As my eyes scan around and watch the signs of the times, these two items seem to me eerily related.
First, from Breitbart:
SUPER BOWL 2014: RIOT POLICE RESTORE ORDER IN SEATTLE AFTER SEAHAWKS WIN
After the Seattle Seahawks won their first Super Bowl in franchise history on Sunday, fans in Seattle jumped on cars, took over intersections, torched couches, and riot police had to be brought in to restore order.
[…]
Panem et circenses.
Next, from Infowars:
Students Sign Petition To Have Gun Owners Executed In Concentration Camps
College kids To Activist Prankster: “No Problem!” “sounds about right.”
Political prankster Mark Dice has once again documented how many young Americans are completely disconnected from reality, capturing California college students signing a fake petition to imprison all legal gun owners in concentration camps and even to have them executed.
“We just want to make sure we disarm the citizens. We can trust the government to be the only ones with guns.” Dice said to students on campus in San Diego, while they unquestioningly signed the petition to “repeal the Second Amendment.”
“These peasants don’t need guns,” Dice stated, adding “We want to put all registered gun owners in prison,” prompting one student to replay “Yes, it’s too dangerous.” for people to own guns.
“It’s just a simple repeal of the Second Amendment and we’ll be terminating and executing all of the gun owners.” Dice told another signatory who replied “OK, thank you.” and walked off.“We are going to ban all guns except for the military and police.” Dice told another student, who signed the petition. “We’ll do door to door confiscations, we have lists of all the registered weapons, so the military will just go and take those away from people.” Dice added. “Ok.” the student replied.
Another male student signed the petition even though Dice suggested confiscating gun owners’ weapons and shooting them with them. “If they like their guns so much, lets just feed the gun owners some of their own lead.” Dice ludicrously said.
“I didn’t think I could get any more ridiculous.” Dice stated after the student thanked him and went about his day.
But he did get more ridiculous. “We need to take these gun owners and put them into FEMA concentration camps to keep everybody safe.” Dice told a skateboarding jock who replied “well I agree with you there, keep them safe.” Although he refused to sign “something I don’t know anything about,” which is something the next student did not consider as he replied “sounds about right” to Dice’s FEMA camp suggestion.
Several other students then happily signed the petition, with responses such as “no problem!” as Dice suggested putting Americans in detention camps and killing them.
Dice has now successfully managed to persuade Americans in his area to agree to repeal the First, Second, Third, Fourth , Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments, as well as the entire Bill Of Rights.
Stay frosty out there, my readers.
Things are getting weirder and weirder out there.
Loading ...
Just think, you could have substituted “2nd Amendment” with “Catholic”, or “Christian”, or “Jew”, and given the times we’re living in, gotten the same type of response.
I am of the opinion that most liberals will donate money to some specific cause, while most conservatives will donate to a specific charity. Obviously, one can find exceptions on both sides.
Do you readers think this is generally the case, or that I should lay off the firewater?
Thanks in advance.
Fr. Bryan flatters himself if he thinks Catnolics are regarded in the same light at Jews by the average self-obesessed CA student. The Jews are untouchable and they explain why Americans have been killing Muslims for the last twenty-five years.
Sounds like kids are not being given a foundation of solid principles to live by. No wonder they are such easy prey for Marxist professors.
Our kids have not been taught to think for themselves. They have become sheeple. Many of us have become sheeple as well. Stay close to God, and go to Confession & Communion, we are living in strange times.
Thanks Fr. Z.
I noticed at a lot, in the beginning, were foreigners – Asians.
16 signed, 3 didn’t. Of the sixteen, 9 appeared to be foreign or at least not understand English BUT one didn’t even remove his earphones.
That was disturbing, no matter what.
That is a disturbing video.
After watching it… My 21 year old son asked me if he has the dumbest generation of all time?
Sorry, son.. yes.
In a recent Vortex episode, young people at the March for Life were asked whether they thought Catholicism was “superior” to other religions. Shockingly, half said “no”. But further inquiry showed that many in this group actually DID think that Catholicism was superior, but that they’ve been trained to run everything through an emotion filter, and the word “superior” would give offense. I’m wondering if a similar dynamic is at work here; that they’re going along in order not to offend anyone.
