This article presented by Sandro Magister and written by Professor Pietro De Marco is fascinating. Many traditionalists are joining the fight against vaccines, but in reality it is this rebellion that would bring them into subjection under a “new world” dystopia. Agree or not agree, the article is worth reading.
The current protests in France and elsewhere are not Christian, but nihilist.
I have been impressed by listening to this video by the psychologist Richard Grannon, who has specialised in toxic and cruel personalities conventionally called narcissists and psychopaths. He talks in particular about the chaos and civil unrest caused by the Woke ideology, but there is a parallel between the Grannon video I saw only yesterday and Prof. De Marco’s posting about people of a right-wing ideology who are mistaken in the target of their war. One or the other, these ideologies are nihilist and can only lead to those who would profit from the confusion of people with ideals but inexperienced in life.
Listen to the Grannon video and then the article about what is freedom. It would seem to me that freedom is getting rid of the virus by whatever means available to us, being concerned for others and working to rebuild society, rational debate and a social contract.
Yes, I read the article. I found the article somewhat obscure but I got the point the author wanted to make. But what are people with convictions or objections to do? You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t! But one is not responsible for every consequence, or action by others in response to yours. If one were, one would do nothing! As the Take-over video underscores, the individual is for the most part a powerless pawn in the games of the powerful. I found the video very coherent and cogent.
My first, but I hope not merely superficial, impression is that Professor Pietro De Marco seems to have landed himself in false dichotomizing – as if there were only some sort of ‘laissez faire libertarianism’ and not also (and, in good part?) a distinct element of clear-sighted Christian political thought in objecting to abuses – even if one assumed ‘well intentioned’ – of the existing ‘liberal’ political order, when it behaves ‘illiberally’.
Positive aspects of his essay bring to mind C.S. Lewis’s fascinating discussion of ‘sovereignty’ and Renaissance and later thoughts about it, in the booklet-length introduction to his English Literature in the Sixteenth Century (Excluding Drama) (OUP, 1954) (q.v., but maybe I can transcribe some interesting quotations, soon, too…).
I was favourably impressed by this, about which I would also say, “Agree or not agree, the article is worth reading”: