Democrats In A Dilemma Posted on December 17, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, the reason the democrats not only lost in 2024, but without election fraud, they would have lost in 2022 and 2020 as well. Since their now exposed ideology is repulsive. Back in the day… after they lost in 2000 to Bush, they embraced the radical left. Exit polls in 2000 said that morals was a deciding factor in that election. The electorate had enough of lasciviously using cigars in the White House. Which angered the democrats because they saw themselves as more moral than the republicans. So they scratched around to find an answer. I was listening to NPR at the time, and the answer they reached, was to eschew bipartisanship and centrism for radical ideology. So the democrat party that had been trending communist for decades “went full retard” just as communism had been discredited. The results of progressive democrat rule can’t be denied, as well as progressive rule in Europe. Drastically lower standard of living as measured in every way, international debacles, and thought police, leading to literal despotism. Germany’s vaunted industrial sector is in full collapse. Due to energy costs, taxes and regulation, as well as a collapsing demographic. Britain is releasing violent rapists back on the streets to make room for those charged with wrongthink. Meanwhile, the derelict lame duck president is trying to get us in WWIII. Nothing suggests failure like a constant drumbeat of failure. Now it turns out the economic disasters were covered up by lies. As jobs and GDP are revised lower, exposing those lies, the derelict in office pardons his cronies as fast as he can push a pen. Just as when the original progressive movement had been discredited, by Wilson and his absurdist policies, and anti human eugenics, they changed their name… so too did the communists after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The communists then had to re-brand their movement. Using the techniques of Edward Bernays, they became open societies, progressivism, and given gravitas by UN agendas for sustainable development. So the crypto communists changed the name of their movement. Though it still stood for an unlimited oligarchy. Their foundational principles found in the Frankfurt School, and the teachings of Freud, Nietzsche and Marx. Which just goes to show that the idealist, elitist ideology of communism, is like a shapeshifter. It changes appearance as it’s reality is discovered. The electoral failure isn’t lost to the wire pullers at the top of the establishment. They know how much election fraud was applied, and yet fell short, of even muting a landslide. They managed to get a few democrats past the finish line, after weeks of election fraud in California, and elsewhere… but all in all, 2024 was a total repudiation of the progressives and their policies. Importing voters to replace the people they abandoned hasn’t been as effective as they had hoped. Stabbing the union workers, minorities and farmers in the back, apparently, alienated them. Wages and benefits in a union shop don’t matter… when the union jobs go to China. Pushing minorities to the side for the new politically favored isn’t attractive. Just as farmers losing family land leaves a bad taste in their mouths. Now the democrats and indeed progressives across the globe, are scratching around again, to find a reason they’re so repulsive to voters. Idealistic and lacking self awareness they’ll probably conclude they didn’t go far enough. Especially since most of the sane members of that caucus left. British Labor is looking at the US, Argentina, Germany, France and even Spain, and worrying they may be next. That’s why they canceled elections next year. While that’s an effective tactic, it’s a poor strategy. Trudeau is even on the ropes. Re-branding won’t work. The elites are the same. It would appear that the progressives have lost the faith of the people, not because their brand wasn’t hip enough, or their message wasn’t loud enough, but because they failed at the most basic role of governing… governing. Sincerely, John Pepin

Unlimited Power Leads To Unlimited Atrocities Posted on December 18, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, unlimited power leads to unlimited atrocities. History is unambiguous on this. With examples spanning human history. Alexander’s slaughtering of the city of Thebes, Tamerlane’s atrocities against Hindus and Christians, up to today’s North Korean despot Kim. Atrocities aren’t only for villains, they’re for heroes as well… if they get to write the history. Moreover, no one who commits an atrocity thinks they’re doing an evil. Not at all, they’ve rationalized it in their heads, to be a good and necessary thing. You and I, out of ignorance and given unlimited power, would be likely to commit several atrocities in our struggle to better the human condition. Those who “know” they wouldn’t, are the ones who would commit the worst ones. Lacking omniscience our knowledge is limited. Giving unlimited power to a limited being is asking for trouble. Moreover, no amount of surveillance will make a person or agency omniscient. Only more nosy. Which makes unlimited power foolish. Since the quality of knowing everything is impossible, it’s also impossible to apply unlimited power effectively. Our lack of true understanding and human heartedness, makes that power into a sledge hammer, wielded by a barbarian. When it would take omniscience to machine that club into a jeweler’s tool set, and human heartedness to use it. So those who seek unlimited power to improve the lot of Mankind are foolish people, playing stupid games, and we all know how that turns out… we all win stupid prizes. With unlimited power, comes zero consequences for actions, and no effective feedback for crazy thoughts. So those invested with zero consequences and unlimited power, even with the most angelic goals, will end up killing millions. Because consequences and feedback are what keep us sane. Someone with the power to kill at a command isn’t a person others make angry. So the totalitarian is insulated from sanity. Plus, without consequences for failure, there’s no learning from it either. This lack of feedback and learning from failure magnifies the lack of omniscience, of the despot or oligarchy, into outright malevolence. Hatred against those that are clearly standing in the way of a utopian existence for humanity. Providing the victims for the atrocities. The more idealistic the ruler the more heinous the atrocities. While a pragmatist looks at results not intentions, the idealist looks at intentions not results. So if a given action has failed in the past, or worse, yielded negative results, a pragmatist will try something different. Cut their losses if you will. Even as an Idealist will try and try again. Because the goal is so glittering it’s worth any atrocity. With the idealist mindset of win lose, that someone has to suffer to birth their vision, is only natural. The few lose so the many can win. A look at the earlier examples will find that all but Alexander were idealists. While Alexander aimed his atrocities at Thebes to settling Greece… Tamerlane, Hitler, Mao, Kim and the whole lot sought a utopian world… and delivered hell on Earth. That’s why I say, unlimited power leads to unlimited atrocities. People are simply incapable of omniscience (unlimited knowledge) and therefore incapable of handling unlimited power. Plus the human hearted among us are few, and proof of human heartedness, is they don’t seek power. Who dares correct the tyrant? Which is why despots always go insane. Getting ever further from reality and deeper into their fevered dreams. Then there’s the idealist who seizes power in a coup. Given unlimited power, to implement their vision of utopia, breaking a few eggs is acceptable. Some have to lose so the rest can win. You could say their goal is so glittering it’s worth any atrocity, and so many are committed. No wonder atrocities are so common, and human hearted limited government, so rare. Sincerely, John Pepin

Thinkspot is pleased to announce the winners for the ‘Thoughts on the Impact of Global Migration’ writing contest! The winners will be contacted by email to arrange the distribution of their prizes. Thank you everyone who submitted an entry! Congratulations to Demiinferno, neoplatonist2, and Ayaba!First Place Winner VISIONS FOR WESTERN VALUES: A Three Way Dialogue by Demiinferno The essay provides a clear and engaging thesis: democracy is an ongoing dialogue that balances opposing principles such as freedom and responsibility, individuality and community, and rights and duties. This essay frames democracy as a dynamic dialogue balancing freedom with responsibility, rights with duties, and individuality with community. It advocates for a "renewal" of democracy, adaptable to societal changes while preserving its foundational principles, celebrating democracy's ability to balance competing values through continuous dialogue. The central theme of balance is consistently reinforced throughout the essay.Second Place Winner Visions for Western Values: The Balm of Gilead by neoplatonist2 The essay offers a robust and well-structured thesis: humanity’s survival is the ultimate value, supported by secondary values (knowledge, population growth, and care) and safeguarded by tertiary values (Constitution, Word, and Militia). The argument is clear and consistently upheld throughout the essay. This essay offers a deeply thoughtful and creative framework for preserving and advancing Western values, effectively blending philosophical, theological, and political reasoning. Third Place Winner VISIONS FOR WESTERN VALUES: Beyond The Political Divide by Ayaba The essay presents a clear and compelling thesis: that Western democracies must transcend political divides by protecting foundational values such as peaceful power transitions, minority rights, gender equality, and judicial independence. The essay’s focus remains consistent throughout, and each section effectively reinforces the central theme. This essay presents a thoughtful and compelling exploration of democracy’s core values, offering a hopeful and inclusive vision for transcending political divides.November 2024 Contest: Visions for Western Values We have enjoyed hosting this writing competition and appreciated the opportunity to hear your thoughts on this important topic. We received 12 thoughtful entries on our prompt and our team enjoyed judging them. Thank you to all the thinkers who participated in the November Writer’s contest, and we hope everyone will take the time to re-read the winning entries and congratulate the winners. If you want to discover all of the entries, please click on the category "Contest November 2024" at the top of the Discover page. Not only were the submissions beautiful and well thought out, but our community of thinkers chimed in with their thoughts and ideas on many of the provocative entries. As a result, the submitting writers received valuable feedback and encouragement on their efforts. We hope you enjoyed the November writing competition as much as we did! Again, Congratulations to everyone! The entire team at thinkspot is wishing the thinkspot community of thinkers a very happy holiday season, and a safe and prosperous New Year. We plan to be back in January with a new writers contest.