Liberals have taken over our public education and have succeeded in dumbing down the population. It started in the 70’s with teacher’s unions. And now we have a president who has said there is nothing wrong with smoking marijuana. And there are enough entitlement programs that no one has to work for a living anymore. What can we expect? And we Catholics need Catechized!
It sure is getting weirder out there! As Padre Pio once said, “I’m glad I’m old!” Much prayer and fasting is needed!
Stupidity and evil are identical in their consequences.
Dang–the old knee-jerk judgementalism keeps kicking in…
I wish I could say I’m surprised. Our news and entertainment media (hard to tell the difference, actually) and academia (ditto) are dominated by people utterly devoted to an ideology that simply does not correspond to reality. The ideology, with all its weird gods and demons (e.g., gay marriage, god; global warming, demon) is more real to many young people than the actual ground beneath their feet (you can’t text the ground). Did somebody call for prayer and fasting?
-Iacobus M
http://vitafamiliariscatholica.blogspot.com/
You think that’s weird? In Australia they sell tickets so people can come and heckle and yell at Christ on the Cross:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/south-australian-christian-leaders-denounce-come-heckle-christ-comedy-act
That’s right! The irony is literally lost on these people… From Satanic rituals on TV during awards ceremonies and sporting events to literally jeering Christ on the cross for daring to think He is the Son of God and tell them what to do and how to live their lives. I’d bet there’s good money to be made to charge these people to scourge Him with whips too as an entertaining liberal form of stress relief.
Never have the words been so apt as to say, “Father forgive them, they know not what they do…” They literally can’t fathom the irony…
Yup, bread and circuses. And now bread, circuses and concentration camps. We live in such a stupid society I’m sorry to say. Hopefully the day will come before too long when all of this will just be a a bad memory or the moral of an historical fable though I doubt I will be on the earth when it happens.
I saw a movie once, where only the police and the military had guns, Schindler’s something or another…
Stunning. Wow. Kill them all. Feed them some of their own lead.
Is there anybody who doesn’t realize how on the edge we are as a society?
Wow, I cannot wait until these folks are in charge of things in a few years…yikes! Hopefully they’ll get a clue by then.
Things have been weird for a while. Wasn’t there a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide some time ago?
Speaking of things getting weird: HERE
Many people in my generation are truly bonkers.
Though I saw two girls debating Obama-no-care outside of my High School English class a few days ago, so there are a few who are sane in my generation.
Yes, Art. Some things never grow old.
The old “sign the petition to ban water” trick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1b7OwXY3fA
Like the old “sign the petition to ban pressure cooker” trick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH8sHv3XTxI
Is it possible they’re just signing these things *because* it’s so stupid and outrageous, and they’re young and think it’s funny? [I doubt it.] It kind of reminds me of a written poll my husband’s high school class took, supposedly anonymous, about how many times/if/ they’d had sex. None of the guys told the actual truth…..it was a question just begging for an exaggerated, false answer.
I think (hope!) that that’s all this is–kids being kids and thinking they’re so clever.
Then again, my first comments were my reaction to the first video. In this one, the complete lack of thought in most of the signers was evident. And even that other guy with a petition…continuing to talk and say “you may have a point”…..didn’t anyone call him out on it? I think a lot of people are susceptible to persuasive talk and that’s scary.
I suspect a lot of college kids (I was one recently) assume most surveys and petitions are fake anyway. It’s probably the smartest thing most of them think, seeing as college is less of an education thing anymore and more of a preliminary social screening for the non-manual-labor workforce. (You can get a real education if you’re looking for one, but you have to be willing to look beyond the rigamarole everyone is telling you to run through, and when you finally do find a college that actually teaches you how to think about your areas of interest so as to continue advancing in them you will probably have problems getting the paperwork to go through right.) For perspective: the future is you… probably.
@steve jones,
You may not be aware that among teens there is a resurgence in antisemitism and holocaust-minimizing. It is pretty scary and worrisome.
