Looks like a good book:
'The contempt for ordinary people and for patriotism that the politically correct have is unconcealed. They have successfully infiltrated ... public institutions from where they can enforce their creed on everyone else. Importantly, they further get access to public monies ... the consequences are far reaching.'
In the West, political correctness is the ascendant ideology since the rise of the so-called New Left in the 1960s. It has infiltrated the public sector and its devotees have gained access to legislative powers of enforcement and, importantly, public monies.
Dissent is not tolerated. Dissenters, even children, are persecuted. Minorities are deemed victims and as being oppressed, while the majority are deemed the oppressors. A hatred of the West is aggressively promoted. Terrorism is excused.
Free Speech is not allowed. Only politically correct views are tolerated. The media present propaganda instead of the truth.
Human Rights are corrupted into being a vehicle for political correctness with lots of fees for its advocates.
Sex attacks on women and even children by immigrants are covered up, if not tolerated.
Democracy is undermined as bureaucrats and international organizations highjack the powers of the nation state.
The interests and opinions of ordinary people are ignored.
Economies are plundered. High taxes are imposed. In Europe, the interests of the EU take priority over national prosperity. The 'chauvinism of prosperity' is condemned.
Race War Politics is aggressively promoted. White people are deemed racist, unless they advocate political correctness, and a repopulation policy of mass immigration is enforced against the express wishes and interests of the host nation.
The zealotry and conflict political correctness brings is the product of its communist heritage, going as far back as the Communist Manifesto of 1848. It has been rightly described as 'cultural Marxism'.
It's not Marxism or Communism nor does it have anything to do with Marx or real socialism or communism but I agree with much of it. It's modern "liberalism" - "Human rights" - classic "liberalism" hijacked. Think...
Aristotle quote on the first page on my website.
Polling data...the majority of people are sane, rational, have common sense, agree on most issues, especially if educated...yet...
Looks like a good book:
The Blue Divide: Policing and Race in America Paperback – February 11, 2022
by Will Moravits PhD (Author)
Copied from Amazon.com -
The deaths at the hands of police of George Floyd, Michael Brown, Breonna Taylor, and other Black Americans have spurred national outrage—but now what? To make progress on the complex issues surrounding race and policing, Americans must begin a conversation rooted in mutual respect and in facts. Laying the groundwork for productive engagement, Dr. Will Moravits details how police officers are trained in the use of force and the choices they confront. The Blue Divide analyzes the past decade’s highest-profile cases of police use of force against people of color and looks more broadly at the criminal justice system, use of force, and the tragic disconnection between police officers and the communities of color they are sworn to protect. A former police officer, Moravits brings a uniquely informed, mutually sympathetic point of view that can be heard by everyone who has an opinion about American policing—good, bad, or unsure about what to do to ensure safety and justice for all.
Dr. Moravits helps the reader better understand the perspective of police officers when they have to use force. He brings personal law enforcement experience along with research to debunk the negative narrative around policing and race. — Armando Rosales, Fort Worth Police Officer Dr. Moravits provides the factual context required to understand the race-baiting, opportunism, and mainstream media complicity fueling the sociolegal, racial-outrage business. — Dr. Rich DeParis, public policy professor and retired San Diego Police Officer
Dr. Moravits's work The Blue Divide: Policing and Race in America gives a thoughtful and timely treatment of its subject. From his observations and research of police training, his explanation of the physiology involved in high-stress police encounters, his factual refutation of the propaganda narratives pushed by Marxist shills in the progressive media, in politics, and in the grievance industry, and his demonstration of the absolute hypocrisy in ignoring deadly encounters between law enforcement and whites, Dr. Moravits clearly shows that the dominant narrative that police are excessively aggressive and racist in their enforcement of the law is patently false. At the same time, Moravits offers practical suggestions in ways to improve police training and in ways for communities of all demographics to develop understanding between themselves and the police. Moravits packs a great deal of information into a relatively short read. His style is mostly conversational, and readers will find his work thought-provoking and informative.
— Terry Whitson, educator and former Bexar County Sheriff's DeputyEditorial Reviews
Dr. Moravits helps the reader better understand the perspective of police officers when they have to use force. He brings personal law enforcement experience along with research to debunk the negative narrative around policing and race. — Armando Rosales, Fort Worth Police Officer Dr. Moravits provides the factual context required to understand the race-baiting, opportunism, and mainstream media complicity fueling the sociolegal, racial-outrage business.
