead of being impacted by tight government regulations.

Actions While In Office

American Health Care Act2017 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act replacement proposals

President Trump advocated repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act . The Republican-controlled House passed the American Health Care Act in May 2017, handing it to the Senate, which decided to write its own version of the bill rather than voting on the AHCA. The Senate bill, called the “Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017” , failed on a vote of 4555 in the Senate during July 2017. Other variations also failed to gather the required support, facing unanimous Democratic Party opposition and some Republican opposition. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bills would increase the number of uninsured by over 20 million persons, while reducing the budget deficit marginally.

Actions to hinder implementation of ACA

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

President Trump continued Republican attacks on the ACA while in office, including steps such as:

Ending cost-sharing reduction payments

Cost sharing reductions subsidy

President Trump’s argument that the CSR payments were a “bailout” for insurance companies and therefore should be stopped, actually results in the government paying more to insurance companies due to increases in the premium tax credit subsidies. Journalist Sarah Kliff therefore described Trump’s argument as “completely incoherent.”

Religion And Marital Status

Ideological groups are distinguished by certain societal attributes, such as , marital status, and gun ownership, yet are relatively similar in terms of race and ethnicity. Generally, liberals were more likely to be secular, single and in possession of a college degree while less likely to own a gun. Conservatives, most of whom adhere to as well as fiscal conservatism, tended to be more religious and more likely to be married, employed and own firearms.

The majority of Social Conservatives and Pro-Government Conservatives attended church services once a week. Weekly churchgoers were also in the plurality among the general population and all ideological demographics, except liberals. Of liberals, a plurality, 43% attended church services “seldom or never”, compared to 25% of respondents overall. Conservatives were also more likely to be married than Liberals or the Democratic voter base in general. Finally, 77% of Enterprisers were married, compared to 44% of Liberals.

Disadvantaged and Conservative Democrats had the highest union membership rates at 23% and 18% as well as the highest percentage of minorities . In terms of gun ownership, the majority of Enterprisers and Social Conservatives had a gun at home, compared to just 23% of Liberals. Liberals were the most educated group with 49% being college graduates compared to an average of 26.5% among all the conservative groups . Disadvantaged Democrats were the least educated, with only 13% having a college degree.

Nolan: Economic Freedom Personal Freedom

Nolan Chart

The Nolan Chart was created by libertarian David Nolan. This chart shows what he considers as “economic freedom” on the horizontal axis and what he considers as “personal freedom” on the vertical axis. This puts in the left quadrant, in the top, in the middle, in the right and what Nolan originally named in the bottom. Several popular online tests, where individuals can self-identify their political values, utilize the same two axes as the Nolan Chart, including The Political Compass and iSideWith.com.

The Us Presidential Election 2020: Last Lap Reflections

27 October 2020

For the vast majorority of voters, this extraordinary election is more like a referendum on the incumbent. Youre either for Trump or against him.

Being against Trump is a whole lot easier than being for Biden. Joes lacklustre persona was painfully evident during the last debate, when he scrambled an alarming number of his words, and recited the Covid-19 death toll as if he were memorising a shopping list.

The truth is that he has difficulty thinking on his feet. When the President ludicrously equated himself with Lincoln in anti-racist achievement, Biden didnt think of reminding him of LBJs Great Society. When Trump chanted his mantra against socialised medicine, Biden might have mentioned that when Roosevelt introduced social security, Republicans hurled the same S word. You could be forgiven for wondering whether, in the top offices of Democratic Party HQ, theres actually a real appetite for winning this election.

Americans tend to like their Presidents to be assertive, positive and with an energetic presence. Alas, they also almost always elect the taller candidate. Trump, in all his awfulness, ticks those boxes.

Even Obamas vigorous campaigning for Biden may backfire. It seems to underline the comparative inadequacy of the carry-over from the previous administration.

Two questions should be foremost in the voters minds, regardless of whether they opt for orange or beige.

Figure 11 Views On Gun Control Display A Strong Urban

NOTES: Question wording is In general, do you think laws covering the sale of guns should be more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now? Shading represents the share of Californians who say laws should be more strict. Estimates come from a multilevel regression and poststratification model as described in Technical Appendix A. Full model results can be found in Technical Appendix B.

Wildlife Conservation And Animal Welfare

In October 2016, the Humane Society denounced Trump’s campaign, saying that a “Trump presidency would be a threat to animals everywhere” and that he has “a team of advisors and financial supporters tied in with trophy hunting, puppy mills, factory farming, horse slaughter, and other abusive industries.”

In February 2017, under the Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture unexpectedly removed from its public website “all enforcement records related to horse soring and to animal welfare at dog breeding operations and other facilities.” The decision prompted criticism from animal welfare advocates , investigative journalists, and some of the regulated industries .

Democratic Candidate Joe Biden

Reuters: Carlos Barria

The Democrats are the liberal political party and their candidate is Joe Biden, who has run for president twice before.

A former senator for Delaware who served six terms, Biden is best known as Barack Obama’s vice-president.

He held that role for eight years, and it has helped make him a major contender for many Democrat supporters.

Earlier this year, Biden chose California Senator Kamala Harris as his vice-presidential running mate.

The 77-year-old has built his campaign on the Obama legacy, and tackling the country’s staggering health care issues.

He is known for his down-to-earth personality and his ability to connect with working-class voters. He would be the oldest first-term president in history if elected.

According to 2017 Pew Research Centre data, a vast majority of the African American population supports the Democratic party, with 88 per cent voting for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential elections.

Why Are Democrats Left And Republicans Right The Surprising History Of Political Affiliations

The terms right and left refer to political affiliations that originated late in the eighteenth century in relation to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France. During the French Revolution of 1789, the members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king and supporters of the revolution.

The aristocracy sat on the right side of the Speaker, which was traditionally the seat of honor, and the commoners sat on the left. This gave birth to the terms right-wing and left-wing politics. The Left had been called the party of movement and the Right the party of order.

During the French Revolution, the National Assembly was divided into supporters of the king and supporters of the revolution. Lamartine in front of the Town Hall of Paris rejects the red flag on 25 February 1848

However, it was during the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871 that the political parties formally adopted the terms left and right to define their political beliefs.

