WHAT'S NEW

About
My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
Activism
Past Blog Posts
Various &
a Sundry Blogs
Favorite
Websites
My Stuff
On The Web
Audio-Visual Updated: 02/25/2026
Favorite
Articles
This Month's Scripture Verse:

For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
I Timothy 6:10

SEARCH THIS BLOG

Tuesday, April 14, 2026

Views From The Outside For April 14, 2026

 Views From The Outside

The purpose of this page is to list news stories and reports from mostly Western sources outside of the U.S. You can use Google Translate to translate articles that are printed in another language. 

So far, news sources include:

International

From Canada

From England

From France

From Germany

From Russian Source 

From Spain

From Switzerland

From Ukraine


<< Previous Views                                                        Next Views >>





Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, April 10, 2026

Again, Our Biggest Threat Is Authoritarianism

 Why is authoritarianism our biggest threat? It is because authoritarianism can play a highly significant role in how we determine what claims are true and what claims are not. It is also  our biggest threat because it is becoming more prevalent, especially in the West

We should note a couple of things about authoritarianism. First, it always comes with hierarchy whether that hierarchy is based on ideology, ethnicity, wealth, biological sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or some other category. Some forms of authoritarianism revolve around a single leader or group of leaders. Other forms of authoritarianism revolve around groups that are based on ethnicity, ideology, or economic class.

Authoritarianism knows no ethnic, ideological, class, sexual orientation, or gender identity boundaries. That is because in authoritarianism, the leader wants their followers to  reflexively or automatically accept or reject what is said based on who said it. In other words, it is the credentials of the source that determines a reflexive or automatic reaction. Here, we should note that we should recognize the credentials that experts have in the specific field(s) have. But with authoritarianism, credentials of the source are often irrelevant to the subject of the claims.

Basically, authoritarian leaders want to be nanny thinkers for their followers.  And so they will attack the credibility and credentials of sources that their followers are exposed to. For example, when Hillary Clinton referred to a certain group of Americans as 'deplorables,' she was trying to get her followers to reflexively or automatically reject everything that the people to whom she was referring were saying. When Trump followers call those who protest against him as suffering from 'Trump Derangement Syndrome,' those followers want people to reflexively or automatically reject everything that Trump protesters say. And Leftists have their own pejorative labels for those whom they oppose such as calling some the 'bourgeoisie.'  In other words, when we see someone employing a pejorative use of labels on a person or group or ideology they oppose, they are making an authoritarian appeal.

However, the presence of authoritarian followers does not imply that a given leader is authoritarian. Why? It is because not all leaders who have authoritarian followers act as authoritarians. Non-authrotarian leaders might have some followers who are authoritarian followers. That is, without the authoritarian appeal of a given leader, some authoritarian followers will latch on to any leader that they consider to be appealing.  Such a follower will automatically reject or accept what a source says solely based on whether their adopted leader contradicts what a source says. The basic dynamic here is the same however. If what a given source says is supported by the leader  of an authoritarian follower, then that follower automatically accepts what the given source says. Otherwise, what a given sources says will  is automatically or reflexively rejected.

This leads us to one of the problems with being an authoritarian follower. That is that an authoritarian follower does not use facts and logic to determine whether to accept or reject a claim. For the authoritarian follower to seriously consider what an unapproved source says results in a cognitive dissonance. For how can one both believe a single claim from an unapproved sources  while trying to reject everything that that source says? As the follower continues to agree with what an unapproved source says, the more credentials  the follower attributes to that source. As that credentials of that source increase, the follower must eventually decide whether to part ways with their adopted leader.

A caveat should be introduced at this time. It to automatically reject what an non-expert in a given field says is significantly different from automatically rejecting what an expert says. Though we shouldnˋt always automatically accept what a given expert in the field of the discussion says, they should be seen as having more credibility and credentials than a non-expert says.

Authoritarianism holds out a couple carrots to potential followers. Following a leader, especially a popular one, as being always or almost always correct can be an ego boost to some. It makes some people feel more significant because of how they have connected themselves with an esteemed person or ideology or group. Being an authoritarian follower can especially appeal to those who  feel alienated from others. And so fear becomes involved because if one should decide not to follow leaders or ideologies, one can lose a vital connection that being an authoritarian follower provides. Thus, challenging the beliefs of an authoritarian follower, even when done with facts and logic, can seem personally threatening to the authoritarian follower.