Actually, the Seattle “riots” were pretty tame as far as sports riots go. A few drunken frat guys torching an old couch does not an imminent apocalypse make. Check out this post for more:
http://storify.com/KUOW/how-seattle-riots
This generation has learned their morality and virtues from the Viacoms and Disneys of the world, while their parents pursued their American Dream by working 60-80 hours a week and paid no attention to what their kids were doing. This is the normalized, daycare generation. This is the generation left to blow in the wind. If you do not impose Christian Morality on your children someone else will impose their version of morality on them. Chances are, they will find society’s version of morality (whatever that is) easier to follow and more “relevent” then your old, stuffy, Catholic viewpoint. Are you raising children who will be church militant, or are they stumbling in the darkness of the enemy?
Don’t non-Americans see government control and firearms completely differently [in regard to how not all questioned were American]? Maybe some non-Americans could comment.
While the joke here is to prove the ignorant cluelessness of our youth and how manipulated they are to a dangerous extent, there is more illustrated here.
Foreigners do not ‘get’ the ingrained “rights of the individual” that we Americans know. They do not understand our gun rights of the Second Amendment or why it exists.
Americans baffle foreigners in regard to gun control [and socialized medicine, government control and permissions, classless structure, etc]. Our country’s roots are based in suspicion of government – hence our Constitution, gun rights, voting, the three branches of government. Our founders ran from being told what to do by government. We grew up granting rights to our government. Generally, everyone else comes from post-monarchical cultures that today grant rights to the people [vestiges of the “Noblesse Oblige” to take care of everyone]. For instance, their economic systems are built to support socialized medicine whereas the American wage-earner and our economic structure does not. American taxes originally were not to sustain government but for militia and protecting rights of the individual [well that was the idea anyway]. Other cultures have a past where the Catholic nobility funded and cared for the poor, thus the morphing of government sustaining socialized medicine and the poor. Many cultures do not allow citizens guns – even police do not, such as in England whereas for Americans, guns and self-defense is a right. As was explained to me once, Americans view the government as the enemy of the people, while generally, foreigners see government from a more a hierarchical standpoint, where the people are the lessor power. The differences are too many to enumerate here.
How ironic that the America that is founded upon Masonic principles of individual rights [Liberty, Fraternity (a.k.a. Brotherhood), and Equality] is now being made to think its okay to give up those rights to a Godless tyrannical government. We aren’t trading our Masonic principles for submission to our Creator God, but instead are heading for enslavement to the godless.
Indeed, how the Revolution “eats its own children”.
Dear @Tina in Ashburn,
interesting question. Well, Chesterton said, “It was perhaps an incautious suggestion to make to a person only too ready to write books upon the feeblest provocation.” Though I write merely commentaries, and no good ones at that.
The thing is: I don’t like to say it on an American blog especially given that the Americans are certain to rank among the kindest and probably among the most moral peoples in the world but…
as to the basic principle, it is us that are right.
By both philosophical principle and the teaching of religion*, the State is not thine enemy. (“The Police – your friend and helper”, as the old German slogan goes.) Man is by nature a political animal as well as a family-man and an individual self. The State is necessary to the fulfillment of this part of human nature. And so, no, the State is not thine enemy.
[* Some say that the teachings of Christ and St. Paul can be interpreted as merely about avoiding greater evils, but the more obvious and certainly the traditionally more common interpretation, it means that the State is the appointed servant of God and in-so-far fulfills an in some sense sacred office. I do not say that this means we must not cross a street on red lights in morality; whether this sacred office is used, or usable, is another question. I was only talking about the principle.]
In addition, the State has the important function to hold sins at bay. Tully, with tongue in cheek, reminds us at the very beginning of De republica, “by no means do philosophers say, which however is rightly and justly said: that not by them are laws perceived and confirmed, but by some cities. For whence piety? wherefrom religion? whence law, both the law of the peoples or that which has the very name of “civil law”? whence justice, faith, equity? whence shamefacedness, continence, flight from turpitude, desire for praise and honor? whence fortitude in pains and dangers? – Certainly from them who confirm the one part of this discipline by morality, while they sanctify the other part by law. When Xenokrates himself, a noble prince of philosophers, was once asked what his teaching was there for, he answered: that they shall do of free-will what they would have been forced to do by law. Thus that legislator or policeman [civis] who forces all by command and the penalties of law what philosophers could only persuade some few by talking, is even by those who dispute it preferred to the teachers.”