The Representatives of Foreign Powers Coming to Greet the Republic as a Sign of Peace

According to the simplest Left and Right distinction, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite fascism and conservatism on the right.

In British politics the terms right and left came into common use for the first time in the late 1930s in debates over the Spanish Civil War.

Homosexuals Do Not Deserve Equal Rights

This comes from their religious beliefs, which form the basis for a lot of policy. Republicans believe that homosexuality is a choice and, as such, gay people should not be acknowledged in the same way as other groups. Therefore, according to a Republican, homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, nor should they be allowed to adopt children.

Popular Political Views In The Us

One thing that you will notice right away is that most popular political parties and political philosophies in the U.S. are located at the top half the of the diagram. The makes sense because in the U.S. most Americans value freedom .

While there may be some outliers on the more authoritarian fringe, they have never received popular support in the U.S., although sometimes these groups will try to stir up support or try to trick the local population into voting for them by hiding their true motives.

Greenberg And Jonas: Leftright Ideological Rigidity

In a 2003 Psychological Bulletin paper,Jeff Greenberg and Eva Jonas posit a model comprising the standard leftright axis and an axis representing ideological rigidity. For Greenberg and Jonas, ideological rigidity has “much in common with the related concepts of dogmatism and authoritarianism” and is characterized by “believing in strong leaders and submission, preferring ones own in-group, ethnocentrism and nationalism, aggression against dissidents, and control with the help of police and military”. Greenberg and Jonas posit that high ideological rigidity can be motivated by “particularly strong needs to reduce fear and uncertainty” and is a primary shared characteristic of “people who subscribe to any extreme government or ideology, whether it is right-wing or left-wing”.

0 notes

statetalks · 3 years ago

Text

Where Are Republicans On The Political Spectrum

Republicans Have More Friends Across The Political Divide Than Democrats Study Finds

youtube

When David Huzzards friend posted some QAnon conspiracy theories on Facebook in the fall, Huzzard first assumed the best of intentions. He recalls thinking: Maybe they just got tricked.

Emily Guskin contributed to this report.

Partisan Ideological Leanings Unchanged

Although Americans as a whole are a mix of ideological viewpoints, the two major political parties have become increasingly polarized over the years in their tenor.

Ideological uniformity is much higher among Republicans, 75% of whom now consider themselves conservative, up slightly from 73% in 2019 and the highest proportion yet in Gallup’s trend since 1994.

Meanwhile, one in five Republicans describe their views as moderate, down from 33% in 1994, while just 4% say they are liberal, similar to most years.

How We Got Here

Republican recall hopefuls seek to differentiate themselves in San Francisco debate

Consider Californias last two Republican governors, Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Experts say Wilson and Schwarzenegger embodied a more moderate California Republican ethos than the positions taken by most of the 2021 Republican gubernatorial field.

Party concentration has also moved inland, with Republican votes in Los Angeles and the Bay Area starkly declining.

What Is The Difference Between Republicans And Democrats

Climate Change And Pollution

Pollution in the United StatesClimate changeClimate change denial

Trump wrote in his 2011 book that he opposed a system to control carbon emissions.

Parties Favouring Populist Rhetoric Are More Likely To Be Nationalistic

What do we know of populism? Populist movements are typically nationalistic, critical towards immigration and cynical about liberal democratic principles.

Confidence In Scientists And Other Groups To Act In The Public Interest

Confidence in the news media, business leaders and elected officials is considerably lower; public views about school and religious leaders fall in the middle.

More Negative Views Of The Opposing Party

Among all Democrats, 27% say GOP policies are a threat to the well-being of the country; among all Republicans, more than a third think Democratic policies threaten the nation.

Foreign Policy And National Defense

youtube

Issues For Which Location Plays Some Role

Where Do Trump And Biden Stand On Key Issues

Reuters: Brian Snyder/AP: Julio Cortez

The key issues grappling the country can be broken down into five main categories: coronavirus, health care, foreign policy, immigration and criminal justice.

This year, a big focus of the election has been the coronavirus pandemic, which could be a deciding factor in how people vote, as the country’s contentious healthcare system struggles to cope.

The average healthcare costs for COVID-19 treatment is up to $US30,000 , an Americas Health Insurance Plans 2020 study has found.

Inglehart: Traditionalistsecular And Self Expressionistsurvivalist

World Values Survey

The Republican Party General Policy And Political Values

Actions While In Office

American Health Care Act2017 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act replacement proposals

Actions to hinder implementation of ACA

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

President Trump continued Republican attacks on the ACA while in office, including steps such as:

Ending cost-sharing reduction payments

Cost sharing reductions subsidy

Religion And Marital Status

Nolan: Economic Freedom Personal Freedom

Nolan Chart

The Us Presidential Election 2020: Last Lap Reflections

youtube

27 October 2020

For the vast majorority of voters, this extraordinary election is more like a referendum on the incumbent. Youre either for Trump or against him.

Even Obamas vigorous campaigning for Biden may backfire. It seems to underline the comparative inadequacy of the carry-over from the previous administration.

Two questions should be foremost in the voters minds, regardless of whether they opt for orange or beige.

Figure 11 Views On Gun Control Display A Strong Urban

Wildlife Conservation And Animal Welfare

Democratic Candidate Joe Biden

Reuters: Carlos Barria

The Democrats are the liberal political party and their candidate is Joe Biden, who has run for president twice before.

A former senator for Delaware who served six terms, Biden is best known as Barack Obama’s vice-president.

He held that role for eight years, and it has helped make him a major contender for many Democrat supporters.

Earlier this year, Biden chose California Senator Kamala Harris as his vice-presidential running mate.

The 77-year-old has built his campaign on the Obama legacy, and tackling the country’s staggering health care issues.

He is known for his down-to-earth personality and his ability to connect with working-class voters. He would be the oldest first-term president in history if elected.

Why Are Democrats Left And Republicans Right The Surprising History Of Political Affiliations

However, it was during the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871 that the political parties formally adopted the terms left and right to define their political beliefs.

The Representatives of Foreign Powers Coming to Greet the Republic as a Sign of Peace

According to the simplest Left and Right distinction, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite fascism and conservatism on the right.

