Why don’t things make sense?

The three posts came up sequentially at Lucianne.com, each one worth pondering. Irrational doesn’t quite capture it. The impulses in all three stories seem mad and inexplicable. I could say more, but nothing adds up. I can see what people do, but cannot see how any of it connects up with any kind of ends-and-means project visible to myself. Anyway, all this has been part of the latest news.

It´s all about hate and
bloodlust that´s never sated
National Post [Can], by Terry Glavin    Original Article
At least two of the suicide bombers had law degrees. Two were brothers from a wealthy Colombo family, one of whom attended university in the United Kingdom and earned a postgraduate degree in Australia. There were nine of them altogether, eight men and a woman. Most were “well-educated and come from (the) middle or upper-middle class,” Ruwan Wijewardene, Sri Lanka’s deputy defence minister, told reporters. There is still much to piece together from what happened on Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka, about why the authorities did not respond to specific and actionable intelligence about an imminent jihadist


Trump Opponents Never Tire of Losing
American Spectator, by David Catron    Original Article
For well over three years, Donald Trump has been under attack. He has been subjected to unprecedented slander by the media, dirty tricks by the Democrats, legally dubious investigations, and sabotage by the deep state. Yet he is not only still standing, he has a record of accomplishments that any president would be happy to claim after two years in office. One would think his opponents would be able to divine a message from this. To wit, their time might be better spent working on behalf of the voters rather than launching further futile attempts to bring Trump down.


What Would an ‘Open Borders’
World Actually Look Like?
The Nation, by John Washington    Original Article
In the summer of 1947, the British lord and lawyer Sir Cyril Radcliffe found himself in charge of the fate of a subcontinent. As the freshly appointed head of the Boundary Commission, he was tasked with dividing up the British India territories of Bengal and Punjab—and he had just a few weeks to complete the task. After three and a half centuries of brutal and exploitative involvement in the region, the last 90 years as official imperial overlord of the British Raj, the United Kingdom was officially abdicating colonial rule. Deeply in debt from two world wars,
This entry was posted in Philosophy. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Why don’t things make sense?

  1. Jonesy

    A more pertinent question…is a nation better off living under a tyrant?

  2. Chris M

    1. I slam is a demonically inspired mental disorder
    2. Rabid Trump haters have literally driven themselves insane
    3. I slamics need to be separated from people for mankind to survive (ref 1)

    Not so complicated.

  3. Ellen of Tasmania

    A different perspective – goes for about 16 mins.:

  4. duncanm

    Just one short quote from the ‘open borders’ article demonstrates the Gordian Knots that need to be tied:

    One logical way to begin dismantling the militarized borders of our nations is by expanding our conception of the sanctuary movement. .. the sanctuary movement should be a call that unites broad swaths of institutions and civil society to defend communities against all the agencies that threaten them

    Just how does a country defend people from aggressors without borders?

  5. Roger W

    The third article is an outline of how to turn the USA into Venezuela in about 12 months. It is interesting that these people actually get published, let alone supported.

  6. calli

    That was really interesting, Ellen.

    He says one third of the population. I think he’s being optimistic.

    “We don’t even know what the sides might be.”

  7. JohnJJJ

    There is an interesting article on Jihadis by Mateen Elass https://mateenelass.wordpress.com/2019/04/24/what-makes-a-jihadi/ on the inability of the post modern West to understand religious belief. Hence the endelss excuses that Jihadis are ignorant, fanatical, unintelligent and or poor. ISIS was a highly “degreed” organization. Their economic structure ( reports, strategic planning) and IT skills were straight from University teaching.

  8. Behind Enemy Lines

    Why don’t things make sense?
    Posted on 12:34 am, April 26, 2019 by Steve Kates
    . . . The impulses in all three stories seem mad and inexplicable. I could say more, but nothing adds up.

    Ah, but things do make sense.

    Owing to a range of circumstances and consequences, some foreseeable and some not, some deliberate and some not, the emotional citizen has become a mortal threat to the empirical citizen. The emotional citizen believes he can use force to impose his will on reality, and Step One in that project is to use force against the empirical citizen who’s been pointing and laughing.

    We can’t live and let live. The emotional citizen refuses to accept the the legitimacy of the empirical citizen’s principles, arguments, votes, existence. And the emotional citizen won’t be satisfied until he has his victory over reality.

    What options remain?

    More submission, or more violence, or more of both.

    Resolving this is going to be ugly, and it won’t be settled until one side is on its knees or on its backside.

    My bet: in Australia the emotional citizen has as good as won, while in the US things are rapidly turning in favour of the empirical citizen.