Another carrot that authoritarianism holds out is that it allows one to feel more comfortable, and even more in control, in a world that often seems to complicated. It is easier to latch on to a leader and put all of one's trust in that leader than to battle through the complexities of life and the world to come to one's own conclusions.

Authoritarianism plays a big role in determining what many believe or reject. And unfortunately, that role doesnˋt revolve around facts and logic. It is very unfortunate because authoritarianism, though never having disappeared, is definitely on the rise in the West, both in Europe and in North America. 

How should we respond to authoritarianism? We should note that authoritarian leaders want their followers to reflexively or automatically reject or accept what is said by a given source. The kind of thinking implied in authoritarianism is black-white thinking. In such thinking, either everything that a source says must either be accepted or rejected.  And that provides the key in battling authoritarianism. To fight authoritarianism, we need to see red flags raising when someone employs black-white thinking  And so we need to challenge the appeal to either reject or accept everything that is said by a source. To auotmatically reject everything that someone says is to say that that source needs to listen to me or us while we have no need to listen to it. Such an approach is driven by arrogance which, in turn, is often driven by ignorance. And to accept everything that an adopted leader says, implies that that adopted leader is omniscient.  And contrary to Trumpˋs view of himself, the only being who is omniscient is God.

All-or-nothing thinking, including black-white thinking, is the cognitive foundation of authoritarianism. And so to refuse to employ all-or-nothing thinking is to reject authoritarianism. 

But such an approach can be problematic for the religiously conservative Christian. That is because with what God has communicated to us, there are times to employ all-or-nothing thinking. But the source for such thinking is the Scriptures, not manˋs ideologies or abilities. We can learn much from manˋs ideologies, but we cannot afford to approach any ideology in an all-or-nothing manner. That is there is no ideology that does not need to be supplemented by other ideologies. There is no ideology that can solve all problems. Likewise, there are few ideologies that have nothing to teach us. 

And so we can start stopping authoritarianism by learning how to take hybrid approaches to problem solving. For example, in his book, Stride Toward Freedom, King notes that while Marxism forgets that life is individual while Capitalism forgets that life is social. And so King proposed that we combine the best approaches and thinking that are in Marxism and Capitalism to find a better approach to the economy and politics. Such an approach prohibits us from automatically rejecting or accepting what a source says.

Again, we are seeing a move away from Democracy with equality and toward authoritarianism with hierarchy. To stop this move, we need to understand authoritarianism and the kind of thinking that it employs. That understanding can save us from being ruled by tyrants especially if those tyrants first appear to be wearing sheep's clothing.



Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, April 7, 2026

Views From The Outside For April 7, 2026

 Views From The Outside

The purpose of this page is to list news stories and reports from mostly Western sources outside of the U.S. You can use Google Translate to translate articles that are printed in another language. 

So far, news sources include:

International

  1. UN News

From Canada

From England

From France

From Germany

From Russian Source 

From Spain

From Switzerland

From Ukraine


<< Previous Views                                                        Next Views >>





Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, March 24, 2026

Blog Break

Please note that the dates from the last posting of this blogpost have changed.

For personal reasons I am taking a blog break from posting from Tuesday, March 24th to Monday, April 6th. The next new post will be on Tuesday, April 7th. In the meantime, you can visit some of the other pages on this blog accessed through the tabs shown above or the incomplete list below. 

 Other Pages

  1. Audio-Visual Library Page (this is my favorite page on the website)--has recently been updated
  2. Activism page
        Needs updating
  3. Favorite Articles page
        Needs updating
  4. Favorite Websites page
        Needs updating
  5. Past Blog Posts page
       Needs updating
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, March 20, 2026

Looking For Statistics In All Of The Wrong Places

 At the end of February, Trump ordered the military to start a war of choice against Iran. It is a war of choice because Iran posed no immediate military threat to the U.S. At least that was the opinion of at least some of our allies and U.S. intelligence agents.

With that in mind, the question became how would this war of choice affect American voters. The focus then revolved around gas prices and inflation. That a prolonged war in which gas prices were high close or up to the midterm elections, that it could cause Trumpˋs party to lose control over at least one chamber of Congress.

