YubNub Social YubNub Social
    #astronomy #humor #nightsky #loonylibs #moon #charliekirk #supermoon #perigee #illegalaliens #zenith #tpusa #bigfoot #socialists #spooky #supermoon2025
    Advanced Search
  • Login
  • Register

  • Night mode
  • © 2025 YubNub Social
    About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

    Select Language

  • English
Install our *FREE* WEB APP! (PWA)
Night mode toggle
Community
New Posts (Home) ChatBox Popular Posts Reels Game Zone Top PodCasts
Explore
Explore
© 2025 YubNub Social
  • English
About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Discover posts

Posts

Users

Pages

Blog

Market

Events

Games

Forum

History Traveler
History Traveler
2 w

The Worlds at the Earth’s Core
Favicon 
www.historytoday.com

The Worlds at the Earth’s Core

The Worlds at the Earth’s Core JamesHoare Thu, 10/23/2025 - 08:52
Like
Comment
Share
BlabberBuzz Feed
BlabberBuzz Feed
2 w

Trump Administration Closes Loopholes Long Exploited By California Under Gavin Newsom
Favicon 
www.blabber.buzz

Trump Administration Closes Loopholes Long Exploited By California Under Gavin Newsom

Like
Comment
Share
Strange & Paranormal Files
Strange & Paranormal Files
2 w

Amazing Explorers' Encounters With the Unexplained and the Supernatural
Favicon 
mysteriousuniverse.org

Amazing Explorers' Encounters With the Unexplained and the Supernatural

Ever since we have looked over the horizon and wondered what lies beyond, there have been those willing to trek off to find out. Exploration seems to be an innate feature of human nature, the need to shine a light on the dark corners of our understanding, a force that drives us to further penetrate realms we do not understand. Many of these travelers have, over the centuries, brought back amazing and mysterious tales from these faraway lands, and sometimes it is difficult to know what to make of them. Are they illuminating new places and things long immersed in shadow, or are they tall tales and flights of fancy? It can be sometimes hard to tell, but many tales have been brought back by explorers from the wilds of our world that involve all manner of mystery, bizarreness, and the supernatural. 
Like
Comment
Share
Living In Faith
Living In Faith
2 w

Have We Ever Been Woke?
Favicon 
www.thegospelcoalition.org

Have We Ever Been Woke?