A recent study by two pro-choice academics provides interesting insights into the GPs who offer abortion services in Ireland. Those GPs, while fully in favour of abortion, nonetheless have reservations about some of what they are seeing, and in particular about women who have had multiple abortions in a relatively short time. Very revealingly, when one doctor raised concerns about women having multiple abortions, someone from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), which is a big abortion provider, accused the doctor of being ‘judgemental’, and said women should be able to have an abortion every month if they want. The research, published by two members of the Law School at University College Cork (UCC), is based on interviews with 15 doctors, most of whom are part of START (Southern Task-force on Abortion and Reproductive Topics), a network of pro-choice healthcare professionals. According to the study, a key motivation for participating in providing abortions is “respect for human rights, women’s rights, and equality.” ‘Dr H’ (all names are anonymised) stated: “I’m a very great believer in bodily autonomy and the rights of the individual.” Some of these doctors were politically active in campaigns to repeal the Eighth Amendment. However, the anonymous interviews reveal that even among strong pro-choice advocates, there are reservations about aspects of the work they are doing. ‘Dr P’ told the researchers: “I think it’s important to acknowledge that we’ve made a decision that a woman should be able to have an abortion if she wants one and, big deal, you shouldn’t have to justify it or beg for one. But at the same time, like I remember, I had one girl, a student, and she had three abortions in 18 months. And I remember thinking, you know, that’s not what I voted yes for.” It should be noted that the study is written from a distinctly pro-choice perspective. It was partially funded by the Irish Family Planning Association, and one of its authors is a member of the Abortion Working Group of the National Women’s Council of Ireland. Only selected responses from the interviews are published, and we do not have access to the complete data, yet these selected quotes reveal some hesitations. Another doctor, referred to as ‘Dr O’R’, remarked: “You know, I have had five who’ve had three [abortions]. Four or five women for three. And when we’re talking in our group, we get quite paternalistic saying, ‘Jesus, throw the Implanon [a long-term form of contraception] into her.’ And when we had BPAS over, they were saying, ‘How dare you be so judgemental? She can have a termination every month if she wants.’ Still, you know, the medic part of me goes, ‘God—surely that’s tough on her,’ you know, but yeah—how do you reconcile that?” Unlike other countries, Ireland collects almost no data on women undergoing terminations, so it is unclear how many have had more than one abortion but this study confirms that this is not uncommon here. The interviews also reveal tensions within GP practices between those who provide abortion services and those who do not. “Yeah, I’m probably known as the baby killer, but no, all nicely. Some of my very best friends and colleagues absolutely refuse to do this. They will remain my best friends. You know, I don’t do toenails. I send them up to my colleague. He sends me, you know… so we, you know, I think we’re all over it,” said ‘Dr O’R’. Some participants in the study admitted they do not discuss their involvement in providing abortion services with family members or acquaintances. ‘Dr B’ stated: “I would say there’s very few people who would talk openly about the fact that they provide that service in a social setting because they just don’t know who’s there and what their view is going to be. And that’s actually a stigma, like, that is actually, you know, a stigma that you’re carrying.” The report by Marie O’Shea on abortion services in Ireland estimates that around 90pc of Irish GPs do not participate in offering these services. This new study suggests that even those who are involved may struggle to reconcile their ideological commitment with the realities they face in practice.

Arts funding in the United States is at a crossroads. After seeing a post on SMU DataArts' recent findings, I began looking into how public arts funding in the U.S. compares to other countries. By many measures, the U.S. spends the least on public arts funding as a percentage of GDP. This raises questions about how funding decisions reflect cultural priorities and the role of public investment in supporting the arts. Public funding for the arts in the U.S. is just 0.009% of GDP. Estonia, by comparison, spends 1.9%, the highest of any country in this analysis. Other nations like the United Kingdom, Brazil, and Japan also dedicate much more to arts funding. Here is a breakdown of the data: 1. USA (0.009% of GDP): Public spending is $2.28 billion, or about $6.83 per capita. This includes $207 million from the federal government, $971 million from state governments, and $1.1 billion from local governments.2. European Median (0.74% of GDP): Public spending is approximately $14.76 billion for a median GDP country, or about $246 per capita. If the U.S. allocated the same percentage of GDP, public arts funding would be $188.7 billion.3. United Kingdom (0.46% of GDP): Public spending is $14.72 billion, or about $218 per capita. If the U.S. allocated the same percentage of GDP, public arts funding would be $117.3 billion.4. Estonia (1.9% of GDP): Public spending is $0.893 billion, or about $671 per capita. If the U.S. allocated the same percentage of GDP, public arts funding would be $484.5 billion.5. Japan (0.12% of GDP): Public spending is $5.88 billion, or about $47 per capita. If the U.S. allocated the same percentage of GDP, public arts funding would be $30.6 billion.6. Brazil (0.6% of GDP): Public spending is approximately $12 billion, or about $57 per capita. If the U.S. allocated the same percentage of GDP, public arts funding would be $144 billion.7. Australia (0.13% of GDP): Public spending is approximately $1.3 billion, or about $51 per capita. If the U.S. allocated the same percentage of GDP, public arts funding would be $28.3 billion.8. China (0.5% of GDP): Public spending is approximately $70 billion, or about $50 per capita. If the U.S. allocated the same percentage of GDP, public arts funding would be $120 billion.[Sources: National Endowment for the Arts, NEA Federal Arts Budget (arts.gov); National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, State and Local Arts Budgets (nasaa-arts.org); Arts Council England, Funding Overview (artscouncil.org.uk); Eurostat, Culture Statistics (ec.europa.eu/eurostat); Japan Foundation, Cultural Investment (jpf.go.jp/e); Fundação Nacional de Artes (Funarte), Funding Allocations (funarte.gov.br); New Approach, Australia, Australian Arts Funding (newapproach.org.au); China Daily, Public Spending on the Arts (chinadaily.com.cn).] The U.S. relies heavily on private philanthropy to fund the arts. This has led to a vibrant and diverse arts ecosystem, but it also leaves many artists and institutions without stable support. Public funding can complement private contributions by providing a stronger foundation for the arts, ensuring broader access and stability. Europe’s investment shows what is possible when public dollars prioritize culture, while the U.S. represents the opposite extreme. Historically, programs like the Works Progress Administration (WPA) during the Great Depression demonstrated how public funding could support both artists and communities. However, controversies in the 1980s led to significant cuts in U.S. federal arts funding, making today’s system fragmented and unstable. As new debates on public arts funding emerge, there is an opportunity to rethink how the U.S. invests in the arts. A stronger commitment to public investment could help bridge the gap, providing better support for artists and ensuring that cultural resources are accessible. For more details read the full article on my Substack "Latent Views" here.

Advent: The Struggle and Beauty of Waiting This Advent season holds new meaning for our family. Right now, McKenna and I are in the hospital, praying and waiting for the hopeful arrival of our second daughter after McKenna’s water broke early. It’s not the kind of waiting we would have chosen, but it’s the kind we’ve been given. While sitting in the hospital chapel earlier this week, praying for McKenna, our daughter, and our little family, I noticed the Advent candles lit on the altar. Their glow caught my attention, and I was reminded that Advent is a season of waiting. Those candles represent hope, faith, joy, and peace—all the things we cling to when waiting feels heavy. In that quiet moment, I found a new perspective: this season of waiting isn’t without purpose. Advent is all about waiting—waiting for light in the darkness, waiting for hope in the midst of fear, waiting for promises to be fulfilled. For centuries, God’s people longed for the Savior, enduring pain, silence, and uncertainty as they trusted that God’s timing would not fail. Waiting isn’t easy. It’s uncomfortable, it’s uncertain, and it often feels like it stretches you beyond what you can handle. McKenna and I are living in that tension right now. We are waiting and praying for weeks to pass, for our little girl to grow stronger, and for the day we finally get to meet her. The waiting feels fragile, and some moments are heavier than others. But this is where Advent gives us hope. It reminds us that waiting is not wasted. In the waiting, God is present. In the waiting, He is preparing us for the joy that is to come. It’s in the waiting that we grow, even when it’s painful, because we learn to trust Him more deeply. Mary understood this kind of waiting. She carried the Savior of the world with fear, pain, and anticipation. She knew the struggle of waiting for a promise to unfold, and she also knew the overwhelming joy of its fulfillment. At Hard Faith, we believe in telling stories that face the brokenness of this world honestly, while pointing to the hope that never fails. Advent is a story like that. It’s a season that reminds us that our struggles, our fears, and even our pain have meaning because they’re held by a God who is faithful. This season, as McKenna and I wait for the birth of our second daughter, we’re leaning into that truth. We’re holding onto the promise that even in the tension, God is at work. And as we wait, we’re reminded that the joy of what’s to come will make every moment of uncertainty worth it. Wherever you are this Advent season—whether you’re waiting with hope, waiting with pain, or waiting with questions—may you know that God is with you. Emmanuel means “God with us,” and that promise is true no matter how long the waiting feels. Please keep us in your prayers during this season. Pray for McKenna’s strength, for our daughter’s health, and for peace as we trust God with the days and weeks ahead. Telling stories that liberate, Spencer Folmar