Nor does Catholic teaching disagree with such an attitude. St. Thomas himself says rather shortly that (S. th. I/II 95 I) “it was necessary for such to be restrained from evil by force and fear, in order that, at least, they might desist from evil-doing, and leave others in peace, and that they themselves, by being habituated in this way, might be brought to do willingly what hitherto they did from fear, and thus become virtuous.” One can become virtuous by the threat of the policeman, and one can “make a virtue out of necessity” (another saying of St. Thomas). Only the kind of people likely to accuse all and sundy of hypocrisy say otherwise. I can here say myself that when I tried to maintain some inner discipline as a soldier, it was for the good of my country (and obeying God’s law of course); all the same, the penalties that are on insubordination and the like were of help.
So, the state is in his* order no more an enemy than the family in hers or the self in its. [*allow me to personify the State, as it is done in my mother tongue.]
Another problem is that the concept of “the people” is difficult to begin with. Simplifiedly (and certainly along the dogmas of liberalism in its 19th century and European sense of the word) “there is no such thing as ‘the people'”. While I don’t think this is quite true, there is indeed no easily graspable thing called “the people” (as also “the nation” – not necessarily the same thing). It exists, but is difficult to grasp. It only occasionally acquires on a specific matter an “opinion of the people” (not necessarily true either) – on other questions, and regularly on the at least superficially more interesting ones, it falls into factions. Anyway, it is well content to leave technical governing duties to some appointed secretaries. It is to some degree even defined by State rules (immigration, naturalization, etc.). And being the body of the State with the soul being the government, it can by no means simply “rule itself”. We may agree that for many areas, including the ones where there is today rule, it would be better to have no rule at all and leave it to the man himself (or the family, or the association, corporation, etc.). But (apart from that all of these except the individual must have somewhat a rule too) – this is not, from the State’s perspective, ruling. The word “self-rule” is self-contradictory; all we can have is election of rulers.
Monarchies are naturally less likely than elective democracies to step over their subjects’ liberties. Why is that so? Because if it is established that we do need some rule, we observe that 1. there is no right-to-rule in any man by his own nature, and 2. that while even the majority or the man elected by a majority has no such thing, they come closest. Thus they may think they are the voice of the People, and thus whatever they command is self-rule of the people and thus no oppression at all. On the other hand, a monarch who (despite usually getting a quite fine education) gets his position by the accident of birth, if he is not a cruel and malicious person, will naturally at least be less tempted at least to ignore the freedoms (though he, too, may find it necessary to restrict them, and people might disagree).
Freedom and republicanism are by no means the same thing. America freed herself from the at least perceived oppression of an aristocratic government where the king maybe had some part in, while an absolute king (the French one) came to her aid (who, by coincidence, had long hosted a person who, but for an unjust law against the Catholics, would have been king). That France went from kingdom and at least comparative liberty to a republic with total oppression is beyond any doubt.
Long story short… we do not see the State as an enemy of the people. In fact, I never understand the part of pro-gun-ownership argumentation that says “to defend oneself against an unjust government”. The unjust government simply has more guns, and can use more organized and usually bigger troops to wield them. All this seems to assume an “uprise of the people”. Forgive me, I do find it naive to assume that if the government were unjust, the people would uprise. And even if they do what we call by comparison an uprise – private guns would not have made Berlin 1953 successful. And Berlin 1989 was successful without guns.
There is another pro-gun-ownership which I do understand: it is a restriction of people’s liberties which 1. just like any of them must never be done without reasonable and proportional necessity 2. cripples them against criminals, while the police won’t be around instantly. That one I understand; the resistance-against-government part less so.
[For the record, let me make clear that I think any “reading” of the II amendment other than allowing private gun-ownership is anti-constitutional sophistry.]
Excuse the length.