In British politics the terms right and left came into common use for the first time in the late 1930s in debates over the Spanish Civil War.

Homosexuals Do Not Deserve Equal Rights

Popular Political Views In The Us

Greenberg And Jonas: Leftright Ideological Rigidity

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/where-are-republicans-on-the-political-spectrum/

0 notes

murdershegoat · 7 years ago

Note

You know what I just realized? There is basically no jewish representation in media??? I never even thought about I until a few minutes again when I was watching a show and this guy pulled out his tallis and I legit started freaking out??? Ive never even thought about it before but the only jews I've seen on tv are stereotypical jewish mothers with the new York accent and the Yiddish terms and the constant offering of food and though that is how my grandma behaves it's still a stereotype

yeah the only jews u ever see in the media in any form are a) seth rogan types who are completely secular and the most jewish thing about them is the fact they have curly hair and say tuchus and b) ultra orthodox jews in new york on law and order svu

the thing w jewish rep for me is that there’s like,,, no understanding of modern orthodoxy? i dont think ive ever seen a jew like me on screen, who’d be like a regular character but then not able to hang out on shabbat? or always brings a packed lunch bc of kashrut?

it’s ironic bc screen media cherry picks so much from judaism, namely the appropriation of yiddish and completely undermining a dying language to add a little comedic element to whatever they want.

that being said, there have been some great jews in shows and movies. transparent i think does a good job of showing a very specific jewish community, and even characters like annie from community and jake from b99 – again, they show a specific type of non-religious jew, but that makes sense for an american demographic. theyre characters whose judaism is acknowledged and not some elaborate joke, it’s just a part of who they are

anyway this has been a long response and also i have a lot of ideas for stories about jewish characters im excited to write so hopefully we’ll see some better stuff soon :)

#Anonymous #asks #judaism #representation

34 notes · View notes

matttowndrow · 6 years ago

Text

Talking to a Christian.

Stranger: hi

You: hi there

You: religious?

Stranger: yes

You: nice, what religion?

Stranger: christianity

You: protestant or catholic or?

Stranger: non-denominational for the most part

You: wow whats that exactly?

Stranger: i don't go to a particular church, i haven't found the one that truly clicks with me. although i do have an interest in catholicsm and orthodoxy

You: okay interesting

You: Im personally agnostic, just interested in religion and why people believe or don't believe etc

You: so my question to you is why do you think that christianity is the right religion?

Stranger: ahh thats cool. i can feel that lol

You: or in other words why are you christian and not another religion?

Stranger: well, i've had an interest with all sorts of religions, but in my opinion, christianity is one of the richest, both culturally and theologically; i don't necessarily think that christianity is the ONLY religion with "truth" because, as a rule, all religions or people who seek truth and goodness participate in christ

Stranger: but i feel like christianity is a full expression of it

Stranger: even though, i'll be the first to admit, a lot of christians make christianity look awful or childish lol

You: were you born in to religion ?

Stranger: reading about the history of the church and it's roots in judaic religions helped me appreciate the uniqueness, but also universality of christian belief

Stranger: i was raised in a vaguely protestant christian home

Stranger: not very observant, strictly, but still god was important to us

Stranger: still is, i should say

You: okay, nice, would you say perhaps that if you were born in iran you would be a muslim or do you think you would still be christian ?

You: and also how do you mean other religions participate in christ?

Stranger: it depends, if i had the ability to learn about christianity in an unbiased way, i think i would become one. especially since twelver shia is good at straining credulity lol

Stranger: well, christ is the logos, the universal reason that everything that exists was made through and within, any one who looks for truth and virtue will find the logos, even if they do not know of the person of jesus as he lived upon the earth, or the traditions handed down by him

You: so even if you're family were muslim for example you still believe you would convert to christianity?

Stranger: there's a saying from the gospel of thomas, which isn't considered canon by christians, but it still has some very correct things to say. one is "Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.

Split a piece of wood; I am there.

Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

Stranger: yes, like i said, if i was able to learn about it. but it would be very difficult, considering islam makes it hard for anyone to convert to another religion. especially a theocracy like iran

You: okay what is your point by that though, that jesus is everything almost?

You: okay fair enough

You: I don't personally agree that you would but we'll never know I guess ahaha

You: don't agree*

Stranger: yeah, by the grace of god i was born into a country with religious freedom lol

Stranger: for better and worse, at times

You: so for people like myself who perhaps don't believe or are part of another religion

You: will they go to hell when they die

Stranger: alright, this is a very complex question, and there's many christians who will say i'm wrong, but this isn't an alien idea, or novelty, my understanding is similar to orthodox belief. there is no "hell" as in a pit of torture for non-christians and immoral christians. hell is a state of being (or non-being if you prefer). god doesn't send people to hell, they choose it for themselves by rejecting the truth; and truth is christ, whom, like i have said is the pre-existent universal logos. jesus says "i am the way, the truth and the life" and also "those who do not believe are already condemned". people think of hell as a fiery place, but the book of hebrews says "our god is a consuming fire", and the letter of john says "our god is love". so, hell itself is a person experiencing god, that is, his love, but they turned themselves away from it, so they feel it as pain

Stranger: being a non-christian doesn't mean you will "go to hell", no one knows who will. but if you choose evil over good, and lies over truth, just in general, you're not living in accordance with god's will and purpose, and so you're making yourself unlike god

Stranger: i dunno if i'm explaining it well, lol

You: yeah no I understand that

You: my philosophy teacher said a simiar thing about how some christians see "hell"

Stranger: mankind is made as the image and likeness of god, and our purpose is to mirror his glory, as christ said to the pharisees when they said he was claiming to be equal with god "isn't it in your scriptures, that you are all gods, sons of the most high?"

You: I don't fully understand what you mean by that last bit

Stranger: yeah, i definitely don't think you can go up into the sky and find "heaven" or under the earth and see a hell. that is a childish sort of view, in my opinion

Stranger: well, one very old idea in christianity is that our purpose to become "gods", st. athanasius, who lived in the 4th century said that we're like a piece of metal put into a furnace, it takes on all qualities of light and heat, but doesn't become "fire", that is what salvation is like, it's becoming a child of god and a brother of christ, we all share in his inheritance, which is all that the father has

You: okay, okay so what I dont personally like about christianity especially catholic christianity is this dogma of faith in which you can't ever question god or in particular the religion and its scripture.

