CommentsDisplaying Oakenquill's 10 most recent comments.

• ‘Real News From The Blaze’: North Korea Watch

  April 5, 2012 at 11:23am

  In reply to NotPoliticallyCorrect.

  North Korea is not Communist, with a capital “C”, society. At least, not in the Stalinist vein. They are a regime peopled by true-believing “mothers” (the leaders, all male, are revered for their mothering characters), whose “citizens are expected to behave like children” (”The Cleanest Race,” 82, BR Myers, 2010):

  “It goes without saying that this state-sponsored infantilism exerts a strong psychological appeal. Erich Fromm wrote of how man’s fear of emerging from the warm security of the family keeps him “in the prison of the motherly racial-national-religious fixation.” No less obvious is the incompatibility of this propaganda with Marxism-Leninism. Believing that “the people is an eternal child,” as the French revolutionary Saint-Just famously remarked, Lenin saw the communist party‘s raison d’etre in forcing it to grow up. The Soviet party posed as an educating father, as did the dictator who so famously talked of the need to “re-engineer” the human soul.” (Myers, 83).

  North Koreans do want to grow up; they do not want to take care of themselves; they do not want a government-less society. Food-aid and whatnot is precisely how they want to be taken care of.

  The missile launch is more for internal benefit; like Gordon Chang was saying, this is a military-based society, and the military must appear strong for internal appearances.

• Religious Leaders Respond to Hawking’s ‘No Need for God’

  September 5, 2010 at 8:56pm

  In reply to Okpulot Taha.

  There is no reason for your faith to take a backseat to Hawking’s physics. The physical realities of our universe are in no way antithetical to the metaphysical/spiritual. Truth is truth. If God is truth, then our discoveries of new truths (processes) can only go to glorify the creator and the truths of His ways. Hawking has deliberately sought to refute God’s necessity; his argument pivots upon it. If he had only sought to explain the origins of our spatial arena in physical terms, there would not be much to argue about other than whether he is correct or not, but he is deliberately trying to subvert the supernatural — for no other purposes that I can surmise than to be controversial for the sake of controversy. Which is a cry for attention.