The Crisis of Modern Secularism One of the primary reasons modern society has dismissed the Christian worldview is the perceived disconnect between what it teaches and the realities of contemporary life. The Church’s assertion of offering a transcendent, universal truth often seems irreconcilable with the secular narratives ingrained through personal experience, societal norms, and the pervasive influence of modern media. In previous generations, much of what an individual knew and understood was shaped by their local community and the shared religious framework that, in the West, was predominantly Christianity. This close-knit environment provided a sense of stability and assurance, as people’s beliefs and values were largely aligned with those of their neighbors. However, advancements in technology — especially in communication, travel, and information — have fundamentally reshaped this dynamic. The modern individual is now inundated with an overwhelming influx of ideas and perspectives from across the globe, creating a kind of information overload. This unprecedented exposure has profoundly challenged the shared certainties of the past. As modern individuals encounter competing ideologies and gain direct knowledge of people once considered enemies, they discover that these individuals, their beliefs, and their practices are not as foreign or unreasonable as previous generations may have assumed. Confronted with this complexity, a modern person often feels compelled to choose between two equally troubling paths: either accept all perspectives as equally valid, leading to relativism and a rejection of absolute truth, or dismiss all perspectives entirely, turning instead to secularism and scientific materialism. The latter path is particularly alluring in an age where scientific advancements offer tangible and consistent results, making them appear as the only stable and reliable source of truth. In contrast, religious practices — once central to human life — are increasingly viewed as psychological crutches for those unable to adapt to modernity. With no immediate or measurable outcomes, these spiritual acts are often dismissed as relics of a superstitious past, tools designed to comfort the fearful and uncertain rather than genuine connections to a transcendent reality. The Church is frequently regarded as an archaic institution, steadfastly adhering to rituals and doctrines that many deem irrelevant in an age of rapid progress and innovation. Whether immersed in material abundance — manicured lawns, pristine homes, technological conveniences, and curated lifestyles — or striving for the perceived attainability of these comforts, which are presented as normative in modern culture, people often question the Church’s focus on sin, grace, and redemption. The false promise of stability and fulfillment offered by modern life obscures the deeper existential struggles that Christian teachings aim to address, leading many to dismiss the Church as a relic of an unenlightened past, incapable of addressing the complexities of a progressive, globalized society.Desensitized and Disoriented In contemporary society, media plays a paradoxical role in shaping our perceptions of suffering, negativity, and normalcy. Its relentless portrayals of violence and tragedy desensitize us, leaving many emotionally unmoved by real suffering. At the same time, it inundates us with advertisements and entertainment programs that depict idyllic lifestyles and curated images of happiness, fostering false expectations of what is normal and achievable. Together, these extremes distort our understanding of life’s true nature, numbing us to its harsher realities and trivializing genuine struggles. These programs and cultural influences not only normalize destructive behaviors but also perpetuate the illusion that individuals are inherently entitled to material prosperity and unassailable self-esteem, irrespective of moral conduct. Additionally, they promulgate the erroneous belief that negative outcomes are aberrations and fictions rather than inherent aspects of the human condition. For decades, this distorted paradigm has led many to misdiagnose the root of their struggles, attributing them to flaws in their mindset rather than deficiencies in their actions. Society repeatedly advances the narrative that the remedy lies in cultivating greater self-love, heightened self-esteem, and unconditional self-forgiveness. In pursuit of such ideals, countless individuals have turned to modern self-help philosophies, aspiring to attain personal enlightenment and alleviate the existential dread that permeates their inner lives. Yet, no amount of positive affirmation or meditative practice can fully dispel the profound guilt, shame, and existential darkness that reside in the depths of the human soul. Upon deeper introspection, many individuals recognize that feelings of inadequacy and despair are not as unfounded as modern thought leaders often claim. Life’s inherent fragility reveals itself in the stark reality that failure and collapse often come far more easily than success. Countless variables beyond our control can unravel, leaving us powerless to alter their course, while moments of serendipity remain exceedingly rare. Achieving anything truly meaningful requires focus, determination, and a considerable amount of hard work. Failure, on the other hand, takes no effort — it happens simply by letting things fall apart. This dynamic extends to the moral and spiritual realm. Moral compromise often presents itself as the path of least resistance, offering immediate gratification, while sacrifice and the pursuit of holiness demand discipline and fortitude that can feel nearly impossible to sustain. Modern society has exacerbated this tension by promoting the belief that success is an entitlement, irrespective of one’s efforts. This entitlement mindset has led many to harbor resentment — toward life, toward others, and even toward whatever they perceive as their creator. For those who still cling to false hopes, this resentment often feeds into a cycle of compromise that unknowingly breeds greater failure, anxiety, and despair. Even for individuals striving to lead virtuous lives, small moral compromises or missteps often masquerade as moments of respite, offering temporary relief from the unrelenting struggles of life, both internal and external. Yet this reprieve is fleeting, ultimately compounding the weight of the burdens they seek to escape.The Gnostic and Modern Understanding of Suffering This dual crisis — of relativism on one hand and secular reductionism on the other — has parallels to challenges faced in early Christianity. Gnosticism arose among certain early Christians who, while acknowledging the divinity of Christ, struggled to reconcile His teachings with their understanding of the God of the Old Testament. Confronted with the undeniable suffering and brutality present in the world, Gnosticism proposed an alternative theological framework: the material world was intrinsically evil, the creation of a lesser or malevolent deity, and salvation could only be attained through esoteric, hidden knowledge accessible to a select few. For the Gnostics, the stark realities of the natural world — cycles of predation, decay, and suffering — were evidence of its inherent evil. A striking example can be found on Fernandina Island, part of the Galápagos archipelago, where thousands of racer snakes lie in wait each year to ambush newly hatched marine iguanas. The hatchlings, guided by instinct, attempt to make their way to the safety of the shore, but many do not survive the journey, relentlessly pursued by waves of snakes in a grim display of predatory efficiency. Such brutal scenes seem to reflect the disorder and cruelty Gnosticism associated with the material world. In contrast, Modern secularist’s tendency to romanticize creation often leads to a selective focus on its beauty and a purposeful ignorance of its brutality. This sentimentality obscures the harsher realities of nature’s unforgiving side, such as the raw spectacle on Fernandina Island, which disrupts idyllic views of the natural world. Yet this evasion of reality extends beyond how we perceive nature. Just as the modernist glosses over the violence of the wild, so too do they seek to deny or escape their own suffering. Pain, loss, and existential uncertainty are anesthetized through layers of distractions — endless entertainment, consumer comforts, and, most prominently, medications and therapies that promise relief. These means, while often necessary and beneficial, can also serve to mask the deeper, unavoidable struggles of human existence.The Christian Understanding of Suffering The Christian worldview, in contrast to both, provides a profound and cohesive understanding of creation’s suffering. While it acknowledges the fallenness of the world, it also proclaims that creation retains its inherent goodness and purpose. The suffering inherent in creation is not evidence of its inherent evil but a reflection of humanity’s sin and its far-reaching consequences. As stewards of creation, humanity’s rebellion against God introduced disorder into both the moral and natural orders, leading to the predation, decay, and death we observe today. Far from being a sign of divine cruelty, such suffering underscores the interconnectedness of humanity and creation. St. Paul speaks to this in his letter to the Romans: “For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God… in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay” (Romans 8:19–21). The suffering of the Cross stands at the heart of Christ’s redemptive work, revealing the depth of God’s love for a broken world. On the Cross, the full weight of cosmic disorder and estrangement from God was borne by Christ, embracing pain and rejection to bring about reconciliation and renewal. Far from being merely a symbol of human suffering, the Cross is the ultimate expression of divine love, where God confronted the brokenness of creation. Through this redemptive moment, suffering itself is can be transformed into a pathway for renewal.A Groaning Creation and the Hope of the Christian Worldview While Gnosticism saw creation as irredeemable and modern secularism often ignores or trivializes its harsher realities, the Christian worldview offers a more integrated and redemptive vision. Rather than retreating into sentimentality or denial, Christianity confronts creation’s suffering with honesty, affirming both its disorder through sin and its enduring goodness as God’s handiwork. The Christian worldview, when properly understood, addresses both the complexities of human experience and the profound truths of divine revelation — a reality that even many Christians struggle to fully comprehend. Within this framework, God’s omniscience encompasses the unfolding of events within His providential plan, yet humanity’s sinful nature profoundly shapes the outcomes of our reality. Sin’s effects extend beyond personal or societal consequences, reverberating throughout creation and introducing cosmic disorder. These outcomes are not arbitrary decrees of a wrathful Creator but the inevitable consequences of humanity’s departure from divine harmony. Modern cultural forces, however, obscure this truth. By minimizing the reality of sin and suffering or distorting them through narratives of self-sufficiency and superficial solutions, society prevents individuals from confronting their need for divine grace. This misunderstanding often leads to a view of God as either wrathful or irrelevant, driven by a lack of theological depth and engagement with tradition, Scripture, and Christological catechesis. Yet, the Christian worldview reveals a God who is neither indifferent nor cruel but profoundly merciful, actively guiding humanity and all creation toward ultimate redemption. Central to this redemptive vision is the Incarnation, where God, in His infinite love, entered the very fabric of the created reality. God, in a profound paradox, both offered His Son for our sake and simultaneously entered fully into human suffering, bearing the weight of sin and disorder not only for humanity but for all creation. Through His Passion, death, and resurrection, Christ affirmed the inherent goodness of the created world, transforming suffering into a means of redemption and renewal. This act of self-giving love reveals a divine mercy and compassion that transcend human understanding, offering hope and restoration to all of creation. Far from divine cruelty, creation’s groaning reminds us of humanity’s estrangement from God and the hope of restoration. This suffering reveals not the absence of God’s goodness but the consequences of humanity’s rejection of His love, disrupting both the moral and natural orders and creating dissonance across creation.Conclusion The Christian worldview calls humanity to confront these realities with honesty, recognizing the profound need for salvation and repentance of sins. Through Christ’s death and resurrection, the path to reconciliation with God and the gift of eternal life are made available to all who respond in faith and seek to live according to His teachings. This message of hope transcends the illusions propagated by cultural forces, offering true transformation through the redemptive power of divine grace. Moreover, the Christian vision extends beyond humanity to encompass all of creation. The groaning of the natural world, visible in predation, decay, and natural disasters, is not meaningless but part of a larger story of renewal. Through Christ, creation itself is invited to share in the hope of redemption. This promise is not abstract but concrete, culminating in the ultimate restoration of all things, as foretold in Isaiah’s vision: “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb” (Isaiah 11:6) and the revelation that one day, all things will be made new (Revelation 21:5). Embracing the Christian worldview calls humanity to transcend modern distortions — denial, desensitization, or despair — through a transformative recognition of our brokenness and dependence on divine grace. In Christ, we discover the ultimate source of meaning, healing, and restoration — not only for humanity but for all of creation. Through Him, what was once broken will be made whole, and the groaning of the world will give way to the glory of a renewed cosmos united with its Creator.