An aside about your comment as to “classless structure”. Did you mean that America has a classless structure and Europe has not? I cannot judge on that myself, but some informed people tell the contrary. In one (fictional) story by Kuehnelt-Leddihn, the American wife of a German nobleman is astonished at his decision that their son will “certainly” go to the local higher school together with their gardener’s son. She had assumed as certain that he go to some private institute.
Lin, the dumbing down began long before the 1970s. John Dewey laid it out in the late 19th century, and the notion was to produce obedient citizens with just sufficient education to man the factories and farm the fields. The ruling class would do the rest.
…and no, these students did not sign thinking it is all a joke. They signed because they have been taught what to think, and have never been taught how to think, how to reason.
“I suspect a lot of college kids (I was one recently) assume most surveys and petitions are fake anyway.”
The last person to actually stop me and get me to discuss a petition got a half-hour lecture on the issue at hand :)
That being said, as a humor theorist, we do see instances of unanchored humor among some young people. The old commercial that started, “Whatssuppp…” was hilarious to some young people, but very few older people. The original paper tried to pass this off as an age-related phenomenon. The problem is that there is absolutely no context to that utterance (at least none provided in the commercial) and it becomes pretty clear that the young are making up or injecting a shared context from their in-group associations. So, this has nothing to do with age, but, rather, with association. Presumably, older people could have their own in-jokes.
I have not seen the video, but I have seen many petitions on college campuses. That being said, this is a faux petition and Mark Dice is an incompetent as a pollster. Tina is right: there is a large cultural divide over the issue of guns, so Dice should have chosen a proper co-hort group, either all Americans or all non-Americans. His video proves nothing, at least statistically.
What is may prove, isolating only the American students, is that many of these students should not be voting, because they clearly do not do due diligence to understanding complex situations. I would bet that 90% of these students could not tell you how many amendments there are to the Constitution, nor even who their state senators are. Every young person thinks his opinion is the truth until life convinces him otherwise. Students in many high school English classes are taught to think in terms of feeling, these days, not hard facts. No wonder the number of scientists is shrinking.
Most students have opinions, not well-developed points of view. This is a, often, the result of cognitive biases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Unfortunately, children, especially, today, cannot really make rational arguments while growing up. Imagine trying to have a debate about gun control in a high school in California and in Texas. Well, an argument is an argument, but in which state will gun control sound more rational, even if the identical points are raised? Heck, try to have a rational discussion with a principal about zero tolerance for drugs in junior high. Students, in the large, absorb the prevailing wisdom of their peers. Peers can be found both in real life and in the media. Most don’t really start to think for themselves until they are in a position of responsibility that forces them to. One such situation is parenthood. It would be an interesting study to take a topic and a group of people and see how they respond before and after having kids.
So, these students are not so much dumb as they are irresponsible. They are, not yet, the guardians of their personhood. Kids, today, do not have to be responsible in the ways kids had to, in the past. Because of divorce and absent parenting, many have to live in a state of denial for many years past college. Dice should have asked the questions to graduate students. Most would have blown him off, but they would have been likelier to take responsibility for their answers when they made them.
The Chicken
America’s revolutionary roots and founding sentiments can cause confusion if we don’t see how our loving Creator fits in. I don’t know if most Americans think much about our real roots other than from sentimentality, but the subtle awe of certain American principles may affect us more than we understand. I’m no historian but I do detect certain symptoms in our society, so I have been sorta looking into where it all comes from.
@Imrahil, Thoughtful response. You kinda’ demonstrate the bewilderment over American thought and behavior by non-Americans. This is observed by my traveling son as he discusses politics and socialism with incredulous foreigners in bars, beaches, and hostels over the uproar in America over socialized medicine, guns, public transportation, government-run business, among other mysteries LOL. There is a chasm between how things should be, the ideals of society, and what goes on in a society founded on suspicion of government. We take our ‘right to bear arms’ seriously because of the “tyrannies” of monarchs, and the idea that the masses are helpless unless armed. You are right that a government can outgun the people- half of us here don’t like over-equipped governments either, especially when our forces are dropping lately the moniker of ‘serve and protect the people’. So we cling to our rights even tighter. We are taught from birth to revere revolution and individual rights, which include revering the uprisings against the Czar, the French king and all that. For the American, power rests in the people, not the government, and ‘kings are all louses’. We are not a pure democracy, that would be too chaotic, we are a republic, following the revolutionary French model.