“The owl of Minerva flies at dusk.” That was Hegel’s way of saying that wisdom, especially when it comes to the interpretation of history, is only possible at the end of the day when everything has happened and we’ve had time to reflect on it. Coming to terms with the significance of world events is almost impossible in real time. We’re limited by our emotions, our hopes and fears, our awareness of what’s taking place, the outsize narrative-shaping influence of those in power, and our ignorance of the future consequences—and those limitations mean that it can take years for a considered judgment to be possible. That’s why people love to quote the former Chinese premier Zhou Enlai, who was asked in 1972 about the effects of the uprising in France four years earlier and replied, “Too early to say.” Quite right. Cold takes are better than hot takes. So it’s fascinating that the last 12 months have seen the release of two books that, in different ways, try to make sense of the social and cultural upheavals in Western democracies that peaked in the summer of 2020. (The terminology we use for these upheavals is highly contested: depending on who we are and whether we approve of them, we might talk about the rise of social justice, antiracism, identity politics, cancel culture, racial reckoning, intersectionality, the Great Awokening, or something else.) Thomas Chatterton Williams’s Summer of Our Discontent: The Age of Certainty and the Demise of Discourse is a historical and journalistic account of what happened, telling the story of 2008 to 2024 with a focus on the response to George Floyd’s death in 2020. Musa al-Gharbi’s We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite takes a sociological and theoretical approach, defending its provocative thesis using established categories from economics, anthropology, sociology, and philosophy. There are obvious similarities between the two books. Both are serious-looking hardbacks from prestigious presses (Knopf and Princeton). Both are well-produced, carefully researched, and blurbed by the kinds of people you’d expect: David Brooks, Jonathan Haidt, Tyler Cowen, Yuval Levin. Both are brightly and engagingly written, with an audience of thoughtful nonspecialists in mind. Both criticize many of the developments they describe but are eager to understand rather than merely denounce them. Both, significantly, are written by men of color in their early 40s who are fiercely critical of the populist right and cannot be dismissed as part of a racial backlash. And both are excellent: thoughtful, readable, provocative, and illuminating. Hopeless Summer Summer of Our Discontent begins on May 25, 2020, with Floyd’s murder. The event is horribly familiar: a white policeman kneeling on the neck of a black man for nine and a half minutes until he asphyxiates, captured on camera and instantly broadcast for the world to see. But Williams frames it in an unfamiliar and important way. “George Floyd was a poor man. That was the most salient fact about his life” (xiv). “George Floyd was not simply or even necessarily killed on account of race . . . his death was very much a function of his being impoverished. He died over a counterfeit banknote the vast majority of black people would never come to possess” (77). Indeed, Williams argues, it can be helpful to distinguish between two Floyds: the complex real one and the simplified totemic one. “On the one hand, there was the son and the brother, certainly down on his luck that long weekend, unemployed and carrying methamphetamines and fentanyl in his system . . . dozing in a parked car, having passed a counterfeit banknote moments earlier” (4). “On the other hand, there is the immortalized George Floyd, whose death exists in footage, on wretched loop in our brains . . . the idea, simmering for years without reaching a rolling boil, of intransigent black pain and suffocating white supremacy” (5). Within minutes of his tragic death, the former was almost entirely swallowed by the latter. Within hours, it was being felt and understood in explicitly Christlike ways: Had Floyd not, in some viscerally apparent way, borne the awful weight of his society’s racial sins on his very own neck and shoulders? And had that weight—all of ours massed and taken together—not in turn crushed him? A man died for us on that squalid pavement, not asking why his father had forsaken him but, shatteringly, calling for his deceased mother. The lethargic executioner . . . had washed his hands of the matter—had buried them deep inside his pockets. (7) The following days and weeks saw thousands of protests and millions of people come together in what were probably the largest protests against racism in human history. This raises the obvious historical question: Why? Williams answers by telling the story of the West from 2008 onward, highlighting four key ingredients. The first was the global financial crash, which caused large numbers of white millennials—already progressive on sexual ethics and wrestling with colonial guilt about the 9/11 wars—to rethink the merits of global capitalism and consider social democratic or Marxist alternatives. The second was Barack Obama’s presidency, the start of which was hailed at the time in The New York Times as a “national catharsis” and even the end of the American Civil War, but which could never have fulfilled these colossal post-racial expectations, especially when confronted with regular video footage of young black men being killed by law enforcement. The third was the way in which Donald Trump’s first term radicalized both the right and the left, from the racist march on Charlottesville to the Jussie Smollett debacle, causing both sides to reject basic liberal norms and ushering in a state of exception. And the fourth ingredient was COVID-19, which—besides fueling fear, enforcing isolation, increasing inequality, and driving people online—created a new menu of issues for people to disagree about: lockdowns, masks, vaccines, lab leaks, and whether or not it was justified to violate social distancing restrictions in the name of antiracist protest. Few public figures emerge from Williams’s story with much credit. He’s unsparing in his criticism of Trump, as you might expect, for his general mendacity and ignorance in public office through to his specific suggestions of treating