Life sometimes presents us with strange choices. We might find ourselves deciding whether to act solely out of self-interest or to risk something dear for someone else’s sake. It’s the choice between leaving a game while we’re ahead or choosing to stay a little longer, braving the unknown to see how things might unfold. It’s the choice between pulling away from a friend or family member who seems to offer little immediate value and, instead, sticking by them through their darkest times, even if it costs us a measure of peace or personal growth. Prioritising oneself certainly has its merits, and rational calculation often seems the straightest path to a life of security and success. But I’ve learned, time and again, that my richest rewards—emotional and even financial—have come from taking a risk on another person. It could be a romantic partner, a family member with whom relations have been strained, or a friend whose struggles threaten to spill into your own life. To a person with a calculating mind, it might seem “practical” to cut people loose the instant they no longer bring value, or when keeping them close feels like a net loss. This approach may seem selfish, but over time, it is hardly self-serving. After all, it is in life’s roughest patches that you come to know the people around you. You see, with clear eyes, who’s on your side. Some of those you thought would stand by you were merely basking in your success, feeding off your shine while your life was at its peak. Others stay close only for the benefits of your wealth, reputation, or influence, always hedging their bets in the hope that you might someday be useful to them. These are often the first to disappear when things take a turn for the worse. And some go further still, delighting in your downfall and picking at the remains when you’re too weakened to hold them at bay. Yet there are others who never made grand gestures, who never sought recognition but instead quietly come forward, offering support when it’s needed most. Strangers, sometimes mere background figures in your life, unexpectedly step forward to become mainstays through their kindness. This pattern isn’t unique to you or me—it’s universal. People don’t expect others to save them or lift them out of darkness. Often, all they seek is someone willing to sit with them through it. The power of sticking around, of simply being there, is immense. Many of these people, written off by others, possess extraordinary potential: they’re intelligent, capable, and deeply kind. Even from a calculating point of view, to cut them out based solely on present value is, at best, shortsighted. Then there’s the arrogance that often follows this utilitarian mindset. Those who think a life built on cold calculations will yield the best outcomes look down on anyone unwilling to “cut their losses.” They see the ones who persist—those still emotionally invested in relationships or systems—as foolish, as naïve. But time has shown that these so-called emotional fools, the ones who refuse to turn their backs on others, often find success in unexpected places. It’s often these very “fools” who generate wealth, and it’s they who share it most freely with those who stayed by their side. These "emotional fools" recognize that life is not a ledger of gains and losses but a complex web of connections, each one building on the next. They understand that the person you help in their time of need may one day be the one to lift you up when you find yourself in a similar darkness. Relationships, built over time and hardship, become a kind of insurance against life’s uncertainties—a form of wealth no bank can hold. Those who cultivate this wealth know that loyalty and shared history are worth far more than the fleeting benefits of one-sided exchanges. They realise that, at the heart of a truly rich life, lies an interdependence that makes you stronger than the brazen independence of doing everything on your own. More than wealth, the social currency we trade in is trust. Trust is the invisible force that keeps our systems from unravelling. It is trust that keeps us confident our laws will protect us and that law enforcement will uphold justice. It’s trust that lets us go to sleep at night believing our money will not be worthless come morning. We trust our governments and institutions to act in good faith, despite the times they might falter, and we trust in the loyalty of our life partners. Our children place their wholehearted trust in us. And we extend trust whenever we lend or borrow, counting on the other party’s commitment to repay. We trust the hands that built our homes, though we likely never met the labourers who laid each brick or assembled the beams. We trust, too, in the community we live among—that society at large will uphold unspoken rules of decency. Without this trust, our world would be a fractured and fearful place, each of us living in guarded isolation, fearing the very systems and people who surround us. Trust, in the end, is what holds everything together—far more precious than gold, and often far more fragile. It builds reputation, and reputation, in turn, opens doors to life’s many opportunities and ventures. The more trust you earn, the more people want to align with you, work with you, and share in what you create. Companies that lose trust crumble swiftly, becoming irrelevant in the blink of an eye. The same is true for individuals. We often believe that the quality of what we buy affects our well-being and, by extension, our character. But it also works the other way. The structural integrity of a home is only as sound as the integrity of those who built it. A life is not self-made; it is shaped by the hands and hearts of others. I owe who I am to my family, my friends, and the countless acquaintances who have gambled on me, just as I have gambled on them. When your family trusts you to be a good son, husband, or brother, when your employer trusts you to work with honesty, and when your neighbour sees you as someone worth having around, people want to enter into partnerships and relationships with you. Are you trustworthy? If the answer is yes, the world will reward you. If the answer is no, what value do you truly have? What would the emotional fool say? Take a chance on someone, especially if they stood by you during your own turbulent times. Yes, it might cost you—time, peace of mind, or even money—to support a friend staring down bankruptcy or a family member battling depression. But life isn’t about winning the game and walking away with the biggest prize. It’s about earning trust that ensures you’re invited to keep playing, again and again. Each time you’re welcomed back to the table, you gain another chance to win. And whether you choose to stay or turn away, people don’t forget. How many people still want you at their table? What do you bring to it? Image source: The Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci.

The Christian Worldview: The Antidote to Modern Despair By MichaelNowThe Discipline Cascade By OctaveoctaveA Relationship is a Gamble, not an Investment By Sadhika PantAzerbaijan & Turkey Will Continue Committing Ethnic Cleansing Against Armenians By Taminad.CrittendenThe War Of Ideas By NumapepiThe Real Reason The Fed Lowered Interest Rates By ValueSide