You: also when you think of the bible, do you believe in things like creationism?

Stranger: catholic's enjoy making dogmata far more than they should. that's one thing i dislike. in orthodoxy they have less dogmatic opinions, but dogma are important to a degree, since they help separate truth from error, and there's been a lot of error spread that is contrary to what the traditions of the apostles say, which would make them against the words of christ

Stranger: no, i'm not a creationist

You: okay interesting

You: so what parts of the bible do you disagree with?

Stranger: i don't disagree with any of it. i just don't take everything in it as being a science or history textbook. thats not it's purpose

Stranger: st. augustine has a FANTASTIC quote on taking the bible literally

Stranger: lemme find it

You: so when the bible says god created the earth and the heavens in 6 days, thats not supposed to be taken literally?

Stranger: Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

Stranger: it's not a history book, it's purpose is to show that god is responsible for the world, and give a spiritual meaning behind it

Stranger: this is also from augustine, before the above passage

Stranger: In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.

Stranger: i'd like young earth creationists to read that bit lol

You: I might take sometime to read this give me a few minutes ahaha

Stranger: no problem, i bombarded you a bit lol

You: okay yeah I get that

You: so tell me how was the bible written ?

Stranger: by putting pen to paper :p

You: yeah i mean who wrote it

You: and did god tell them what to write or speak to them how did it happen

You: sorry im not familiar ahaha

Stranger: the old testament is a collection of books that were penned down and compiled by scribes in the kingdom of judah, and the new testament is mostly letters, and a couple of books written by early christians and were eventually collected together

Stranger: well the bible is not the quran, christians don't (or at least shouldn't) see it as being the literal words of god to some person who simply records the words

You: okay but how did they know this stuff?

You: did god speak to them

Stranger: the bible has an extremely complex history. some parts of it are sacred histories, some parts are collections of oracles spoken by prophets, and others are books that focus on a story or person. the old testament was born out of the priests of the temple, who served the god of israel

Stranger: and even then, a lot of the bible isn't written by a single person. but countless scribes who worked material together until it reached it's final form. there was never a book that fell out of the sky and told everyone what to do (unless you're a muslim lol)

Stranger: it's also wrong to think of the bible as a single book

Stranger: we tend to think of that since we have it in a book format, but that was only possible until around 1800 years ago

Stranger: before then, they were collections of scrolls used by the temple and synagogues

You: yeah okay thanks that makes more sense

You: but say they have all this knowledge about god and christianity and about the origins of the universe

You: why when you trace back to adam and eve was it only around 6 thousand years ago

You: when the earth supposedly began

You: when ofcourse we know that not to be true

Stranger: the bible itself never mentions how old the earth is, per se. the idea of the earth being 7 thousandish years old is something people have done by counting genealogies and ages. but it's irrelevant, since the purpose of adam and eve is to show that humans are the image of god. but we've become separated from him through sin. it doesn't matter how it happened in a literal, physical sense, because in a way, we're all adam, because in our daily lives we choose to do bad, rather than good

Stranger: some church fathers even said that if adam never sinned, christ would've still been born into the flesh

Stranger: so the literal sense of what happened isn't very important, because it's message is a spiritual one. not a biological one

Stranger: and thats hard for us, since we value "objectivity"

Stranger: when there's multiple meanings behind something, for many, it lessens it's truthfulnes

You: do you not find it strange that previously though only a few hundred years ago they believed that to be true and with new scientifical knowledge christians change there mind and say its not meant to be taken literally or it was only a message

You: when previously that was the religion and all it stood for

You: not all it stood for sorry

Stranger: many people believed it to be true, but most people aren't very learned. even in the medieval era most educated christians knew the earth was spherical, when the church objected to marco polo's journey to india, it wasn't because they thought he'd fall off the end of the world, it's because they thought he was a fool and would get himself killed

Stranger: if christ is the logos, and christians believe he is, nothing discovered by science, by it's definition can conflict with it, since all reason is ultimately from the logos

Stranger: we only have to adjust our opinions on certain things

You: sorry what is the logos?

Stranger: the scriptures never say that you have to believe that the flood literally covered the earth, etc

Stranger: the logos is a greek word for the fundamental principle that undergirds everything in existence. nothing is apart from it. it's usually translated as "word" but it's sense is broader than that

Stranger: it also means "reason, discourse" so on

Stranger: it's also important to not mistake scientific theories for reality. i'm not rejecting science, but science is not a fool proof concept that is unassailable. it's a process for learning about the universe's laws and interactions

You: but so you're saying because christ is the logos, you can't conflict science with christianity

You: because he is the fundamental principle that undergirds everything in existence you can't question it

You: why was nothing written in either the new or old testament about the big bang ?

You: or evolution ?

You: god created man

Stranger: because those are theories we've come up with in the past 200 years. the man who came up with the big bang theory was a catholic priest. the bible was written in a time before we had our modern idea of "science", which isn't to say they were stupid, but it wasn't the purpose of their writing

Stranger: the purpose is sacral

Stranger: to illustrate a spiritual reality, which, by it's nature is immaterial, something science cannot speak of, since for something to be scientific it must be subject to testability

You: but surely god didn't create man

You: because man evolved

You: we certainly know this to be true

You: there is too much evidence to support it

Stranger: again, this sort of idea doesn't sit well with the modern mind, since we want clear-cut facts and logic

Stranger: of course, but everything was created through the will of god

You: it's almost like your moulding your reasoning around it all though

You: okay another question why were we around for almost 40,000 years and only 38,000 years later did god decide to speak to us then

You: I think that we are simply intelligent beings with a want for something more than ourselves

Stranger: well, anatomically modern humans have been around for about 150,000 years or so. and god is always speaking to us, even neanderthals buried their dead and had some seemed to be a religious spirit. when you look at humans religion is hardwired into us, when you look at cave paintings, they are not simple representations, but they're an attempt for humans to transcend every day experience

You: okay so why is christianity the only right religion then

You: if you believe its hard wired in to us why is it not just a need for something bigger than ourselves

You: why aren't we just scared to die and there be nothing else afterwards

Stranger: it's not the "only right" it's the fullness of truth, since the church has borne witness to god becoming man, and making man into god

Stranger: well, saying there is nothing is just as much as an assertion as saying there's something. we cannot know scientifically speaking. how does one test that? lol

You: no I think maybe there is something higher than me

Stranger: not to mention the importance the dead have had for humans throughout all of history. it's not merely a vain hope, always. people didn't have any trouble thinking about the dead returning to interact with the living in various ways

You: but I don't think its christianity or any other religion for that matter

Stranger: and thats okay, i don't think any one should force themselves to believe something if it conflicts with their reason or conscience

You: yeah I know sorry im not trying to force my beliefs on you

You: or anything

You: just very curious about it all

Stranger: no worries, i know you're not, i'm not either

You: like stuff about homosexuals for example

You: do you agree with that or ?