COVID-19 with light-based remedies or injecting disinfectants into people. But in many ways, he’s even more excoriating about the progressive left’s response to that summer’s events. “In the space of two weeks and without really thinking it through, we went from shaming people for being in the street to shaming them for not being in the street” (78), he explains. We’re still paying the price for that intellectual incoherence today. Williams devotes particular attention to the “cult of antiracism” that flourished in 2020—from the conceptual work of Robin DiAngelo, Ibram X. Kendi, and Nikole Hannah-Jones to the practical outcomes of institutional repentance in Princeton, policing cuts in Minneapolis, forced resignations at The New York Times, and performative antiracism in Portland—culminating in what CNN notoriously called the “fiery but mostly peaceful protests” in Kenosha after the shooting of Jacob Blake in August. The book then brings us into the present day, with chapters on the worldwide exporting of American antiracism through social media, “cancel culture,” the spectacle of January 6, and the events in Israel and Gaza since October 2023. Williams has no difficulty in showing that our responses to each of them are colored, often profoundly and sometimes literally, by the summer of 2020. There’s a lot to like about Summer of Our Discontent. Williams is a good storyteller. His narrative blends familiar set-pieces with unfamiliar details; his prose is fluent and occasionally sparkling; and there’s enough humor to compensate for the relentless grimness of the central arc and the unpleasant memories it’ll evoke for most readers. The main piece that’s missing, however, is hope: hope that this uncomfortable story means something beyond a collective plague on all our houses, hope that things either have improved or are just about to, hope that we’ve learned anything at all from what happened. (In fairness, this tone is what we’d expect from a book with “discontent” in the title and “demise” in the subtitle.) Some readers will find it therapeutic to relive that summer in the hands of a confident narrator, safe in the knowledge that we’re all still here five years later. I certainly did. Others, though, will crave positivity: signs of change, a way through, a promising case study, an audacious proposal of some sort. They may need to look elsewhere. Hypocritical Wokeness There’s no shortage of audacity in We Have Never Been Woke. In the face of a consensus that the Western world went through a Great Awokening in the 2010s and early 2020s, whether people celebrate or lament it, Musa al-Gharbi calmly but firmly replies, No, we didn’t. The main piece missing from Williams’s book is hope: hope that things either have improved or are just about to, hope that we’ve learned anything at all from what happened. Some of us pretended to go through a process of awakening or sincerely believed we had. Others fiercely criticized or ridiculed the awakening and all who sailed in her. But in reality, the so-called Great Awokening never took place: The problem, in short, is not that symbolic capitalists are too woke, but that we’ve never been woke. . . . Symbolic capitalists regularly engage in behaviors that exploit, perpetuate, exacerbate, reinforce and mystify inequalities—often to the detriment of the very people we purport to champion. And our sincere commitment to social justice lends an unearned and unfortunate sense of morality to these endeavours. (20) To make this case, al-Gharbi introduces a few pieces of sociological jargon, the most important of which is Pierre Bourdieu’s idea of “symbolic capital.” We all have resources available to us (or not) on the basis of prestige, recognition, honor, and status within a social hierarchy. This symbolic capital may come from our position, credibility, experience, or trust within a particular organization; it may come from academic credentials, the books we’ve read, the degree we hold, the institution we studied at, or the expertise we claim; or it may be cultural in nature, deriving from our speech, clothing, manners, tastes, opinions, terminology, and so forth. This is vital to understand because “wokeness has become a key source of cultural capital among contemporary elites” (26). One of the main ways in which cultural elites signal their high status, and identify the status of others, is through the positions they hold on issues of race, sexuality, gender, disability, and identity, and the language they use to express them. Progressive views on issues like these signal high status in polite society, particularly if they’re expressed with the right terminology. But they usually make little practical difference to those they purport to represent and frequently function in self-serving and status-reinforcing ways. “As a result of these tendencies, symbolic capitalists and the institutions they dominate may seem much more woke than they actually are” (36). Examples of this disparity between appearance and reality abound. Sexually, people who claim to believe that “trans women are women” don’t act that way when it comes to their dating and marriage decisions. Economically, while the Occupy Wall Street movement of 2011 sounded like a grassroots protest against inequality, it was overwhelmingly driven by well-paid graduates in symbolic economy hubs who were generally globalization’s winners, not losers. Racially, those who gain the most from the recent surge in corporate and academic DEI programs aren’t poorer employees or students but the professionals who hold the “social justice sinecures” that teach them (107–110). Environmentally, the most progressive urban areas in America see less new housing, more aggressive policing, and greater inequality than elsewhere. Romantically, the people who most disparage “traditional families” are among the most likely to have come from such families themselves and to form such families of their own. Financially, affluent progressives give less of their income away to charity than rural, suburban, and religiously motivated conservatives, and their charitable giving is less likely to go to poorer communities. Everywhere you look, symbolic capitalists are claiming to speak for the poor and marginalized while actually reaping most of the benefits themselves. Consequently, “nonelites would be well