The problem with that analysis, if true, is what that prediction reveals about Americans moral values. For if inflation statistics were the most prominent factor in determining how Americans respond to war, then Americans believe only in transactional voting. That seems to be an apt description of the MAGA voters who oppose Trumpˋs decision to go to war  because they feel that Trump was following an Israel first policy.

If moral values are more important to us than inflation, the statistics we would be looking at would include: the number of civilians whom the Iranian regime has killed, the number of Iranian civilians who have been killed by the war, the number of Iranian refugees who are fleeing from the war, the number of civilians killed in Lebanon, and the number of displaced people from there The statistics from Lebanon are as much a part of our statistics even though the U.S. is not attacking Lebanon. That is because  Israel is using American made weapons in its war against Lebanon .

But the above are not the only statistics to consider. That is because there are future statistics to consider. For example, what if our war against Iran produces a civil war within Iran between supporters of the regime and its opposition? Or how many Iranians will die as a result of injuries or the destruction to infrastructure that the current war will causing? We could also consider how many people from other nations will die because their enemies acted unilaterally without consulting the international community just as the U.S. and Israel did in attacking Iran? Finally, how many people will die when the continued use of war eventually results in the exchange of WMDs between waring nations as warned against in the Russell-Einstein Manifesto?

When we just consider the moral statistics, we find grounds for both going to and refraining from waging war against Iran. But regarding the number of innocent civilians killed by the Iranian regime, if that is an adequate justification for waging war against Iran, does it also provide an adequate justification for the U.S. or another nation to go to war against Israel for Israelˋs treatment of the Palestinians in the Occupied territories? Perhaps that has been Iran's justification for using proxies to attack Israel. And if that is the case, just maybe we are more like our enemy than we care to admit

It seems that the price of gas should be less of a factor than the statistics mentioned above in determining the midterm elections At least it should be that way if Americans hope to keep their democracy. That is because authoritarian candidates can more easily win elections based on transactional voting such as what financial benefits they promise to voters. And so elections can be their way of getting their feet in the door of high government positions.

The news networks that have reported that inflation is a major issue in determining how voters will vote in the midterm elections might just be right. But then we Americans must be honest with ourselves. We must then admit that the more transactional we are in our voting, the more we put Democracy at risk. That is because Democracy is based on values such as on the principle of equality. Transactional concerns do not involve equality, but they can include personal weath. That is not to say that personal wealth is unimportant. It is that Democracy should be more important to voters than immediate financial fixes, or even long-term ones.




Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, March 17, 2026

Views From The Outside For March 17, 2026

 Views From The Outside

The purpose of this page is to list news stories and reports from mostly Western sources outside of the U.S. You can use Google Translate to translate articles that are printed in another language. 

So far, news sources include:

International

From Canada

From England

From France

From Germany

From Russian Source 

From Spain

From Switzerland

From Ukraine


<< Previous Views                                                        Next Views >>


Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, March 13, 2026

Militaries May Win Battles But It Is Presidents Who Lose Wars

 I still remember the Vietnam War days, after all I was one year from going. Day after day we saw heard the battle statistics like they were college football scores. According to those scores, we were winning by so much that we chalked up the war as a victory well before it finished. And so we were shocked when the nationˋs most trusted news broadcaster, Walter Cronkite, said otherwise. His announcement came, if memory serves, after the Tet Offensive.

Why did we lose that war? It was because our nationˋs leaders failed to understand why the enemy was fighting, the different strengths of the enemy, and the resolve of the enemy. Over 2 million Vietnamese and 58+ thousand American service people died for that lack of understanding.

We failed to understand the enemy because our leaders failed to understand a people and culture that was not their own. They projected their own personalities, values, and culture on the enemy and thus lost the war because they didn't realize how difficult winning would be.

Fast forward to 2001 and 2003 and our wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. We told ourselves that Iraqis would greet us as liberators and though some did, but not enough celebrated our invasion. And our efforts to invade and then rebuild their respective nations and the lies we told ourselves caused us to lose those wars.

We should note that we lost the war in Iraq after President Bush announced ˋMission Accomplished.ˋ And we lost the war in Afghanistan after we not only established an elected government, we kept troops there to protect that government. 