Stranger: agree with them how

You: as in its a sin to be homosexual

Stranger: i don't think it's a sin to be homosexual, but i do believe that homosexuality is a misuse of our bodies and isn't a part of the natural order god intends. so having sex with a member of your own sex is a "sin" a missing of the mark, that mark being proper order and goodness

You: okay so essentially it is a sin, and I get that because yeah it would make sense especially if it says it in the bible, I mean I don't agree with it but yeah

Stranger: the act is a sin, but the inclination to it itself isn't one. everyone has a temptation towards misusing the things god provides us, whether it's sex, emotions, strength, etc. there's always a way to turn a good into a bad, or disordered thing

You: I think that in modern times we have moved on for secular reasons, for example we've abolished slavery (something that the bible condoned) , we now give equal rights to woman and the vote etc and I think thats nothing to do with scripture that's actually come about in spite of the bible and then people go back to the bible and say oh we'll leave out that bit, and cherry pick parts that suit their own moral code

Stranger: the bible never condones slavery. slavery was a fact of life for most of human history. and the people who championed anti-slavery were christians almost always

Stranger: slavery was essential for most ancient economies in various ways

Stranger: something like 20% of the roman empire were slaves in the imperial era

You: doesn't make it wrong though

You: doesn't make it okay though sorry ahaha

Stranger: LOL

Stranger: you wanna know one of my favorite odd laws from deuteronomy is

You: sure

Stranger: if two men are fighting and the wife of one of the women grabs one of the men's testicles to stop them from fighting, her hand has to be chopped off

Stranger: i always wondered when that situation would arise lol

You: yeah I have heard that one ahaha

You: I mean is that technically a rule by god

You: is that what its saying

Stranger: it's part of the law handed to moses

Stranger: according to deuteronomy

You: do you never just look at it all though and just think about how outdated it all is and thats all there is to the christian faith

You: is a 2700 year old book

Stranger: not really. i think modernism is self-destructive

You: that has a lot of errors and contradictions in it

Stranger: like what?

You: I mean I don't know exactly what ones but there are lots all you have to do is look them up

Stranger: and most of them are irrelevant to the truth of christ

Stranger: such as how many animals god ordered moses to put on the ark

You: for a holy book to have contradictions and errors in, surely thats not ideal though

You: I don't know

Stranger: as i have said, the bible isn't a history or physics text book. and it was compiled from various sacred writings by priests and scribes. it's not the particulars that effect it, because it's purpose is to be a witness and testament to the person of christ, and even then, most apparent contradictions have simple explanations. like the two different genealogies of jesus given in matthew and luke

You: I understand that its man made and therefore it does have errors and contradiction and even plagiarism if I'm correct

Stranger: plagiarism is a modern idea lol

You: and therefore I just think there is nothing divine about it and the apeal to saying I can trump anything you say because heres gods word on the page is a contemptible way of arguing

You: what do you mean its a modern Idea

You: copying something

Stranger: no one in the ancient world had the same concept of plagiarism as we understand it. the author as a creator of a mental world or ideas was a non-existent, all that mattered was the authority of the knowledge they used

You: earlier you said you were interested in catholicism

You: why is that

Stranger: i'm a big fan of tradition, and my father's family was catholic, i even got a nice collection of saints in my family tree lol. but i can't stand how catholicism is trying to modernize itself and francis makes me wanna puke

You: what sort of traditions?

Stranger: just tradition in general, the fact that catholicism doesn't ignore christianity after the last books of the NT were written, like some protestants do

You: what do you mean by that

You: they don't ignore the history of christianity ?

Stranger: well, a lot of protestants, due to the reformation, reject most writings from the early church that aren't considered canon proper, so if anything isn't explicitly in the bible, it must be a pagan innovation that sneaked into the church. for instance, ignatius of antioch who was a student of the apostle john uses the phrase "catholic church" and teaches about the hierarchy

You: ah okay

Stranger: but, i'm not as big of a fan of catholicism compared to orthodoxy, since catholicism has had some "developments" that aren't necessarily rooted in early christianity, but at the same time, there's decent arguments for certain catholic dogma that the orthodox don't share

Stranger: you have to remember that they were the same church, officially until 1054

You: have you seen the debate on is the catholic church a force for good in the world ?

Stranger: hmm, i don't think i have

You: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZRcYaAYWg4

You: give it a watch sometimes

You: its very long

You: anywho It was lovely speaking to you

You: my brain is so dead now, im so tired ahaha, had so many other points to make and ive forgotten them all

You: but oh well

Stranger: no worries, i feel that way all the time :p

Stranger: it was a great convo

You: yeah was very interesting

0 notes

thinktosee · 7 years ago

Text

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MASS KILLERS - by Robert J. Burrowes

Today’s post is very, very important towards our understanding of violence in general, and especially of mass murders. I am pleased to introduce our readers to Dr. Robert J. Burrowes, a well-known writer and activist for non-violence.

Robert’s early life, David’s and mine have something in common – At 14 years old, Robert made a decision to do something about the violence and pain in our world. David did too, by his conscientious objection. I was also “called.” However, I knew of the personal sacrifice this would entail. I was, in Roberts words, among the ’“cowardly powerlessness is the state they have been trained to accept...” and refused to step forward. Until now, and after David left us. The Bible said, “Many are called, but few are chosen.” That’s not quite true. Many are called, but few stepped forward.

