During COVID, the "if it saves one life" argument was used to justify locking everything down, no matter the cost. You'd think the people who made that argument would be mandating AC for everyone instead of confiscating unapproved units.
C.J. Stroud credits “playing multiple sports, including basketball and soccer at younger ages, for developing his overall athleticism, agility, and footwork.”
#EndYouthSportsSpecialization
"The man on the middle cross said I could come..."
This might be the best 3-minutes of preaching I've *EVER* seen. If you don't feel this in your soul, you need to check your pulse 😭🙌
On Thanksgiving Day, I love reading George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation.
"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor..."
If you're trying to make sense of what's happening in the conservative movement, here's an explanation.
Postliberalism, a previously obscure ideological camp, has been thrust into the spotlight by recent events - and prematurely so because those events were beyond their control.
Until recently, postliberals have developed as an esoteric intellectual clique. They've grafted onto a few particular causes - e.g. Trumpian economic policy - but for the most part they've operated with intentional obscurity, even within mainstream institutions on the political right.
This is by necessity because several tenets of the postliberal political agenda are patently absurd. They'd encounter widespread opposition and even ridicule if presented openly to the public. For example, most postliberals view the American Founding as a failed experiment that was "corrupted" by libertarian individualism. They view the Constitution as an obstacle to their political vision of the "good," and need to remove that obstacle to carry out their agenda.
A number of postliberals dabble openly in a theocratic melding of church and state along with fantastical schemes on how to usher in a new "Integralist" society, all of which ignore the fact that neither the majority of the American population nor the religious leader they expect to execute their plan (i.e. Pope Leo) are on board with this nonsense.
And then there's the little problem of fascist-adjacency. Postliberals have a number of pronounced and unambiguous affinities for fascist figures and political movements. Many of them are obsessed with the Franco regime in Spain and the Salazar regime in Portugal, and look to these historical examples as precursors for a postliberal state. They also tend to be enamored with Carl Schmitt, the Nazi legal philosopher who deeply influenced several of the leading postliberal theorists today (e.g. Adrian Vermeule). Schmitt provides a theoretical foundation of authoritarian regimes by turning them into a positive good as well as a basis for wielding political power against the "enemies" of postliberalism. And perhaps more than any other faction on the right, the postliberals have aggressively rebelled against the previous generations of conservatives such as William F. Buckley, who fought to keep the racist fringes and conspiracist crackpots out of the conservative mainstream by making such ideas as taboo. To the contrary, the postliberals have thrown open their doors to these types as allies and potential converts, particularly as postliberals have also fought to purge free-market economic ideas from conservatism.
When recent controversies on the right (e.g. the Tucker Carlson-Nick Fuentes mess) dragged other conservative personalities and groups into the mix, it prematurely pulled back the curtain on postliberalism, which has had is own long-festering fascist-adjacency problem as delineated above. And for the past few weeks, the postliberals have been scrambling in public light to contain the fallout.
Some postliberals have tried damage control by distancing themselves from Carlson/Fuentes and acting shocked to discover that the conservative movement's internship ranks have a groyper infestation (while conspicuously avoiding the question: who hired these groyper kids in the first place?). Others have leaned in to try to make their eccentricities part of mainstream conservatism: by touting Schmitt and trying to put a positive spin on him, by indulging historical revisionism about Franco et al, and by trying to repackage their batty narrative about the American Founding in a way that looks less like a far-right version of the 1619 Project (to do this they claim that the founding fathers were really theocratically-inclined reactionaries resembling the postliberals today, and that their individualist reputation is some later libertarian invention).
Since the spotlight was directed onto postliberalism unexpectedly, the fallout has been haphazard and the damage control has been clumsy. They've also been flailing to try to recapture the narrative by depicting their own problems as the product of a counter-push by "neoconservatives" to allegedly undermine Trump, or to damage JD Vance's prospects at obtaining the GOP nomination in 2028.