— Dr. Rich DeParis, public policy professor and retired San Diego Police Officer Dr. Moravits's work The Blue Divide: Policing and Race in America gives a thoughtful and timely treatment of its subject. From his observations and research of police training, his explanation of the physiology involved in high-stress police encounters, his factual refutation of the propaganda narratives pushed by Marxist shills in the progressive media, in politics, and in the grievance industry, and his demonstration of the absolute hypocrisy in ignoring deadly encounters between law enforcement and whites, Dr. Moravits clearly shows that the dominant narrative that police are excessively aggressive and racist in their enforcement of the law is patently false. At the same time, Moravits offers practical suggestions in ways to improve police training and in ways for communities of all demographics to develop understanding between themselves and the police. Moravits packs a great deal of information into a relatively short read. His style is mostly conversational, and readers will find his work thought-provoking and informative. — Terry Whitson, educator and former Bexar County Sheriff's Deputy
Return of the Strong Gods: Nationalism, Populism, and the Future of the West Hardcover – October 15, 2019
by R. R. Reno (Author)
"'Return of the Strong Gods,'...is a thoughtful contribution to American political debate. It is incisively written and full of modern observations. Mr. Reno explains, better than any book I can remember, the present-day progressive's paranoid fear of fascism and neurotic determination to ferret out racism where none exists."—The Wall Street Journal
After the staggering slaughter of back-to-back world wars, the West embraced the ideal of the “open society.” The promise: By liberating ourselves from the old attachments to nation, clan, and religion that had fueled centuries of violence, we could build a prosperous world without borders, freed from dogmas and managed by experts.
But the populism and nationalism that are upending politics in America and Europe are a sign that after three generations, the postwar consensus is breaking down. With compelling insight, R. R. Reno argues that we are witnessing the return of the “strong gods”—the powerful loyalties that bind men to their homeland and to one another.
Reacting to the calamitous first half of the twentieth century, our political, cultural, and financial elites promoted open borders, open markets, and open minds. But this never-ending project of openness has hardened into a set of anti-dogmatic dogmas which destroy the social solidarity rooted in family, faith, and nation. While they worry about the return of fascism, our societies are dissolving.
But man will not tolerate social dissolution indefinitely. He longs to be part of a “we”—the fruit of shared loves—which gives his life meaning. The strong gods will return, Reno warns, in one form or another. Our task is to attend to those that, appealing to our reason as well as our hearts, inspire the best of our traditions. Otherwise, we shall invite the darker gods whose return our open society was intended to forestall.
What is the commonality between all the above? Criticism of the West - Western Liberalism and Neoliberalism (one could probably say and link-it-to, I indeed think, the economic towering (ruling) principles in-broad of the 20th C.) in broad.
While some come from within, some come from outside. Those coming from outside I could argue, are more original and go further (whether it be criticism of or just entirely unconcerned with ("more distinct" = = "more different")) and present actual ways (original), that is, action, to go forward with society (present alternative means) - are more uninfluenced, decisive and distinct (Gaddaffi's "The Green Book" as an example). Anyway...(this coming from a 36 year old American - living in this, raised in this)).
Considering the quote, from "The Fourth Political Theory" by A. Dugin (paraphrasing) "that the 20th. C. was the century of ideologues". Powerful and thought-provoking indeed.
Doesn't matter if you accept it as true or not...(how much does one accept it or not, etc., etc. - that's all a different philosophical dive and whatnot, that goes too deep, for me anyway and for most (even philosophers I believe)...anyway anyway...).
Just found one of the above sites actually (I kind of do dislike supporting Amazon much or too much honestly) and it looks great and sounds great (of course, is marketing - but good job marketing - ): https://www.scribd.com/what-is-scribd
The Fascism this Time: and the Global Future of Democracy Paperback – August 3, 2020 by Theo Horesh (Author)
"Horesh's perceptive and thoughtful views on fascism are in the great tradition of past works by Orwell, Albert Camus, Hannah Arendt and Henry Thoreau." Andy Heintz, author of Dissidents of the International Left
A new wave of fascism is inundating the world under the guise of rightwing populism, but the fascism this time has little to do with taking down elites—and it is every bit as dangerous as the fascism last time.