One of the most tiresome types of individuals one encounters in life is the habitual cynic. Cynicism directed toward grand abstractions—such as governments, nations, or institutions—is nasty enough, often serving as a convenient excuse for inaction or self-pity. But there exists an even more insufferable variant: the cynic who takes a perverse delight in recasting every act of kindness, every expression of love, as little more than thinly veiled self-interest. For them, altruism is a charade, generosity a transaction, and affection a mere tool of manipulation. This kind of cynic does not merely question human motives; they gleefully eviscerate them, leaving no room for sincerity or selflessness to exist. Why are Young People Particularly Susceptible? Youth, with its characteristic restlessness and lack of experience, is peculiarly prone to cynicism. This is not because the young possess any special insight into human nature or society, but because cynicism offers an appealing shortcut to the illusion of sophistication. To sneer at ideals, to dismiss altruism as self-interest, and to frame love as a form of manipulation requires neither the effort of introspection nor the discipline of moral engagement. Cynicism flatters the young by allowing them to masquerade as world-weary sages, even when they lack the wisdom of age or the humility that comes with having lived through the trials and disappointments of life. For young people, cynicism often arises as a defensive posture. It shields them from the vulnerability that accompanies hope, the effort required to build meaningful relationships, and the risk of failure inherent in striving for noble goals. The cynicism of youth is, in many ways, a refusal to accept life's ambiguities. It demands that people and institutions either be entirely good or irredeemably corrupt, leaving no room for the messy, imperfect reality of human existence. To grow out of cynicism is to embrace the complexity of the world, to recognize that goodness and selfishness often coexist, and to accept that striving for virtue, however flawed the effort, is still infinitely preferable to surrendering to nihilism. Outgrowing cynicism, therefore, is a rite of passage essential to achieving maturity. To shed the armour of youthful cynicism and embrace life with all its uncertainties and imperfections requires courage—courage to hope, to trust, and to strive for meaning even in the face of inevitable setbacks. To cling to the cynicism of youth is an evasion of responsibility, a refusal to engage with the complexities of life, and an excuse to remain emotionally stunted. Such individuals, unable to move beyond their narrow, self-serving worldview, become embittered and alienated, trapped in a cycle of perpetual dissatisfaction. Moreover, overcoming cynicism requires an acceptance of gratitude—a deeply unfashionable sentiment in a culture that prizes individualism above all. Gratitude implies dependence on others, a recognition that we are not entirely self-made, and an acknowledgment that much of what we enjoy in life is the result of sacrifices made by those who came before us. Cynicism as Intellectual Posturing The cynic often cloaks their disdain in the guise of intellectual superiority. They present their cynicism as a mark of wisdom, an indication that they have seen through the illusions that ensnare the naive. For instance, if someone donates to charity, the cynic is quick to sneer that the act is not altruistic but a form of self-aggrandizement—a way to appear virtuous in the eyes of others or, at best, a salve for guilt. It is far easier to dismiss goodness as an illusion than to grapple with the uncomfortable truth that human beings, flawed as they are, are nonetheless capable of acts of genuine decency. For the cynic, the world is simpler when painted in shades of malice and self-serving ambition, for it absolves them of the need to participate in its betterment. They become spectators to life, sneering from the sidelines, content in their imagined superiority over the “naïve” individuals who dare to hope or care. Consider also the cynic’s treatment of love. When a husband surprises his wife with flowers or a carefully prepared meal, the cynic sees not romance but a calculated attempt to placate her after some imagined transgression. Parental love, too, is not spared their scorn. They will argue, with smug certitude, that parents care for their children not out of selflessness but because they seek to mold extensions of their own egos—miniature replicas who will carry on their name and validate their existence. Such arguments, seductive in their simplicity, betray a deep misunderstanding of human nature. It is tempting to see cynics as sharp-eyed realists, as individuals who have pierced the veil of illusion to uncover the grim truths of human behaviour. But this, I believe, is giving them far too much credit. Cynicism requires no bravery, no effort, and certainly no insight. It is the intellectual equivalent of pulling down a house of cards and declaring oneself a master architect. To see goodness in the world, on the other hand, requires courage—the courage to put something at stake, to risk disappointment, and to admit that even flawed human beings are capable of moments of grace. The Death of Wonder Perhaps the greatest tragedy of cynicism is its destruction of wonder. The cynic cannot see a small act of kindness without interrogating its motives, nor a moment of beauty without questioning its authenticity. This mindset robs life of its mystery and joy, replacing it with a grim determinism in which everything is reduced to power, advantage, or self-interest. Consider the case of a man who stops to help a stranger whose car has broken down by the roadside. To most people, this is a simple act of decency, a fleeting but meaningful connection between two strangers. Yet the cynic sees only a transaction: perhaps the man hopes for a reward, or perhaps he desires the praise of onlookers. By denying the possibility of selflessness, the cynic diminishes not only the helper but also the humanity of the stranger and the potential for goodness in the world. Cynicism is a Luxury Finally, cynicism is a luxury afforded only to decadent societies, a prerogative of those fortunate enough to have their basic needs met by others. In times of hardship, when survival depends on mutual aid and shared values, cynicism has no place. It is in affluent, comfortable societies where the struggle for survival has receded into memory, where material abundance allows the luxury of disengagement from the obligations that bind human beings to one another. This is where cynicism thrives, as individuals lose touch with the realities of human interdependence. Only a man who has never worried about his next meal or the roof over his head can afford the detachment required to sneer at the ideals of duty, sacrifice, and mutual aid. In harsher times, when existence itself demanded constant vigilance and labour, cynicism would have been not merely impractical but dangerous. A farmer who doubted the worth of his neighbour's promise to assist in times of drought, or a hunter who scoffed at the necessity of sharing his catch with his tribe, would soon find himself isolated, perhaps even dead. These individuals have neither the time nor the inclination for cynicism. They know that human fallibility is not a reason to despair but a reality to navigate with grace and resilience. Cynicism is, in this sense, a symptom of decadence—a way of turning one's back on the moral framework that made such comfort possible. The Erosion of Responsibility To be grateful is to admit that we owe something to those who have helped us, and this admission carries with it the responsibility to repay kindness with kindness. The cynic, however, evades this responsibility by denying the sincerity of the favours he receives. He dismisses the nation’s promise, the philanthropist's gift, the teacher's dedication, his parents’ love, his friend’s help—not because these acts are without flaw, but because he has the leisure to dwell on their imperfections without needing to participate in any alternative effort to improve the world. It is a stance that absolves him of responsibility while cloaking itself in the guise of intellectual superiority. Consider the case of the cynic who benefits from the generosity of a colleague. Instead of offering thanks, he attributes the act to a desire for future leverage or social approval. In doing so, he not only demeans the giver but also exempts himself from any reciprocal obligation. Why should he return the favour when it was, in his estimation, never truly given in the first place? Cynicism thus becomes a convenient tool for the selfish. In the realm of family, this attitude is particularly corrosive. To the cynic, obligations to family and friends are mere social constructs, imposed by tradition and maintained by convenience. He frames them as burdens rather than bonds, chains rather than choices. Freed by his cynicism from the need to reciprocate, he reduces his relationships to transactional arrangements, to be dissolved the moment they no longer serve his interests. The cynic who dismisses his parents' sacrifices as mere duty or self-interest robs those sacrifices of their meaning. He reframes the sleepless nights, the financial struggles, and the endless worry as acts performed not out of love but out of obligation—or worse, for the parents' own emotional gratification. The False Freedom of Cynicism In the end, the cynic’s detachment comes at a high price. He gains the illusion of superiority but loses the warmth of connection. Most tragically, he isolates himself from the very relationships that could have given his life depth and purpose. Cynicism promises a kind of freedom—a liberation from the messiness of human relationships, from the vulnerabilities of gratitude, and from the demands of reciprocity. But this freedom is illusory. For while cynicism may be a luxury, it is one that impoverishes the soul, leaving its adherents rich in self-regard but destitute in all that truly matters. Modern culture, with its emphasis on irony and detachment, has elevated cynicism to a kind of intellectual virtue. It is now fashionable to sneer rather than believe, to mock rather than admire. In the end, the cynic’s greatest error is not their skepticism but their certainty—their unwavering belief that they have uncovered the hidden motives behind every act of decency. In their haste to unmask the hypocrisy of others, they reveal only their own inability to see the world as it truly is: flawed, yes, but also filled with moments of genuine kindness, love, and beauty. And if that is not worth believing in, then what, I ask, is? It is clear to me now that, owing to my unbounded vanity and to the high standard I set for myself, I often looked at myself with furious discontent, which verged on loathing, and so I inwardly attributed the same feeling to everyone. I hated my face, for instance: I thought it disgusting, and even suspected that there was something base in my expression, and so every day when I turned up at the office I tried to behave as independently as possible, and to assume a lofty expression, so that I might not be suspected of being abject. "My face may be ugly," I thought, "but let it be lofty, expressive, and, above all, EXTREMELY intelligent." - Fyodor Dostoevsky, Notes from Underground. Image Source: Naked (1993)