Robert and I have been corresponding not long after David’s passing. I am learning from him, the way I am learning from David. Non-violence is a part of us, just as violence is. We must decide which we want to live with. It begins with us – you and me.

I urge you to read and be a part of Robert’s dream, which says “If you have lived your dream, you have lived.” A few of David’s friends are majoring in Psychology. I have no doubt this essay by Robert will be most helpful towards your understanding of violent behavior. It reinforces a few elements of and then goes further, from the “life-stage virtue” first propounded by Erik Salomonsen aka Erik Erikson (refer to “Childhood and Society” , 1950, among others, by Erik).

I have taken the liberty to bold shade what i believe are very important points in Robert’s essay :

I like to thank Robert for the kind permission to reproduce his piece.

- David’s father - Oct 20, 2017 - Email : [email protected]

The Psychology of Mass Killers: What causes it? How can you prevent it?

By Robert J. Burrowes

In Las Vegas on 1 October 2017, it appears that one man (although it might have been more) killed 59 people and shot and injured another 241 (with almost 300 more injured while fleeing). The incident got a lot of publicity, partly because the man managed to kill more people than most mass killers. However, because the killer was a white American and had a Christian name, he was not immediately labeled a terrorist, even though his death toll considerably exceeded that achieved in many ‘terrorist attacks’, including those that occur in war zones (such as US drone murders of innocent people attending weddings).

According to the Gun Violence Archive, http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting there is now an average of one mass shooting (arbitrarily defined by the FBI as a shooting in which at least four victims are shot) each day in the USA. By any measure, this is a national crisis.

However, while there has been a flood of commentary on the incident, including suggestions about what might be done in response based on a variety of analyses of the cause, none that I have read explain the underlying cause of all these mass killings. And if we do not understand this, then any other suggestions, whatever their apparent merits, can have little impact.

The suggestions made so far in response to this massacre include the following:

1. Making it much more difficult, perhaps even illegal, to own a gun. See ‘Guns’. http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

2. Drastically reducing the prescription of pharmaceutical drugs (which are almost invariably being consumed by the killer). See ‘Drugs and Guns Don’t Mix: Medication Madness, Military Madness and the Las Vegas Mass Shooting’. https://www.globalresearch.ca/drugs-and-guns-dont-mix-medication-madness-military-madness-and-the-las-vegas-mass-shooting/5612178

3. Recognising and addressing the sociological factors implicated in causing the violence. See ‘violence is driven by socioeconomic factors, not access to firearms’ argued in ‘Another Mass Shooting, Another Grab for Guns: 6 Gun Facts’ https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/another-mass-shooting-another-grab-for.html and ‘a deep sickness in American society’ argued in ‘The social pathology of the Las Vegas Massacre’. http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/10/03/pers-o03.html

4. Identifying whether or not the killer had ideological/religious links to a terrorist group (in this case ISIS, as claimed by some). See, for example, ‘ISIS Releases Infographic Claiming Las Vegas Gunman Converted 6 Months Ago’. https://www.theepochtimes.com/isis-releases-infographic-claiming-las-vegas-gunman-converted-six-months-ago_2328317.html

5. Identifying and remedying the ways in which constitutional provisions and laws facilitate such massacres. See ‘Las Vegas Massacre Proves 2nd Amendment Must be Abolished’. https://www.globalresearch.ca/las-vegas-massacre-proves-2nd-amendment-must-be-abolished/5612066

6. Recognizing the way in which these incidents are encouraged by national elites and are sometimes, in fact, false flag attacks used as a means to justify the consolidation of elite social control (through such measures as increased state surveillance and new restrictions on human rights).

7. Limiting the ways in which violence, especially military violence, is used as entertainment and education, and thus culturally glorified in ways that encourage imitation. See ‘People Don’t Kill People, Americans Kill People’. http://davidswanson.org/people-dont-kill-people-americans-kill-people/

However, as indicated above, while these and other suggestions, including certain educational initiatives, sound attractive as options for possibly preventing/mitigating some incidents in future, they do not address the cause of violence in this or any other context and so widespread violence both in the United States and around the world will continue.

So why does someone become a mass killer?

Human socialization is essentially a process of inflicting phenomenal violence on children until they think and behave as the key adults – particularly their parents, teachers and religious figures – around them want, irrespective of the functionality of this thought and behavior in evolutionary terms. This is because virtually all adults prioritize obedience over all other possible behaviors and they delusionarily believe that they ‘know better’ than the child.

The idea that each child is the only one of their kind in all of living creation in Earth’s history and, therefore, has a unique destiny to fulfill, never even enters their mind. So, instead of nurturing that unique destiny so that the child fully becomes the unique Self that evolution created, adults terrorize each child into becoming just another more-or-less identical cog in the giant machine called ‘human society’.

Before I go any further, you might wonder if the expression ‘phenomenal violence’ isn’t too strong. So let me explain.

From the moment of birth, human adults inflict violence on the child. This violence occurs in three categories: visible, ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’. Visible violence is readily identified: it is the (usually) physical violence that occurs when someone is hit (with a hand or weapon), kicked, shaken, held down or punished in any other way. See ‘Punishment is Violent and Counterproductive’. http://www.yeoldejournalist.com/punishment-is-violent/

But what is this ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’ violence that is inflicted on us mercilessly, and has a profoundly damaging impact, from the day we are born?

In essence, ‘invisible’ violence is the ‘little things’ we do every day, partly because we are just ‘too busy’. For example, when we do not allow time to listen to, and value, a child’s thoughts and feelings, the child learns to not listen to themSelf thus destroying their internal communication system. When we do not let a child say what they want (or ignore them when they do), the child develops communication and behavioural dysfunctionalities as they keep trying to meet their own needs (which, as a basic survival strategy, they are genetically programmed to do).

When we blame, condemn, insult, mock, embarrass, shame, humiliate, taunt, goad, guilt-trip, deceive, lie to, bribe, blackmail, moralize with and/or judge a child, we both undermine their sense of Self-worth and teach them to blame, condemn, insult, mock, embarrass, shame, humiliate, taunt, goad, guilt-trip, deceive, lie, bribe, blackmail, moralize and/or judge.