Fascism can be identified by its toxic brew of racism, sexism, ethnonationalism, and authoritarianism. It is organized around a cult of personality, and it mobilizes ressentiment in senseless acts of nihilism. Fascist movements are dangerous because they harness nationalist aggression against minorities, but their subtler danger lies in their turn against reality. They reject science and rationality because they are seen as a threat, and since the world cannot be turned off, fascists try to tear it down instead. Fascists seek, in the words of Erich Fromm, to escape the burden of freedom and return to the mythologized bonds of patriarchy. Yet, in a vast and complex world, where survival requires adaptation and adaptation flexibility, their forced regression always ends in destruction. In this way, fascism is not simply a reaction to globalization but a nihilistic assault on the world itself. The destruction can be witnessed in the disastrous response of fascist leaders the world over to the coronavirus and the recent explosion in crimes against humanity.
The Fascism This Time elucidates a psychosocial model of fascism which predicted that Trump's election would lead to an accelerated assault on democratic institutions, a global increase in authoritarianism, immigrant concentration camps, the starvation of Yemen, and an effort to maintain power by force. Yet, the fascism this time is global, and putting a stop to it will require a global democracy movement that is only just getting underway.
This book is a highly original account of how the fascism this time is tied to the overwhelming challenges with which the world is now faced. Its warning about the dangers of denial is reminiscent of Timothy Snyder's, On Tyranny, while its insights into the nature of mass movements harkens back to Eric Hoffer's, The True Believer. It is a sweeping defense of democracy, and a classic testament to resistance, inspiring action and reflection, and sparkling with insights, in the perennial tradition of Hannah Arendt and Alexis de Tocqueville.
What is true liberalism? We in the west are losing that in our ideological ideologies (mixed up confused state of "liberalized" being) being force-fed to us (basically) via our cultural conditioning and media-corporate-government state. I would argue this thinker was a true liberal. Bertrand de Jouvenel - has a lot of good-looking books.
What is a true conservative? (Capitalism! - capitalism has co-opted or engulfed the real definition of conservatism in a lot of ways while liberal" and liberalism has been co-opted and engulfed by identity politics, aesthetics and political correctness.
Eh. It gets confusing.
I like this:
Really great, (kind of upsetting -assalaam alaikum (peace be upon you (American)), pretty amazing understanding:
In the modern times, Ibn Kathir's creed have sometimes been raised as a subject of disagreement between the Ash'arites, successor of Ahl al-Ra'y rationalist school and the Salafis, theorized by Jon Hoover as successor of Ahl al-Hadith traditionist school. Some Ash'arite theologians have claimed Ibn Kathir as an Ash'ari, pointing out some of his beliefs and sayings reported from his works, and to the fact that:
He belonged to the Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence and was a professor of Hadith at the House of Hadith known as "Dar al-Hadith al-Ashrafiyya" which was exclusively established for those aligned to the Ash'ari school of creed, as mentioned by Taj al-Din al-Subki (d. 771/1370) in his Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra (Comprehensive Biographical dictionary of Shafi'ites) that a condition to teach at the al-Ashrafiyya was to be Ash'ari in 'aqida.
Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani (d. 852/1449) reported in his al-Durar al-Kaminah (The Hidden Pearls: on the Notables of the Eighth Islamic Century), that a dispute between Ibn Kathir and the son of Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya broke out over teaching position. It seems Ibn Kathir implied that the dislike for him is due to his Ash'ari roots, and once Ibn al-Qayyim's son confronted him about this and said that even if Ibn Kathir swore to high heavens that he wasn't upon the creed of Ibn Taymiyya, people wouldn't believe him, because his sheikh (teacher) is Ibn Taymiyya.
Ashʿarī theology or Ashʿarism (/æʃəˈriː/; Arabic: الأشعرية: al-ʾAshʿarīyah) is one of the main Sunnī schools of Islamic theology, founded by the Arab Muslim scholar, Shāfiʿī jurist, reformer, and scholastic theologian Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī in the 9th–10th century. It established an orthodox guideline based on scriptural authority, rationality, and theological rationalism.