Ideas On Evolution Posted on December 27, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, evolution could be either random, or by some guiding design. Creationists call it intelligent design. That God designs everything. Meanwhile evolutionists believe in random selection. Evolutionists claim that if you take the components of a three hundred day clock, and throw them into a bin enough times and shake the bin, eventually they will self assemble into a clock. Others have more nuanced views. I’m pretty certain, no matter how many times someone throws components into a bin, a clock will never come out. Though, I have no problem with God designing everything. Even as a deist might believe in some blending of evolution and intelligent design. A clockwork God building a self assembling and evolving clock. Although there may be a better answer yet. What if Rupert Sheldrake’s controversial Morphic fields exist? I’m no expert on Morphic fields, or anything else for that matter, but my understanding of them is… each species has a morphic field that guides their body design. The design for an ant, isn’t in the ant’s DNA, but resident in the ant’s morphic field. The DNA is the progenitor of the proteins necessary to keep an ant alive. In the same way the morphic field of a human being, designates where our eyes, ears, nose and feet will be. Sheldrake often cites the tested theory, if a rat in London learns a new thing, rats of the same kind elsewhere will learn that thing faster than they otherwise would have. Apparently he claims this ability applies to other species as well. How’s this done? Because learning adds to the map of the morphic field. Further, what if the Morphic fields are guided by the species collective unconscious? Jung had a theory of the “collective unconscious.” In it he claimed that there is a human collective unconscious where archetypes, trauma and concepts exist. Available to us all on a subconscious level. A kind of id that spans humanity. Like Sheldrake’s morphic field. What if Jung’s collective unconscious is a form of field? Moreover that field interacts with the morphic field? Or is a different terminology for the same phenomenon? If any of these possibilities are true… it opens a whole area of potential. Especially in the area of evolution. Because, if there is evolution, it’s unlikely to be random, but if not guided by the hand of God directly… what about indirectly? By each species morphic field/collective unconscious? Take the Panda for example. Giant Pandas are omnivores… yet they only eat bamboo. Which barely sustains them. It could be some artifact of their taste buds that bamboo is the most delicious thing imaginable to them. So they would starve before eating something else. Or, there’s a method to their madness. Perhaps, the panda collective unconscious has looked ahead, and predicts bamboo will become a climax species in the near future. (In a million years or so). So hypothetically, the panda collective has decided to force itself to evolve, to eat the plant they anticipate will be a primary food source in the future. Getting a head start on everything else. While this is pure a priori conjecture, it fits the observed world. Though this hypothesis seems difficult to falsify by experiment. Evolution then would be intentional. The intentional evolution to stay environmentally relevant by each species collective unconscious, mapped onto their morphic field and DNA. The Panda is seeking to generate the proteins needed to efficiently digest bamboo leaves. So in the future it has access to unlimited food. Else the panda may simply love the taste of bamboo leaves over any other leaf, vegetable or meat. There’s probably some merit to Jung’s idea of the collective unconscious. Plus, Sheldrake’s morphic field is an elegant answer to the question of where is species design stored? Though being elegant doesn’t make them right. Yet these ideas commingle to make a fathomable concept of how evolution could work, outside the point of view of the strictly atheist, and religious. Sincerely, John Pepin

Recently a friend questioned the need to go to church. He felt like he was being brainwashed and guilt-tripped by corrupt pastors. This was me response to him. I think it could be useful for others as well: Historically the tradition of Sunday church attendance has deep roots in Christian practice, dating back to the earliest days of the Church. It's not merely about "indoctrination," but about community, shared worship, and spiritual growth. But I acknowledge that the way this tradition is sometimes enforced or communicated can feel oppressive to some individuals. The guilt you're experiencing is likely a result of what we call "social norms" and "cognitive dissonance." People around you have internalized church attendance as a moral imperative, and when they see someone not conforming to this norm, it creates discomfort, which they may express through attempts to influence your behavior(Francis et al., 2010, pp. 821–827). Research has shown different psychological motivations for church attendance among different personality types. For instance, studies have found that extraverts tend to have higher scores on measures of extrinsic religiosity (attending church for social or external reasons), while introverts score higher on intrinsic religiosity (a more personal, internalized faith)(Francis et al., 2010, pp. 821–827). Your preference for a quiet Sunday at home could be related to your personality type and how you best connect with your spirituality. But I would caution against dismissing all religious practice as "brainwashing" or "emotional manipulation." While there are instances of manipulation in some religious contexts, for many people, religious practice provides genuine meaning, comfort, and a sense of community(Francis & Hermans, 2010). The psychological benefits of religious involvement have been documented in numerous studies. That being said, your feelings are valid, and no one should be made to feel guilty for how they choose to spend their personal time. If you find spiritual fulfillment in quiet reflection, reading, or other activities, that's perfectly valid. The key is to find what genuinely nourishes your spirit and contributes to your well-being. I would encourage you to explore the rich traditions and diverse expressions of faith that exist beyond the specific church experiences you've had. I would suggest examining why this pressure affects you so deeply and perhaps having open, honest conversations with those around you about your feelings and beliefs. Remember, spirituality is a deeply personal journey. While community can be an important part of that journey for many, it's not the only path. The most important thing is to cultivate a genuine, authentic relationship with the divine (or whatever you consider sacred) in a way that resonates with you personally. The goal of any spiritual practice should be personal growth, ethical living, and connection to something greater than ourselves - not conformity to social expectations or fear-based compliance. If you're achieving these goals through your current practices, then you have every right to feel confident in your choices. --- **Bibliography:** Francis, L., & Hermans, C. (2010). Article Title: Psychological health and attitude toward Christianity: a study among pupils attending Catholic schools in the Netherlands. Year of publication: 2009 Link to published version: http://203.10.46.30/ren/wil01.htm Publisher statement: None Psychological health and attitude toward Christia. Francis, L., Robbins, M., & Murray, L. (2010). Psychological type and religious orientation: do introverts and extraverts go to church for different reasons? Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 13, 821–827. Ökse, T. (2021). ESKİ İNSANIN DUYGULARININ ARKEOLOJİK VERİLERE VE YAZILI BELGELERE YANSIMASI. Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi Arkeoloji Dergisi. Sardana, S., Marcus, M., & Verdeli, H. (2016). Narratives of Violence, Pathology, and Empowerment: Mental Health Needs Assessment of Home-Based Female Sex Workers in Rural India. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 72 8, 827–838. Welkom, J. S., Cohen, L., Joffe, N. E., & Bearden, D. (2015). Running head : PREPARATION AND MANGEMENT Psychological Approaches to Acute Pediatric Pain Management. Wingrove, C., & Alston, J. (1974). Cohort Analysis of Church Attendance, 1939–69. Social Forces, 53, 324–331.

Update Friday Jan 10, 5:15 pm Pacific 🚨 Bug Fix Update! 🐛✔️Good news! A bug fix was implemented earlier today, and after testing, the thinkspot team believes that pesky bug is officially squashed! 🥳 🙏 We truly appreciate your patience as we worked through this. If you’re still experiencing any issues, please don’t hesitate to email us at support@thinkspot.com 💌 Thank you for being part of our community! ❤️ Update: Thurs. Jan 9, noon Pacific. Some accounts fixed. Still working on a complete fix. Thurs. Jan 9, 9 am Pacific. Ts Support is aware that the "WRITE" button is not working correctly. "Reply" button is also apparently not working correctly (It's displaying the subscription pop-up). Hang in there, we're working on it and will update you asap.

The question of whether artificial intelligence might one day produce literature worthy of comparison to the masterpieces of the literary canon has, begrudgingly, become one worth asking. There is no denying that tools like ChatGPT, whose facility for mimicry and adherence to the formal mechanics of prose are nothing short of extraordinary. Yet, these tools—ingenious as they are—suffer from an incapacity: a detachment from the human condition. Their limitation is rooted in their immunity to privation, which, as I shall argue, is essential to the creation of literary works. Privation as a Prerequisite for Creativity Great literature emerges not merely from a mastery of language but from the writer’s engagement with the elemental struggles of existence. Privation—whether it be material, emotional, or existential—infuses literature with its vitality. It is the aching solitude of TS Eliot’s The Waste Land, the moral torment of Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, or the quiet yearning for redemption in Steinbeck’s East of Eden tragedies that transforms ink on paper into a mirror held up to human suffering. This privation is not incidental to the creative process but intrinsic to it. An AI, by contrast, is untouched by the vicissitudes of existence. It has no childhood to recall with nostalgia or regret, no love to pine for or lose, no fear of death to brood upon in the quiet watches of the night. It does not grapple with the indignities of aging or the pangs of conscience. These are not minor inconveniences of human life but its very marrow that informs our art. To write, as the greats have written, is to impose order on chaos, to distill meaning from the welter of lived experience. What meaning can an AI distill, when it has no experience to speak of, no chaos to confront? This is not to say that AI cannot produce prose of technical quality. It can mimic the rhythms of Shakespearean verse or the cadences of Hemingway's spare prose. It can analyse patterns in a corpus of literary works and generate passages that superficially resemble their inspirations. But such mimicry is mere ventriloquy. When one encounters, for example, the works of Tolstoy, one is not merely reading a narrative but entering a moral universe, one wrought from Tolstoy's own agonizing struggle with questions of faith, morality, and human purpose. Can a machine that knows nothing of moral failure or spiritual longing recreate that universe? The Contribution of the Reader Consider, too, the act of reading. Literature is a dialogue between author and reader, a transaction in which the reader brings their own sensibility, formed by privation and experience, to meet the author's. The works of the canon endure because they resonate with truths that transcend their time and place. To read Jane Austen is to recognize the social ironies that persist in any human interaction; to read Orwell is to confront the timeless tension between power and liberty. Can an AI, which neither laughs nor weeps, apprehend such truths deeply enough to encode them in its creations? It can only approximate, never embody, the human insight required. It is tempting to imagine that, with sufficient data and computational power, an AI could achieve parity with human creativity. But this presupposes that art is merely a problem of input and output, a matter of arranging words in the most effective pattern. It ignores the reality that great literature is not a product but a process—a process shaped by suffering, reflection, and transcendence. AI, for all its technical prowess, is incapable of participating in this process. Creation as a Means of Confronting Chaos Creation, in the literary sense, is an act of rebellion against the void, a defiant assertion of meaning in the face of chaos. An AI does not rebel because it has no void to confront. It does not defy because it has nothing to assert. It operates within parameters, executing its programming without error or hesitation. It is, in this sense, the antithesis of the artist, who is defined not by perfection but by their flawed and striving humanity. The modern impulse is to reduce everything to a problem of efficiency—whether it’s the body, the mind, or the art of writing. We have learned to regard complexity as something to be avoided, something that hinders progress. This is where AI excels. It can mimic, replicate, and optimize, but it can never understand the subtlety, the nuance, or the dark complexity of human experience. To reduce literature to a formula is to strip it of its soul. Literature is an exploration, not an exercise in optimization. It is the product of an author’s wrestle with the ineffable, with the chaos of the human condition. The Unpredictability of Genius If genius could be systematized, if it could be reduced to a series of algorithms, then all we would need to do is input the right data, and a new Shakespeare would emerge. Yet, we know that genius is not so predictable. It is an accident of nature, culture, and personal history. Who, for instance, could have foreseen the thunderous grandeur of Paradise Lost or or the raw, brutal honesty of The Brothers Karamazov? Genius often bursts forth from a collision of conflicting ideas and experiences that no machine can predict. Machines can mimic style, but they cannot predict the moment of insight, the leap of thought, or the crack in the human spirit that makes literature great. They cannot take us to those dark places where we encounter the raw truths of our existence. The Dangers of Artistic Homogenization AI operates within parameters, and it can only write within the limits of the data it has been fed. In this way, it risks homogenizing literature, flattening the diversity of human thought and creativity into a uniform product. Real literature, on the other hand, thrives on innovation and subversion. Consider how Dante’s Divine Comedy reshaped the boundaries of epic poetry. Such authors did not simply follow established patterns; they created new ways of seeing the world. AI may imitate, but it cannot innovate. The danger is that we might begin to mistake its perfectly constructed sentences for true artistry, and in doing so, we would lose the very thing that makes literature a living, evolving art form. To entrust creative endeavours to AI is to plant the seeds of their eventual sterility, for AI is an inherently parasitic entity, feeding upon what has already been written, which, though vast, is ultimately finite. True creativity emerges from the chaos of human experience and imposes a fragile order upon it, transforming confusion into meaning. AI, however, operates only within pre-existing patterns, rearranging the orderly fragments it has been given into permutations that may dazzle but cannot transcend. It does not transform chaos into order; it merely rearranges order into another order. In surrendering our creative efforts to such a mechanism, we risk reducing art to a sterile exercise in imitation, a shallow echo of past glories, until the endeavour itself withers into irrelevance. No, literature is best left to those who have walked through the fire of privation, emerged scarred but resolute, and dared to set their vision of the human condition to paper. For it is only through privation that one may glimpse the sublime, and only through suffering that one may truly create. Image Source: Troy (2004)