And so Trump claims that we will achieve a lasting victory if, after winning all of the battles, we avoid rebuilding the nation ourselves. Instead, we can let the Iranian protesters overthrow the theocracy and establish their own government on their own.

And so if we will not try to rebuild Iran after destroying it, what is it that we donˋt understand about Iran that can cause us to lose this war?  We know that Iran is run by a theocratic government in which the most popular religion is one that is held by its leaders. Yes, the opposition has many supporters, but so does Iranˋs theocracy. But do we understand the degree of commitment that the government and many of its people have in persevering when attacked by their arch enemies? After all, such an understanding could tell us how much the government and people will endure vs how much our nation can endure in fighting the war. 

With the Vietnam War, not understanding the desire for reunification that many Vietnamese had outweighed their commitment to the U.S. installed governments caused us to naively escalate our involvement in Vietnam. Our nationˋs leaders believed that that war was about the spread of Communism back then and could be won by our military. And so North Vietnam and the VC were willing to endure more suffering than our nation was willing to in fighting the war. 

Another nation that is fighting a war for reunification is Russia. Russia illegally and immorally invaded Ukraine in order return Ukraine back to itself And this explains how much suffering Russia is willing to endure. What Putin didnˋt anticipate how much Ukrainians did not want to be part of Russia again. 

A nation can also fail to anticipate how an opponent can fight back. In Vietnam, because of the disparity between conventional military strength between the two sides, both the NVA and the VC often fought using gorilla tactics. The result is that the NVA and the VC were able to prolong the war past our own nationˋs endurance. And one of their strengths was the number of combatants they had to draw from. 

In Iraq, both our own blunders and an insurgency was used to offset the disparity in military strengths. 

In our attacks on Iran, Iran is addressing the disparity in our respective military strengths by using its weapons to fight an economic war rather than engage in a head to head military confrontation. And so when our Secretary of Defense reports on the progress of the war, which he does like a teenage boy would report on playing a video game, he fails to address both a key vulnerability of ours and Iranˋs progress.

Another issue is the respective costs of the war. Though the militaries of Israel and the U.S. are much more powerful than Iranˋs, the cost of our weapons far exceed the costs of Iranˋs weapons. This can make it easier for Iran to win of attrition caused by financial concerns. Cheaper weapons can make it more feasible for a nation to persevere in fighting than more expensive weapons can. And thus there comes a point when continuing to fight can begin to cost too much and factor in to how long both sides are willing to fight.

Because of the Cold War, we sometimes believe that the only wars that we canˋt afford to fight are mutually destructive wars where nuclear weapons are involved. But in the current war with Irans, we could face a total breakdown of the global economic system which would be very destructivee. And so despite our military accomplishments, we will not know who will win this current war until some time after Trump and Netanyahu announce ˋMission Accomplished.ˋ

But there is another factor that determines whether we should fight in a given war. That is the moral factor. With each war, the participants risk experiencing  military defeat and/or moral suicide. We are currently witnessing this in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is apparent by their actions that both Israel and groups like Hamas have not only experienced, but have embraced, moral suicide. It appears, with the victims of the current war, that the U.S. and Israel, along with Iran, are at least flirting with moral suicide. This moral factor would better influence the decision to enter a war if values influenced the participantsˋ decisions more than their respective interests did.

Another factor that should come into play in determining whether to go to war or not is the precedent that such an action sets. The powerful nations believe in privilege based on power. Thus, when they are going to war, they don't think of themselves as setting a precedent or an example  for other nations to follow. That stands in contrast to International Law that presumes the equality of all nations.  And so when Russia invades Ukraine or the U.S. and Israel team up to attack Iran, they are not aware that they are setting an example for the nations wishing to become part of the powerful elite to follow. Nor do they consider how other nations, wishing to go to war with another nation, can rationalize their actions by pointing to the unjust wars prosecuted by the powerful elite.

A nation's military may win all of the battles, but it is the leader of a given nation that determines the success of prosecuting a war. And when one considers the above,  most wars are lost when a President decides to start a war. And that happens when  opportunism is at least partially fueled by ignorance.. But there is something else that we need to consider, if we follow the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, leaders would conclude that almost every war is not worth starting because the accumulation of wars leads to the eventual use use of WMDs. And here we should note that today, WMD is equated with nuclear weapons. But who knows what else could become a WMD in the future.





Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)