advised to ignore what symbolic capitalists say and look at what we do instead” (170). Everywhere you look, symbolic capitalists are claiming to speak for the poor and marginalized while actually reaping most of the benefits themselves. Having said that, We Have Never Been Woke isn’t a tirade against progressivism. There’s plenty of posturing and hypocrisy to be exposed, not least in the chapter on totemic capitalism and competitive victimhood. But al-Gharbi doesn’t descend into partisan ranting, preferring to explain rather than to harangue. He’s clear, for example, that he’s a symbolic capitalist himself, and recognizes that the anti-woke are just as prone to flexing and symbolic posturing as the woke. He considers the similarities between the four periods of “awokening” in the last hundred years—in the 1920s, the 1960s, the 1980s, and the 2010s—and highlights several parallels, which demonstrate that the last decade or so isn’t as unprecedented as we think. Most importantly, he takes performative wokeness seriously as a sociological phenomenon and seeks to account for it. After introducing the phenomenon of “elite overproduction” (99–103), whereby we educate more graduates than we have jobs for and this causes resentment, he moves on to analyze the emergence of the “creative class” (134–46), and continues right through to the development of “luxury beliefs” (which signal status to the rich but ultimately hurt the poor) and “moral licensing” (in which we hold certain positions to insure us against accusations of racism), tying them together coherently (270–95). His tone is nuanced throughout, and his argument is supported by empirical research and quantitative data rather than anecdotes, undergirded by a hundred pages of references. Yet his argument is so clear that this doesn’t involve excessive throat-clearing or punch-pulling. Here’s an excellent example on critical race theory: Let’s be frank here: the ideas and frameworks associated with what opponents label “CRT” are demonstrably not the language of the disadvantaged and the dispossessed. These aren’t the discourses of the ghetto, the trailer park, the hollowed-out suburb, the postindustrial town, or the global slum. Instead, they’re ideas embraced primarily by highly educated and relatively well-off whites, reflecting an unholy mélange of the therapeutic language of psychology and medicine, the interventionism of journalists and activists, the tedious technicality of law and bureaucracy, and the pseudo-radical Gnosticism of the modern humanities. It is symbolic capitalist discourse, through and through. (274) This combination of serious research, lucid prose, and tight argumentation characterizes the whole book and makes it a joy to read. Humble Progress Neither Williams nor al-Gharbi offers solutions as such. Their purpose is descriptive rather than proscriptive, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But of the two, al-Gharbi comes closer to pointing a way forward, or offering what I referred to previously as hope. Some of this comes from the books’ respective endings. Where the afterword in Summer of Our Discontent considers the October 7 Hamas attacks and their aftermath, which creates the impression of a permanent doom-loop, the conclusion of We Have Never Been Woke suggests a number of avenues for further study that hint at future possibilities. Some of this difference derives from the time frame. Williams is telling a 15-year story, whereas al-Gharbi is describing a 100-year cycle of which the most recent iteration is just one example. That gives both writer and reader much-needed perspective on a turbulent decade. And some, it seems to me, comes from the implied anthropology. Summer of Our Discontent describes events that happened to us, on our behalf, in which we as readers were observers at best. We’re watching things unfold passively, with minimal agency of our own; our primary role in remembering is to shake our heads in disbelief at what happened in the corridors of power in Washington, Minneapolis, or The New York Times. The central figure of We Have Never Been Woke, by contrast, is us. We’re al-Gharbi’s symbolic capitalists, or we wouldn’t be reading a book like this—and a moment’s thought will reveal that we’re characterized by many of the same hypocrisies, status games, and moral inconsistencies. And because both writer and reader are in the same predicament, we can internalize and reflect on al-Gharbi’s implied challenge: Where have we become performative in our activism and self-serving in our moral logic? How, if at all, are we expressing our stated ideals in genuine relationships with those in need around us? Who are they? Are we being careful not to perform our acts of righteousness before men? Or have we received our reward in full? Where have we become performative in our activism and self-serving in our moral logic? With five years of hindsight, there’s clearly a widespread sense that the social upheavals that peaked in 2020 went too far. The years since the pandemic have seen a significant pendulum swing in the opposite direction on issues ranging from woke capitalism and cancel culture to unconscious bias training and trans rights. The mood in politics and on social media has shifted substantially in many Western nations. But there’s another sense in which they didn’t go far enough. Many racial injustices were left largely unaddressed by the mass outpouring of performative wokeness. Many of the changes that did result were cosmetic and served only to enhance the position of more affluent, educated, and privileged groups within society. Many of our poorer and less advantaged citizens are still waiting for a genuine awakening to come. Many of our churches are just as segregated as they were in 2019. Neither of these books will solve those problems on its own. But both of them, and al-Gharbi’s in particular, have the capacity to challenge and inform us by reframing the narrative of that turbulent year—as long as we read them with a spirit of humility (“Is it I, Lord?”) rather than smugness (“I thank you, Lord, that I am not like that symbolic capitalist over there”). Vibes have shifted many times before. They will again. And thoughtful cold takes on the last one can help us wisely respond to the next one.
Like
Comment
Share
Living In Faith
Living In Faith
2 w

Blessed Are Those Who Wrestle
Favicon 
www.thegospelcoalition.org

Blessed Are Those Who Wrestle

I was sitting with a friend who felt discouraged by life’s ongoing struggles. She remarked about a particular family she knows—a family in a season of health, financial stability, and children who are all walking with the Lord. “They are so blessed by God,” she said, almost wistfully. Her response made me pause. Does God’s blessing always look like an easy, struggle-free life? If so, what does that mean for those in seasons of great suffering and hardship? The Bible doesn’t shy away from stories of wrestling, of tension, of people who refuse to let go of God even when their circumstances seem unbearable. Sometimes, profound encounters with God come during seasons of restoration and ease. Other times, these encounters happen when wrestling with him, and the battle doesn’t mean we’re any less blessed. God Is in the Struggle Like my friend, many wonder where God is in the struggle. But Scripture reminds us that some of the most defining moments in faith happen in the wrestling. In Genesis 32, we encounter the powerful story of Jacob, whose life was marked by conflict, deceit, and struggle. Some of the most defining moments in faith happen in the wrestling. The pivotal moment of Jacob’s life occurs at the Jabbok River, where he has a strange and mysterious encounter with God. Jacob is alone, fearful, and preparing to face his estranged brother Esau after years of tension and deceit. But what happens next is unexpected: Jacob wrestles until dawn with a mysterious figure, later revealed to be God himself. The story continues: When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob’s hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. Then he said, “Let me go, for the day has broken.” But Jacob said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” (vv. 25–26, 29) This moment of intense physical struggle is no simple encounter; it’s an intimate and transformative battle with God. Jacob doesn’t come to God in passive submission. He fights. He clings. He refuses to let go. Wrestling with God isn’t an act of defiance but of desperation—a fight to hold on to the very One we cannot live without. Struggle Shapes Us Jacob’s struggle reminds us that a deep encounter with God often comes at a cost. It’s one thing to question God out of bitterness, demanding answers from a distance. It’s another entirely to wrestle with him—to bring our doubts, fears, and frustrations into his presence and refuse to walk away. This kind of engagement isn’t easy. It requires vulnerability, perseverance, and the willingness to be changed. Even Jesus wrestled in the Father’s presence. In the garden of Gethsemane, he cried out, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42, NIV). Jesus didn’t avoid the struggle—he entered into it fully. Wrestling with God isn’t a mark of weak faith; it’s the essence of real faith that’s unafraid to engage deeply with the One who holds all things. Make no mistake—wrestling can leave a mark. Jacob leaves his encounter with God permanently changed. His hip is wounded, and he walks with a limp for the rest of his life. For us, the struggle may not result in a physical wound, but an encounter with God rarely leaves us unchanged. Wrestling with God may require surrendering a cherished dream, taking a risk in faith, or enduring a season of uncertainty. The struggle shapes us, leaving scars that tell the story of transformation. Don’t Settle for Distant Faith If you’re wrestling with God, don’t despair. Jacob’s story reminds us that the wrestling itself isn’t a sign of weak faith—it’s the mark of a faith that refuses to let go. Lean into the struggle not to prove your strength but to discover God’s. Bring your doubts, your anger, your fears before him. He isn’t afraid of them. In the wrestling, we don’t push God away; we press into him more deeply than we ever have before. The struggle shapes us, leaving scars that tell the story of transformation. Don’t settle for a distant faith that avoids hard questions. Don’t be afraid to hold on, even when you don’t have all the answers. The greatest growth often happens in the wrestling, not in the resolution. And if you walk away with a limp, take heart—because that limp is the mark of someone who has encountered God and been forever changed.
Like
Comment
Share
YubNub News
YubNub News
2 w

Highlights From Final NYC Mayoral Debate
Favicon 
yubnub.news

Highlights From Final NYC Mayoral Debate

(L–R) Independent candidate former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Democratic candidate Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, and Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa participate in a second New York City mayoral…
Like
Comment
Share
Ameristar Contracting
Ameristar Contracting
2 w

Protect Your Home with Expert Roof Solutions

Protect your home with durable, energy-efficient roofing solutions in St. Augustine. Professional installation ensures long-lasting performance. Learn more here: https://ameristarcontracting.c....om/services/roof-rep

#staugustinefl #roofingsolutions #homeprotection #roofreplacement #energyefficientroof #durableroof #floridahomes #roofmaintenance #stormprotection #professionalroofing

image
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
2 w

Kingdom of Contradiction
Favicon 
www.theamericanconservative.com

Kingdom of Contradiction

Books Kingdom of Contradiction Everything Saudi Arabia has, it has earned—or taken. Credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images Saudi Arabia: A Modern History, by David Commins. Yale University Press, 384 pages. The first cars came to Riyadh in 1923, more than a decade before oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia. Two teams of camels dragged them across the ad-Dahna desert to Ibn Saud’s palace, where they were kept for his private use. The founder of the Saudi kingdom treated his modern acquisitions as toys. He loved to tool about in his automobile, followed by his children and a retinue of servants on horseback, and bivouac in the desert about ten miles outside of town.  But Ibn Saud soon found more practical uses for the cars. Throughout the 1920s he forcefully consolidated Saudi power in the Arabian peninsula by leveraging to his advantage a combination of local alliances and strategic partnerships with European and American powers. He was pragmatic and ruthless. In 1929, when the Bedouin tribes challenged his rule—their leaders felt, understandably, that Ibn Saud had abandoned his Muslim subjects in favor of the infidel British—the king drove to meet them in person. Flanked by his son Saud and his brother Muhammad, he met the enemy on the plain of Sabilla. The Bedouin had rifles and rode on camels. The Saudis had machine guns mounted on trucks. The battle was over in about half an hour. The House of Saud faced no serious challenge to its rule for another 50 years. Saudi Arabia has always been a kingdom of contradiction. Or, to put it more precisely, the House of Saud has thrived on contradiction and used contradiction to maintain its regional influence. The origin of this highwire act is the subject of David Commins’s recent history, which considers the progress of Saudi power from the late 17th century to the present. Commins argues that in all phases of its history, Saudi Arabia has relied on external means to build and maintain its strength. First it was booty stolen from travelers, then taxes on pilgrims to Mecca, and, finally, in the 20th century, foreign aid and oil sales. “In large measure, the history of Saudi Arabia is the story of how its leaders shored up their position by tapping material and symbolic resources,” he writes. “In doing so, they changed internal dynamics in ways that brought forth new challenges.”    The most significant of these challenges is religious. Commins is one of the leading American experts on Wahhabism, a fundamentalist movement whose rise is inextricably linked to Saudi conquest. Perhaps for that reason, he presents the kingdom’s history as in large part a struggle between more strict Wahhabists, who disdain impure outsider influence, and the more relaxed princes, who often see the pragmatic advantages of doing business with the vast majority of people who do not adhere to Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s teachings. For most of Saudi history, the conflict consisted of intramural fighting with other Muslim powers. But when Chevron discovered oil in Saudi Arabia in 1938 (after years of a regime-backed search), the situation became much more precarious. How can a regime that does the majority of its business with the infidel maintain legitimacy when its official policy is outright hostility to the infidel? And, even more pressing, how can an absolute monarchy survive prolonged contact with a nation, the United States, whose very existence is inimical to autocracy? The answer to these questions turns out to be relatively simple: embrace contradiction and hope for the best. Commins usefully illustrates this strategy, which originated under Ibn Saud, by citing an absolutely hilarious New York Times headline from 1926. It conveys the bizarre situation in which the Saudi ruler found himself at the dawn of the oil era: “KING IBN SAUD WOULD MAKE ARABIA GREAT. Warlike but Benevolent Ruler Wants His Country to Be the Leading Moslem Power. FAVORS MODERN METHODS. Goes In for Autos, Good Roads and Sanitation, but Insists on Religious Precepts.” That final insistence, however, was not as severe as it could be. In Ibn Saud’s race to catch up with the other Gulf States, where oil had been discovered first, he sidelined many Wahhabist clerics who feebly warned that adopting European and American ways would erode trust in a people who had over the course of two centuries conquered the most of the Arabian peninsula under the banner of religious revivalism.   The naysayers would not be vindicated until 1979. The revolution in Iran transmitted a destabilizing shockwave from Persia to the Arab world. In Saudi Arabia, it released five decades of resentment toward the crown over religious compromises, suppression of Bedouin independence, and, more generally, the economic inequalities that plague every petrostate. Soon the resentment turned to revolt and in November of that year, a group of millenarianists, who claimed to have beheld strange, messianic visions in the desert, seized control of the Grand Mosque in Mecca and declared the coming of the Mahdi in the form of their leader Muhammad Abdullah al-Qahtani. It took two weeks for the Saudis, in an embarrassing collaboration with French special forces, to retake the mosque and put an end to the Mahdi’s celestial reign. The immediate effect of the uprising was for the regime to impose stricter enforcement of its laws and Wahhabi religious norms. A longer-term effect, Commins writes, was the creation of a generational divide between those who had come of age before the uprising and those who had not. The former group were brought up with the expectation that Saudi Arabia would manage an integration into an American world order; the latter recognized the improbability of that proposition. That divergence in opinion was put on full display after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The majority of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, and in the eyes of many American observers, this was enough to condemn the kingdom. The House of Saud recognized its disadvantage and went to great pains to soothe the suspicions of the imperial power.  At the same time, however, the regime was aware that it had raised a whole generation of young men to despise that very power—and that it needed their support for its own continuance. Commins characterizes the situation with dramatic understatement: “The Sauds had to find ways to balance ties to Western powers with commitment to Muslim causes.” In recent years, finding that balance has proved an awful trick. When Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman became the de facto ruler of the kingdom in 2017, he made a great show of relaxing Wahhabist restrictions in areas that would play well with the American press (allowing women to drive cars, for example). At the same time, he strengthened his own position within the country by purging potential political opponents and diluting the power that the clerics had long exercised under the kingdom. The crown prince also entertains ambitions of a post-oil Saudi Arabia that functions like a desert-bound Macau, under the strict control of his own person. The result is a state of affairs incomprehensible to outsiders and only made sensible to those within by means of force.  This is the Saudi way. “If the rock will not come to Mahomet, then Mahomet must come to the rock,” goes the saying of Francis Bacon, spuriously attributed to the Prophet. But it could do well as a motto for the House of Saud. Nothing was given to the kingdom. Everything it is—everything it will be—is the result of acquisition, whether through the arts of peace or those of war, and, as is often the case, a simultaneous combination of the two. The post Kingdom of Contradiction appeared first on The American Conservative.
Like
Comment
Share
Classic Rock Lovers
Classic Rock Lovers  
2 w