Al-Ashʿarī established a middle way between the doctrines of the Aṯharī and Muʿtazila schools of Islamic theology, based both on reliance on the sacred scriptures of Islam and theological rationalism concerning the agency and attributes of God. Ashʿarism eventually became the predominant school of theological thought within Sunnī Islam, and is regarded as the single most important school of Islamic theology in the history of Islam.
The disciples of the Ashʿarī school are known as Ashʿarites, and the school is also referred to as the Ashʿarite school, which became one of the dominant theological schools within Sunnī Islam. Ashʿarī theology is considered one of the orthodox creeds of Sunnī Islam, alongside the Aṯharī and Māturīdī. Amongst the most famous Ashʿarite theologians are Imam Nawawi, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Ibn al-Jawzi, al-Ghazali, al-Suyuti, Izz al-Din ibn 'Abd al-Salam, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Ibn 'Asakir, al-Subki, al-Taftazani, al-Baqillani and al-Bayhaqi. Scholars and scientists who were affiliated with the Ashari school included Al-Biruni, Ibn al-Haytham, Ibn al-Nafis and Ibn Khaldun.
Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī was born in Basra, Iraq, and was a descendant of Abū Mūsa al-Ashʿarī, which belonged to the first generation of Muhammad's closest companions (ṣaḥāba). As a young man he studied under al-Jubba'i, a renowned teacher of Muʿtazilite theology and philosophy. He was noted for his teachings on atomism, among the earliest Islamic philosophies, and for al-Ashʿarī this was the basis for propagating the view that God created every moment in time and every particle of matter. He nonetheless believed in free will, elaborating the thoughts of Dirar ibn 'Amr and Abu Hanifa into a "dual agent" or "acquisition" (iktisab) account of free will.[page needed]
While al-Ashʿarī opposed the views of the rival Muʿtazilite school, he was also opposed to the view which rejected all debate, held by certain schools such as the Zahiri ("literalist"), Mujassimite ("anthropotheist"), and Muhaddithin ("traditionalist") schools for their over-emphasis on taqlid (imitation) in his Istihsan al‑Khaud:
A section of the people (i.e., the Zahirites and others) made capital out of their own ignorance; discussions and rational thinking about matters of faith became a heavy burden for them, and, therefore, they became inclined to blind faith and blind following (taqlid). They condemned those who tried to rationalize the principles of religion as 'innovators'. They considered discussion about motion, rest, body, accident, colour, space, atom, the leaping of atoms, and Attributes of God, to be an innovation and a sin. They said that had such discussions been the right thing, the Prophet and his Companions would have definitely done so; they further pointed out that the Prophet, before his death, discussed and fully explained all those matters which were necessary from the religious point of view, leaving none of them to be discussed by his followers; and since he did not discuss the problems mentioned above, it was evident that to discuss them must be regarded as an innovation.
Ashʿarism became the main school of early Islamic philosophy whereby it was originally based on the foundations laid down by al-Ashʿarī, who founded the Ashʿarite school in the 10th century based on the methodology taught to him by his teacher Abdullah ibn Sa'eed ibn Kullaab. However, the Ashʿarite school underwent many changes throughout history, resulting in the term Ashʿarī being extremely broad in its modern usage (e.g. differences between Ibn Furak (d. AH 406) and al-Bayhaqi (d. AH 384)).
For example, the Ashʿarite view was that comprehension of the unique nature and characteristics of God were beyond human capability. The solution proposed by al-Ashʿarī to solve the problems of tashbih and ta'til concedes that the Supreme Being possesses in a real sense the divine attributes and names mentioned in the Quran. Insofar as these names and attributes have a positive reality, they are distinct from the essence, but nevertheless they don't have either existence or reality apart from it.
The inspiration of al-Ashʿarī in this matter was on the one hand to distinguish essence and attribute as concepts, and on the other hand to see that the duality between essence and attribute should be situated not on the quantitative but on the qualitative level — something which Muʿtazilite thinking had failed to grasp. Ashʿarite theologians were referred to as the muthbita ("those who make firm") by the Muʿtazilites.
The Ashʿarī school of Islamic theology holds that:
God is all-powerful (omnipotent).