  9. JohnJJJ

    ” in Australia the emotional citizen has as good as won”
    It was inevitable as long as men’s qualities are not needed. Like the wormwood plant that poisons its own soil and dies, men have made the place safe, with plenty of food and water, transport, buildings, the pill, tampons, choice… Thereby making leadership, empiricism, physical strength, evidence and stoicism completely unnecessary. The competition now is for attention, public feelings and sympathy with narratives, relativism and hysteria.
    Men have feminised the West.
    The next step is the segue to Islam. You can put money on it.

  10. Boambee John

    Chris M
    #2997615, posted on April 26, 2019 at 8:18 am
    1. I slam is a demonically inspired mental disorder

    I think that a theological argument could be made that @[email protected] is the anti-Chr1st and M0 a biblical false pr0ph3t.

  11. Mitchell Porter

    Like Chris M and Behind Enemy Lines, I can’t resist trying to explain something which is presented as inexplicable. In this case, Steve has brought to our attention three phenomena of the contemporary world: suicide bombers killing large numbers of civilians for no discernible reason, political figures doubling down on a losing strategy, and intellectuals blithely promoting ideas for social change in utterly unrealistic terms.

    First let me say what I think connects them. The Islamic State terrorists, and the open-borders progressive, together define the chief contradiction that dooms the globalism of American liberals. After the cold war, the center of American politics was occupied by a doctrine that first preached democracy and free markets for all, but then increasingly added more and more ingredients to its attempted political exports (human rights, women’s rights, environmentalism, LGBT). Apparently this was seen as a political and cultural synthesis that was destined to triumph, not only at home, but across the entire world.

    This world order, which more or less held together during the Clinton and Bush years, collapsed under Obama. There was a move throughout the world back towards national sovereignty and civilizational difference, and Trump is simply that movement reaching the core of the liberal empire itself, proposing conservative nationalism as an identity for post-imperial America. The administrators and ideologues of that global order are horrified that their values might be rejected even at home, which is why they treat Trump as an existential threat, rather than just another politician.

    Meanwhile, the decay of that order has emboldened the extremists both inside the system – the open-borders advocates – and outside the system – like the soldiers of the caliphate. It might be easier to understand why the jihadists feel emboldened – they sense a power vacuum and think they can fill it. But why are progressives emboldened, and why do I say they are extremists from within the system? I diagnose the relation of progressives to American liberalism as follows. They share many ideals, but progressives hate the tougher methods that liberals allow themselves to employ, like war, spying, and tolerance of economic inequality. Liberals could always tell progressives, your ideals are nice, but to have any chance in the real world, they need to be backed up by the tools of state power, and they can’t be pursued to excess.

    So long as the liberal world system more or less functioned, the progressives could be held at bay by such appeals to realism. But with the system in crisis, the progressives feel they can replace liberal moderation with a truly virtuous government run by their own people, and which will succeed where its predecessor failed, because of its ideological purity. Their values are the right values, and if they can just be communicated to people, by virtuous figures who don’t compromise (unlike e.g. Obama and the Clintons), then everything will turn out for the best.

    That’s my unified theory of Things That Don’t Make Sense…

  12. Colonel Crispin Berka

    why the authorities did not respond to specific and actionable intelligence about an imminent jihadist

    That’s not a fruitful question because it’s loaded, and we shouldn’t accept the statist assumption inside it. An event that did not occur cannot be the cause of anything. The authorities not stopping the terrorists is a description of a non-event, an event that did not occur. The cause of the event must be another event that did occur, such as people believing in a supremacist religion so strongly that they feel inclined to carry out its most violent standing orders.

    Behind Enemy Lines is on the right track. And all religious people are in the emotional set, not the empirical set. This is not a claim that all religions are the same, because they aren’t, but all religions are religions, with all the emotional unfounded irreconcilable divisiveness that implies.

    It is not true to say that only in a world without a god would all actions be permissible. We know from our own history that in a world that fully believes in a god, all actions done in the name of that god are permitted. And that list of actions is a rather long and terrible list.

    Maybe all the religious types should .. I dunno… take a cold shower and a chill pill.
    The bridge from here to the more empirical society is the religious folk who believe in “a personal god” or that their relationship with their god is personal and intuitive and need not be sought through an organisation or at an alter. For these people their guiding values and their judgement can be transferred to a more empirical domain by self reflection through the lens of psychology. As an example, my impression of Jordan Peterson is that his lectures are prompting that type of switch, even if that isn’t his intention, and perhaps even in spite of his obvious Christian preferences.

    As for all the more organised extroverted types… Darwin help us. Quarantine, siege tactics, education, and leading by example are the only non-violent options I can suggest. Those failing, there is also Newton’s 3rd law of counter-terrorism: for every cult there is an equal and opposite Colt. But this statist Band-Aid is the last resort at symptomatic relief, not the first solution.
    The problem didn’t spring up overnight and it will take generations to solve. It’s certainly not going to be solved by pitting one religious conviction against another religious conviction.

  13. Mitchell Porter

    I explained everything, but it’s stuck in moderation…

Comments are closed.