This publication has a history of calling out disinformation and lies from one of the USA’s biggest think tanks: the center-left Brookings Institution and in particular its affiliated “Lawfare” Institute. Apparently, the center left pundits there are still hallucinating about violence on January 6, 2021, when Trump supporters protested all the ways that the Democratic Party has weakened America’s voting & election systems in ways both real (eradicating the secret ballot through mail-in voting) and also their own rightwing hallucinations (hacked election systems). America’s progressive left continues to try to label the January 6 protestors’ actions a so-called “insurrection” despite the fact that those protestors are a bunch of gun rights 2nd Amendment supporters who did not bring any…ZERO…firearms to their protest. America’s progressive left is under such deep hallucination about the equally hallucinatory rightwing January 6 protests that perhaps the most important center left think tank in the nation’s capital city of Washington D.C., the Brookings Institution, to this day continues to repeat disinformation lies about the January 6 protests. “After January 6, some pundits were confused. How could a group of people who claim to Back the Blue also kill and maim law enforcement officers?” — Jessica Pishko, Lawfare Institute guest She said this as if it were a fact, when in reality no officers were killed or maimed. Not a single one! just a nice image for this article The one officer who died on January 6, died of natural causes, not because of any protestor actions! Some officers suffered traumatic brain injuries, but that is not maiming.Lawfare Institute Refuses to Ask: Who Started the Jan 6 Violence? The American progressive left’s insistence on ignoring their own history of supporting violence while exaggerating their political opponents’ violence, especially on January 6, 2021, is reflected in how the Lawfare Institute reacted to the Department of Justice Inspector General’s report about how the FBI handled January 6. In that whole podcast episode, none of the Lawfare Institute commentators ask the critical question: Who started it? Who started the violence? Who started illegal activities? Did any of the FBI’s 26 Confidential Human Sources (CHSs) start any of the violence or illegal actions? What about the potential for CHSs from other agencies or departments potentially having been in the crowd, and potentially having started any of the violence or illegal activity? The Lawfare Institute pundits completely ignore these questions, which are the most important questions. The fact that these are the most important questions is illustrated by the dispute between Ray Epps and Fox News over Tucker Carlson’s allegations that Ray Epps might have been a fed in some way. Democratic nations should not want their government using undercover operatives (whether official agents, or unofficial informants) escalating violence. Democratic nations should not want their governments to behave like the Algerian government, whose undercover operatives in Islamic jihadist groups allegedly escalated those groups’ violence. One could suppose that the Lawfare Institute does not want to bring further discredit upon the Department of Justice (which the FBI is under) should it be discovered that any undercover operatives, whether agents or confidential human sources, did in fact initiate violence or illegal actions. just another nice image for this article One could also suppose that the Lawfare Institute, as a leftwing institution, does not want to bring further discredit upon other leftwing organizations should it be discovered that anyone who initiated violence on January 6 was a false flag plant like theoretically from Antifa. Undercover Operatives Should Not Start Violence No evidence has surfaced that progressive leftwing organizations may have leveraged their extensive experience committing violence to initiate more of it as fake right-wing activists. However, America’s progressive left is very open about how they are infiltrating rightwing organizations as undercover agents. “But recently, anti-fascist vigilantes have been going undercover to become members of white nationalist groups in order to conduct surveillance and gather information. They don’t inform the FBI or other law enforcement officers about potential threats. They leak the information.” — National Public Radio This Non-Violence publication applauds anyone for exposing and weakening organizations that actually are racist in reality.* There have been no signs that undercover operatives, whether federal agents, federal informants, or unofficial vigilantes, have started violence. As a democracy, however, we should continuously hold such undercover operations to account in order to ensure that they are not initiating violence. Even if they did not start any violence, reporters and pundits such as those at the Lawfare Institute have a democratic responsibility to ask whether they did in order to ensure that they did not. Rather than fulfill its democratic responsibility, the Lawfare Institute instead is not asking the hard questions, and is instead spreading false lying disinformation about the violence that did happen on January 6. For previous articles about disinformation lies from the Brookings Institution’s Lawfare Institute, see this article about the same January 6 lies, Lawfare bringing on serial liar Rachel Maddow spreading more lies, another famous Lawfare guest Lawrence Lessig lying about the 2000 Bush/Gore election, another guest lying about Israel, and this article about a European activist’s hypocritical hatred for America. _______________ Support Non-Violence writing by tipping me at Ko-Fi.com or by donating some Ethereum digital currency to this public address! 0x5ffe3e60a7f85a70147e800c37116b3ad97afd5e *Also, there is nothing wrong with joining another organization as an unofficial undercover vigilante at all, regardless of whether the targeted organizations are in reality racist or not. Such activists need to be willing to face the risks, though, whether legal or reputational.