The songs Dave Grohl thought you should listen to instead of ‘Learn to Fly’
Favicon 
faroutmagazine.co.uk

The songs Dave Grohl thought you should listen to instead of ‘Learn to Fly’

"That's probably the greatest song we've ever written". The post The songs Dave Grohl thought you should listen to instead of ‘Learn to Fly’ first appeared on Far Out Magazine.
Like
Comment
Share
Classic Rock Lovers
Classic Rock Lovers  
2 w

The one person Ray Davies said understood The Kinks: “The only person who gave us credit”
Favicon 
faroutmagazine.co.uk

The one person Ray Davies said understood The Kinks: “The only person who gave us credit”

Greatness recognises greatness. The post The one person Ray Davies said understood The Kinks: “The only person who gave us credit” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 1885 out of 97687
  • 1881
  • 1882
  • 1883
  • 1884
  • 1885
  • 1886
  • 1887
  • 1888
  • 1889
  • 1890
  • 1891
  • 1892
  • 1893
  • 1894
  • 1895
  • 1896
  • 1897
  • 1898
  • 1899
  • 1900
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Edit Offer

Add tier








Select an image
Delete your tier
Are you sure you want to delete this tier?

Reviews

In order to sell your content and posts, start by creating a few packages. Monetization

Pay By Wallet

Payment Alert

You are about to purchase the items, do you want to proceed?

Request a Refund