As you probably know, it is a condemned heresy to preach separation of Church and State. At one time, the Catholic monarch submitted to the Church and led his own people with that view. To separate government from God is a sin. It is also a condemned heresy to preach that power comes from below; and not from above, and ultimately from God. [Gulp, Americanism is a defined heresy!] So you are correct Imrahil to say that the state should be the servant of God. Your observe correctly that people ruling themselves is illogical – its human nature to look up to someone to make decisions.
An aside: Here we may not have a monarchy but instead a republic. But we must make the best of what we have. Our Lady of Good Success [Ecuador] predicted the separation of Ecuador from the Crown because of the sins of the representatives of the King, and that a Republic would result. In other words, loss of the monarchical structure is due to sin. But she also predicted that a ruler would dedicate his country to the Sacred Heart. [The president of the Republic of Ecuador did this dedication with his Congress and was shot to death on the public square by Masonic forces as he crawled towards her statue.]
No, other than money, there is no class structure here as Americans are generally sons of tenant farmers and immigrants. Class is based on the wealthy who are our ‘nobility’ and these wealthy are simply successful shopkeepers and businessmen, and now include movie stars [groan]. For instance, the Vanderbilts, a big name in the late 1800s here were simply wealthy businessmen – a sister-in-law made up their crest to mimic European nobility. Successful tycoons of railroad, steel, oil, etc. wielded power through earned money. America is the epitome of the rise of the middle class, mirroring what happened to France after the Revolution and during the English Reformation. Nobility stayed in Europe [although some did flee to America, and still are hidden].
I was told once that to an Englishman, there is nothing more hilarious than comedies about those who don’t know their place. My French grandmother thought the show Hazel was riveting – an old 70s T.V. comedy about a bossy maid. In her French mind, you just didn’t act that way as a servant, nor would a family tolerate it. This attitude is a mystery to an American because, rather than being a sin, ambition is a “virtue” and we can make ourselves anything we want from bottle-washer to President. Its all about equality and making something of yourself.
The founders here ran from government interference such as the Mayflower Puritans evading Christian influences, hence the persecution of Catholics in our early history. Seriously reading the founding fathers such as Thomas Paine, Jefferson, getting to know Samuel Adams demonstrates the adulation for revolution and persecution of the Tories [those loyal to the Crown of England]. Benjamin Franklin disowned his dearly loved son for being a Tory after he came of age – because his son got a clue about all this ‘revolution’ stuff.
In regard to the French coming to our aid, Lafayette was a known Mason. There were also concerns about the rights of Catholic Spain interfering. This post is already too long for any more details about all that. [yikes! sorry!]
How this all works out with actual God-loving people here in America, who respect authority and value laws is going to be interesting. What or who is going to teach us the truth about hierarchy and class structure? Which set of ideals is going to win? Will it be sentiments about individual rights and revolution or obedience to the real God? Revolution ends in chaos, a vacuum of authority ensues. What is going to fill that vacuum?
Dear @Tina in Ashburn,
thank you for your kind answer. I have not now the time to respond in more detail, maybe later. If indeed a response is necessary, and not just the love of talking…
One thing, though:
No, other than money, there is no class structure here.
Thereby, forgive me, you proved what I only suspected.
Because why should a class structure based on money be anything different from a class structure?
The European within me would perhaps even assume that, if anything, a class structure based on money is a rather undesired form of class structure. The word “new rich” is not a term of praise here.
[If you have ever read the Communist Manifesto – not to agree with, but for general education – you will find its first part a full-scale condemnation of the new rich or bourgeoise. This was probably undeserved, at least in extent, but my point is here that no reactionary could have said that better or in stronger terms. It is only after the unproven hypothesis “you cannot turn the clock back” is brought into play that Marx and company start to draw their own communist-heretical program.]