Therefore, good is what God commands – as revealed in the Quran and the ḥadīth—and is by definition just; evil is what God forbids and is likewise unjust. Right and wrong are in no way determined intuitively or naturally, they are not objective realities.
Because of Divine omnipotence, there are no "natural laws" (of things like thermodynamics or gravity), because such laws would put limitations on His actions. There are, however, Divine "customs", whereby "certain so-called 'effects'" usually follow certain "causes" in the natural world.
Also because of Divine power, all human acts—even the decision to raise a finger—are created by God. This had caused controversy earlier in Islamic history because human acts are what humans are judged for when being sent to heaven (jannah) or hell (Jahannam). Ashʿaris reconciled the doctrines of free will, justice, and divine omnipotence, with their own doctrine of kasb ("acquisition"), by which human beings "'acquire' responsibility for their actions, although these "actions are willed and created by God". Humans still possess free will (or, more accurately, freedom of intention) under this doctrine, although their freedom is limited to the power to decide between the given possibilities God has created. (This doctrine is now known in Western philosophy as occasionalism.)
The Quran is the uncreated word of God, that is, it was not created by God, but like God has always been. It can also be said to be created when it takes on a form in letters or sound.
The unique nature and attributes of God cannot be understood fully by human reason and the physical senses.
Intellectual inquiry is decreed by the Quran and the Islamic prophet Muhammad, therefore the interpretation (tafsīr) of the Quran and the ḥadīth should keep developing with the aid of older interpretations.
Only God knows the heart, who belongs to the faithful and who does not.
Support of kalām (rationalistic Islamic theology).
Ashʿarites further affirm that Muslims must believe:
Ashʿarites also hold beliefs about Allah's attributes that are unique to them, such as:
Permanence without beginning;
Endurance without end;
Absoluteness and independence;
Dissimilarity to created things;
Allah is all-powerful, willful, knowing, living, seeing, hearing, and speaking (signifying attributes).
Nicholas Heer writes that later Ashʿarite theologians "increasingly attempted to rationalize Islamic doctrine" from about the 12th century onwards. Theologians such as al-Taftāzānī and al-Jurjānī  argued that the Islamic sacred scriptures (the Quran and the ḥadīth) "must be proven to be true by rational arguments" before being "accepted as the basis of the religion". Educated Muslims "must be convinced on the basis of rational arguments" and not revelation that Islam is true. A series of rational proofs were developed by these Ashʿarite theologians, including proofs for "the following doctrines or propositions":
the universe is originated;
the universe has an originator or creator;
the creator of the universe is knowing, powerful and willing;
prophecy is possible;
miracles are possible;
miracles indicate the truthfulness of one who claims to be a prophet;
Muhammad claimed to be a prophet and performed miracles.
This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutrality by separating out potentially negative information. Please integrate the section's contents into the article as a whole, or rewrite the material. (August 2021)
The medieval Muslim scholar Ibn Taymiyyah criticised the Ashʿarī theology as (in the words of one historian, Jonathan A. C. Brown) "a Greek solution to Greek problems" that should "never" have concerned Muslims. Both Ibn Taymiyyah and Shah Waliullah Dehlawi rejected the lack of literalism in Ashʿarī "speculative theology" and advocated "straightforward acceptance of God's description of Himself".
In contrast, German scholar Eduard Sachau affirms that the Ashʿarī theology and its biggest defender, al-Ghazali, was too literal and responsible for the decline of Islamic science starting in the 10th century. Sachau stated that the two clerics were the only obstacle to the Muslim world becoming a nation of "Galileos, Keplers, and Newtons".
Ziauddin Sardar states that some of the greatest Muslim scientists of the Islamic Golden Age, such as Ibn al-Haytham and Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī, who were pioneers of the scientific method, were themselves followers of the Ashʿarī school of Islamic theology. Like other Ashʿarites who believed that faith or taqlid should be applied only to Islam and not to any ancient Hellenistic authorities, Ibn al-Haytham's view that taqlid should be applied only to the prophets and messengers of Islam and not to any other authorities formed the basis for much of his scientific skepticism and criticism against Ptolemy and other ancient authorities in his Doubts Concerning Ptolemy and Book of Optics.