The fundamental outcome of being bombarded throughout their childhood by this ‘invisible’ violence is that the child is utterly overwhelmed by feelings of fear, pain, anger and sadness (among many others). However, parents, teachers and other adults also actively interfere with the expression of these feelings and the behavioural responses that are naturally generated by them and it is this ‘utterly invisible’ violence that explains why the dysfunctional behavioural outcomes actually occur.

For example, by ignoring a child when they express their feelings, by comforting, reassuring or distracting a child when they express their feelings, by laughing at or ridiculing their feelings, by terrorizing a child into not expressing their feelings (e.g. by screaming at them when they cry or get angry), and/or by violently controlling a behaviour that is generated by their feelings (e.g. by hitting them, restraining them or locking them into a room), the child has no choice but to unconsciously suppress their awareness of these feelings.

However, once a child has been terrorized into suppressing their awareness of their feelings (rather than being allowed to have their feelings and to act on them) the child has also unconsciously suppressed their awareness of the reality that caused these feelings. This has many outcomes that are disastrous for the individual, for society and for nature because the individual will now easily suppress their awareness of the feelings that would tell them how to act most functionally in any given circumstance and they will progressively acquire a phenomenal variety of dysfunctional behaviours, including many that are violent towards themselves, others and/or the Earth.

Moreover, this emotional (or psychological) damage will lead to a unique combination of violent behaviours in each case and, depending on the precise combination of violence to which they are subjected, some of them will become what I call ‘archetype perpetrators of violence’; that is, people so emotionally damaged that they end up completely devoid of a Self and with a psychological profile similar to Hitler’s.

These archetype perpetrators of violence are all terrified, self-hating and powerless but, in fact, they have 23 identifiable psychological characteristics constituting their ‘personality’. For a full explanation of this particular psychological profile, see ‘Why Violence?’ http://tinyurl.com/whyviolence and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’. http://anitamckone.wordpress.com/articles-2/fearless-and-fearful-psychology/ Of course, few perpetrators of violence fit the archetype, but all perpetrators are full of (suppressed) terror, self-hatred and powerlessness and this is fundamental to understanding their violence as explained in ‘Why Violence?’

Rather than elaborate further in this article why these perpetrators behave as they do (which you can read on the documents just mentioned), let me explain why the suggestions made by others above in relation to gun and drug control, socioeconomic factors, ideological/religious connections, constitutional and legal shortcomings, resisting efforts to consolidate elite social control, and revised education and entertainment programs can have little impact if undertaken in isolation from the primary suggestion I will make below.

Once someone is so emotionally damaged that they are effectively devoid of the Self that should have defined their unique personality, then they will be the endless victim of whatever violence is directed at them. This simply means that they will have negligible capacity to deal powerfully with any difficult life circumstances and personal problems (and, for example, to resist doctors prescribing pharmaceutical drugs), they will be gullibly influenced by violent ideologies, education and entertainment, and they will have virtually no capacity to work creatively to resolve the conflicts (both personal and structural) in their life but will do what was modeled to them as a child in any effort to do so: use violence.

And by now you have probably realized that I am not just talking about the mass killers that I started discussing at the beginning of this article. I am also talking about the real mass killers: those politicians, military leaders and weapons corporation executives, and all those other corporate executives, who inflict mass violence on life itself, as well as those others, such as academics and those working in corporate media outlets, that support and justify this violence. This includes, to specify just one obvious example, all of those US Senators and Congresspeople who resist implementing gun control laws. See ‘Thoughts and Prayers and N.R.A. Funding’. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/opinion/thoughts-prayers-nra-funding-senators.html

In essence then, if the child suffers enough of this visible, invisible and utterly invisible violence, they will grow up devoid of the Selfhood – including the love, compassion, empathy, morality and integrity – that is their birthright and the foundation of their capacity to behave powerfully in all contexts without the use of violence.

Instead, they will become a perpetrator of violence, to a greater or lesser extent, and may even seek employment in those positions that encourage them to support and/or inflict violence legally, such as a police or prison officer, a lawyer or judge – see ‘The Rule of Law: Unjust and Violent’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35866.htm – a soldier who fights in war or a Congressperson who supports it, or even an employee in a corporation that profits from violence and exploitation. See ‘Profit Maximization is Easy: Invest in Violence’. http://www.eurasiareview.com/11092017-profit-maximization-is-easy-invest-in-violence-oped/

In addition, most individuals will inflict violence on the climate and environment, all will inflict violence on children, and some will inflict violence in those few ways that are actually defined as ‘illegal’, such as mass killings.

But if we don’t see the mass killers as the logical, if occasional, outcome of (unconsciously) violent parenting, then we will never even begin to address the problem at its source. And we are condemned to suffer violence, in all of its manifestations, until we inevitably drive ourselves to extinction through nuclear war or climate/environmental collapse.

If you are looking for a lead on this from political leaders, you are wasting your time. Similarly, there are precious few professionals, particularly in the medical and psychiatric industries – see ‘Defeating the Violence of Psychiatry’. http://old.warisacrime.org/content/defeating-violence-psychiatry – who have any idea how to respond meaningfully (assuming they even have an interest in doing so). So why not be your own judge and consider making ‘My Promise to Children’? https://feelingsfirstblog.wordpress.com/my-promise-to-children/

In addition, if further reducing the violence in our world appeals to you, then you are also welcome to consider participating in the creation of communities that do not have violence built into them – see ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’, http://tinyurl.com/flametree – signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’ https://thepeoplesnonviolencecharter.wordpress.com/ and/or consider using the strategic framework on one or the other of these two websites for your campaign to end violence in one context or another: Nonviolent Campaign Strategy https://nonviolentstrategy.wordpress.com/ and Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy. https://nonviolentliberationstrategy.wordpress.com/

In summary then: For the typical human adult, it is better to endlessly inflict violence on a child to coerce them to obey. Of course, once the child has been terrorized into this unthinking obedience, they won’t just obey the parents and teachers (secular and religious) who terrorized them: they will also obey anyone else who orders them to do something. This will include governments, military officers and terrorist leaders who order them to kill (or pay taxes to kill) people they do not know in foreign countries, employers who order them to submit to the exploitation of themselves and others, not to mention a vast array of other influences (particularly corporations) who will have little trouble manipulating them into behaving unethically and without question (even regarding consumer purchases).