One often hears of the virtues of moderation, that golden mean Aristotle so elegantly extolled and which common sense appears to confirm. To be neither excessive nor deficient, neither too daring nor too timid, seems to promise a harmonious existence—a life guided by reason rather than passion, by balance rather than frenzy. Yet, as is often the case with principles so universally praised, the closer one scrutinises this idea of “the middle,” the more elusive it becomes. An even stranger can of worms is opened when we attempt to elevate the middle as the ideal. For what is an ideal, if not an extreme? And if the middle is the highest goal, does it not cease to be the middle? If one were to strive for moderation with all one’s might, would one even be striving for moderation? Can one fanatically strive to be moderate? The question then becomes: Is there a middle way to being in the middle? This conundrum reveals much about the human condition. We are drawn to simplicity, to principles that can be neatly packaged into aphorisms or rules of thumb. "Be moderate in all things," we are told, as if moderation itself were a universal solution for the chaos of life. Not to mention, the middle is assumed to be a place of peace and calm, not unlike the eye of a storm. But it is not a place of rest; it is a place of tension, requiring constant vigilance and adjustment. One does not stand still in the middle; one balances, teetering between competing forces. Take, for instance, the realm of politics. To occupy the middle ground in an age of polarised extremes is too often hailed as a virtue. The centrist, we are told, avoids the dogmatism of the far right and the reactionary fervour of the radical left. I would like to believe that this is generally achieved. At least as long as the middle ground represents a genuine synthesis of opposing truths, and not a mere refuge of the cowardly and the indecisive. In the case of the latter, or if the middle shifts too much with the extremes, what once seemed a stable centre can become, over time, a position of quiet complicity in absurdity. The same can be said of personal virtues. Take courage, for example, which Aristotle famously located between the extremes of recklessness and cowardice. It is easy to admire courage in the abstract, but in practice, the boundary between courage and recklessness is not all that easy to draw, especially at the outset. A soldier who charges into battle may later be lauded as courageous or dismissed as foolhardy, depending not on the purity of his intention but on the outcome of his action. Perhaps, this is why parents usually teach young children virtues of courage, honesty or selflessness as abstract ideals rather than context-specific values. Nuance is learned through life-experience, not instruction, and parents hope that teaching only the blacks and whites to their children will help them, over time, to lean more towards the white in a world destined to gradually fade into greys. To attempt to teach the greys too soon is not only futile but denies the child the opportunity to establish a relationship with the ideal, to strive for progress, if not perfection. Perhaps this is why the middle, while rhetorically appealing, often fails to satisfy us emotionally. We admire the hero who charges headlong into danger, the ascetic who renounces all earthly pleasures, the rebel who defies convention—not because we believe their choices are necessarily wise, but because they embody a clarity and conviction that the middle rarely permits. The middle, by its nature, is ambivalent, nuanced, conditional. It resists the siren call of absolutes and therefore rarely inspires. And yet, the middle is indispensable. Civilisation itself can be seen as a collective endeavour to impose balance on the extremes of human nature. Without the middle, the pendulum of history would swing wildly from tyranny to anarchy, from asceticism to hedonism, from zealotry to nihilism. The middle may lack the glamour of extremes, but it is the ground upon which stability and progress are built. The challenge, then, is to embrace the middle without fetishizing it, to recognize its value without falling into the trap of treating it as an ideal. For the moment we declare the middle to be the ideal, we elevate it above the extremes, thereby rendering it an extreme in its own right. To live in the middle is to accept that there is no final resting place, no formula that will resolve all tensions. It is to engage perpetually in the art of adjustment, the practice of discernment, the pursuit of wisdom that can never be fully attained. In this sense, the middle is not a destination but a discipline. It requires humility, for one must admit that no extreme—whether of thought, action, or belief—can encompass the whole of truth. It requires courage, for to stand in the middle is to risk being misunderstood by those who prefer the clarity of extremes. And it requires patience, for the middle offers no easy answers, only the ongoing work of holding opposing forces in creative tension. Perhaps, then, the true virtue of the middle lies not in its being a point between extremes but in its refusal to be pinned down at all. The middle is not the absence of conviction but the presence of discernment; not the rejection of ideals but the recognition that all ideals, taken to their limits, become distorted. To live in the middle is to inhabit a paradox: to seek the ideal while understanding that the ideal is never static. And if this seems unsatisfying, even maddening—well, perhaps that is the point. The middle, like life itself, resists simplification. It demands that we engage with its complexities, not in the hope of resolving them but in the belief that the struggle itself is worthwhile. For in the end, the virtue of being in the middle is not that it is easy or comforting or even ideal. It is that it is often necessary.

Recent reports reveal that Washington state Democrats are considering a range of tax hikes to address a projected $12 billion budget shortfall over the next four years. A leaked email from State Senator Noel Frame (D-Seattle), a member of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, outlined several potential revenue options. The Washington State Standard report includes Frame’s slides and graphics, showcasing the marketing pitch lawmakers will use to justify taking more of your hard-earned money. Here are some of the key proposals currently under consideration: Taxes on Businesses: An employer payroll tax has been proposed to implement a tax on total compensation, including wages, salaries, and stock options. This tax increase could potentially affect ALL businesses, not just large corporations. Also proposed is an additional 1% B&O surcharge on the “largest” corporations. Of course, it would be easy during this session or another year to broaden the scope of this surcharge to include many more than the “largest” corporations. Taxes on the Wealthy: A wealth tax of 1% tax on financial intangible assets exceeding $50 million. Some examples of “intangible assets” would include stocks and bonds, mutual funds, cryptocurrency, certificates of deposit or money market funds. You may not hold these financial instruments, but your company’s pension fund probably does, so this isn’t just a “wealth tax.” Also under consideration, raising the existing capital gains tax to 9.9%. Capital gains usually apply to sales of stock or real estate. For example, this tax increase would likely reduce the income you might receive from the sale of your home, because nearly 10% of any profit will go straight to the government. Again, this isn’t just a “wealth tax.” Taxes on the Working Class: Worst tax idea of the session is a Property Tax Levy Cap Increase. The proposal would raise the cap on annual property tax increases from 1% to 3%. There’s also a proposed firearms and ammunition tax, which would Imposing an 11% tax on firearms, ammunition, and related parts. Then, there’s a Sales Tax on Storage Units: Reclassifying storage unit rentals as retail transactions, subjecting them to sales tax. These proposals aim to generate additional revenue to address the state's budget deficit and fund public services. However, they have sparked heated debate among lawmakers and constituents. Republicans argue the state has a spending problem, not a revenue problem, and warn of the economic fallout these taxes could bring. Villainizing "The Wealthy Few" Senator Frame has advised fellow Democrats to cast "The Wealthy Few" as the villains in this push for higher taxes. But the reality is that higher taxes on wealthier earners often incentivize them to leave the state entirely. Case in point: Jeff Bezos reportedly saved $1 billion in taxes by moving to Florida. When wealthy individuals leave, they take their tax dollars with them, leaving the rest of us to foot the bill for Olympia’s reckless spending. Meanwhile, taxes on businesses may sound appealing, but they’re a classic bait-and-switch. Business taxes are just hidden taxes on consumers. To stay afloat, businesses must pass tax costs onto customers through higher prices. If they don’t, they risk bankruptcy. Don’t let Democrats demonize business owners—large or small—as the villains. At the end of the day, you pay these taxes when prices go up. The Push for Higher Property Taxes Why would junior taxing districts want higher property taxes? Junior taxing districts—such as hospitals, fire departments, schools and libraries—rely heavily on property taxes for funding. With record-high inflation, employees in these sectors understandably expect wage increases to keep up with rising costs. Many public employers already include cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) of 3% or more. However, with property tax revenues capped at 1% annual growth, districts are struggling to meet payroll demands. That’s why they’re lobbying the Legislature to raise the levy cap from 1% to 3%. Property Taxes Have Already Increased Despite the levy cap, property taxes have already risen for two reasons: higher home values and Inflation. Home values are higher because a tight housing market has driven up home prices, leading to higher assessed values and, consequently, higher taxes. The next reason is inflation in construction costs. Skyrocketing costs for building materials, appliances, labor and other inputs have made new homes more expensive, which also raises property values (and taxes) across the board. In short, taxing districts are already collecting more revenue as property values climb. For example, in Pierce County, residential property values have increased 6%, which will impact the assessed taxes. A levy cap increase isn’t about fairness—it’s about squeezing even more from property owners. The Case Against Property Taxes Not only should the property tax levy cap remain at 1%, but I would argue property taxes should be abolished altogether. These districts should be funded in entirely different ways—not on the backs of property owners. Here are some key constitutional arguments against property taxes. Violation of Property Rights: Property taxes undermine private property rights. If taxes must be paid indefinitely, property is never fully owned by the individual. “Taking” Without Compensation: Property taxes can be seen as a form of government “taking” under the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits taking private property for public use without just compensation. Unequal Application: Property taxes disproportionately burden property owners compared to renters or those without property, potentially violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Don’t Fall for the Taxation Bait and Switch Washington Democrats are gearing up to push these tax increases in the upcoming legislative session. Don’t be fooled by their arguments that these taxes will only affect “the wealthy” or “big corporations.” The truth is, these costs impact to all of us—everyday consumers and property owners who already face the burden of rising prices and inflation. The problem in Olympia isn’t a lack of revenue; it’s a spending problem. Fortunately, you can “vote” against new tax proposals to raise taxes by submitting comments on new legislation and also by giving testimony in public hearings. Let’s hold our leaders accountable and demand responsible budgeting—not endless tax increases. Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington State, and the state committeewoman for the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on thinkspot, Rumble and Substack. Support Dangerous Rhetoric SOURCES: 1) Democratic state senator’s email reveals tax ideas WA lawmakers may debate, 12-23-24, Washington State Standard. https://bit.ly/3DF4I2S This source includes a powerpoint with talking points, and a graphic of the potential increases in taxes. 2) Rantz: After accidental leak of Democrat tax plans, will voters fall for the scheme?, 1-2-25, Jason Rantz, https://bit.ly/403S6d4 3) Bezos saves $1 billion in taxes after moving out of WA, 12-23-24, Jason Rantz on YouTube, https://bit.ly/4h5Ov5g 4) Washington Democrats leak $15 billion tax increase plans, 12-23-24, The Center Square, https://bit.ly/3PnGsVq 5) Residential property values increase six percent, 6-26-24, Pierce County WA, https://bit.ly/4j5LIdP