Or, to put it another way: For the typical human adult, it is better to endlessly inflict violence on a child to coerce them to obey and to then watch the end-products of this violence – obedient, submissive children who are powerless to question their parents and teachers, resist the entreaties of drug pushers, and critique the propaganda of governments, corporations and the military as well as the media, education and entertainment industries – spiral endlessly out of control: wars, massive exploitation, ecological destruction, slavery, mass killings…. And to then wonder ‘Why?’

For these terrorized humans, cowardly powerlessness is the state they have been trained to accept, while taking whatever material distractions are thrown their way as compensation. So they pass on this state to their children by terrorizing them into submission too. Powerfully accepting responsibility to fulfill their own unique destiny, and serve society by doing so, is beyond them.

The great tragedy of human life is that virtually no-one values the awesome power of the individual Self with an integrated mind (that is, a mind in which memory, thoughts, feelings, sensing, conscience and other functions work together in an integrated way) because this individual will be decisive in choosing life-enhancing behavioural options (including those at variance with social laws and norms) and will fearlessly resist all efforts to control or coerce them with violence.

Biodata: Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ http://tinyurl.com/whyviolence His email address is [email protected] and his website is here. http://robertjburrowes.wordpress.com

0 notes

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

Where Are Republicans On The Political Spectrum

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/where-are-republicans-on-the-political-spectrum/

Where Are Republicans On The Political Spectrum

Republicans Have More Friends Across The Political Divide Than Democrats Study Finds

When David Huzzards friend posted some QAnon conspiracy theories on Facebook in the fall, Huzzard first assumed the best of intentions. He recalls thinking: Maybe they just got tricked.

Emily Guskin contributed to this report.

Partisan Ideological Leanings Unchanged

Although Americans as a whole are a mix of ideological viewpoints, the two major political parties have become increasingly polarized over the years in their tenor.

Ideological uniformity is much higher among Republicans, 75% of whom now consider themselves conservative, up slightly from 73% in 2019 and the highest proportion yet in Gallup’s trend since 1994.

Meanwhile, one in five Republicans describe their views as moderate, down from 33% in 1994, while just 4% say they are liberal, similar to most years.

How We Got Here

Republican recall hopefuls seek to differentiate themselves in San Francisco debate

Consider Californias last two Republican governors, Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Experts say Wilson and Schwarzenegger embodied a more moderate California Republican ethos than the positions taken by most of the 2021 Republican gubernatorial field.

Party concentration has also moved inland, with Republican votes in Los Angeles and the Bay Area starkly declining.

What Is The Difference Between Republicans And Democrats

Climate Change And Pollution

Pollution in the United StatesClimate changeClimate change denial

Trump wrote in his 2011 book that he opposed a system to control carbon emissions.

Parties Favouring Populist Rhetoric Are More Likely To Be Nationalistic

What do we know of populism? Populist movements are typically nationalistic, critical towards immigration and cynical about liberal democratic principles.

Confidence In Scientists And Other Groups To Act In The Public Interest

Confidence in the news media, business leaders and elected officials is considerably lower; public views about school and religious leaders fall in the middle.

More Negative Views Of The Opposing Party

Among all Democrats, 27% say GOP policies are a threat to the well-being of the country; among all Republicans, more than a third think Democratic policies threaten the nation.

Foreign Policy And National Defense

Issues For Which Location Plays Some Role

Where Do Trump And Biden Stand On Key Issues

Reuters: Brian Snyder/AP: Julio Cortez

The key issues grappling the country can be broken down into five main categories: coronavirus, health care, foreign policy, immigration and criminal justice.

This year, a big focus of the election has been the coronavirus pandemic, which could be a deciding factor in how people vote, as the country’s contentious healthcare system struggles to cope.

The average healthcare costs for COVID-19 treatment is up to $US30,000 , an Americas Health Insurance Plans 2020 study has found.

Inglehart: Traditionalistsecular And Self Expressionistsurvivalist

World Values Survey

The Republican Party General Policy And Political Values

Actions While In Office

American Health Care Act2017 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act replacement proposals

Actions to hinder implementation of ACA

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

President Trump continued Republican attacks on the ACA while in office, including steps such as:

Ending cost-sharing reduction payments

Cost sharing reductions subsidy

Religion And Marital Status

Nolan: Economic Freedom Personal Freedom

Nolan Chart

The Us Presidential Election 2020: Last Lap Reflections

27 October 2020

For the vast majorority of voters, this extraordinary election is more like a referendum on the incumbent. Youre either for Trump or against him.

Even Obamas vigorous campaigning for Biden may backfire. It seems to underline the comparative inadequacy of the carry-over from the previous administration.

Two questions should be foremost in the voters minds, regardless of whether they opt for orange or beige.

Figure 11 Views On Gun Control Display A Strong Urban

Wildlife Conservation And Animal Welfare

Democratic Candidate Joe Biden

Reuters: Carlos Barria

The Democrats are the liberal political party and their candidate is Joe Biden, who has run for president twice before.

A former senator for Delaware who served six terms, Biden is best known as Barack Obama’s vice-president.

He held that role for eight years, and it has helped make him a major contender for many Democrat supporters.

Earlier this year, Biden chose California Senator Kamala Harris as his vice-presidential running mate.

The 77-year-old has built his campaign on the Obama legacy, and tackling the country’s staggering health care issues.

He is known for his down-to-earth personality and his ability to connect with working-class voters. He would be the oldest first-term president in history if elected.

Why Are Democrats Left And Republicans Right The Surprising History Of Political Affiliations

However, it was during the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871 that the political parties formally adopted the terms left and right to define their political beliefs.

The Representatives of Foreign Powers Coming to Greet the Republic as a Sign of Peace

According to the simplest Left and Right distinction, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite fascism and conservatism on the right.

In British politics the terms right and left came into common use for the first time in the late 1930s in debates over the Spanish Civil War.

Homosexuals Do Not Deserve Equal Rights

Popular Political Views In The Us

Greenberg And Jonas: Leftright Ideological Rigidity

0 notes