Ideological History : The Theology Pugcast Episode 309

[@LoneBulwark]

I’d gladly join the show to defend myself.

[@droidean]

Great episode. Look forward to meeting Dr. Sunshine at Post Tenebras Lux.

[@thekirkwoodcenter]

Brilliant insights brothers. Powerful criticisms of both the Left and the far Right on their mishandling (or manipulation) of history. In spiritual history it does seem like whenever the evil of anti-semitism crops up, which often unites ideological opponents, it is a clear indicator that something awful is about to happen. Also, Tom is SPOT ON about Hegel. If there is one philosophy that dominates our collective subconscious, it is Hegelianism. And this is rife within the Church itself, but at such a deep psychological level, that it takes tremendous effort to not just break out of it, but even to recognize it. One of the ways to mitigate the Hegelian influence, as I can see, is to have more interaction with churches in the third-world or developing countries (e.g., Africa, Asia, etc), where the influence is minimal (at least so far). This is why for the Catholics watching, it would be appropriate to pray that the next Pope be from Africa.

[@ryansilich3366]

In my own hubris, I think I can clear the fog with the Ideological problem. Hitler was a wolf, Stalin was a Wolf, Churchill was a wolfhound. We won't even say what kind of animal that FDR was.

[@LancePFilms]

"Their argument really is that 'our perspective is the true one even though we say we don't believe that there is a true perspective.'" Glen Sunshine @ 17:43ish This is the fundamental problem with post modern thinking in general. So to the extent that post modern ideologies have taken root in the thinking of those surveying history we see this kind of thinking. But the Christian worldview does not have this problem. Post mordern thinking can only go so far before it has to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to actually function as a worldview. I also find it interesting how you guys have seemed to divide ideology from worldview. But often times those two are used interchangeably. Ideology seems to be presented up to the 17 minute mark as strictly a bad thing that unduly distorts thinking in the direction of the ideology. But, of course, worldview is more comprehensive and could not be used in that way. So ideologies are like worldview hijacking elements. Anyways, love the show!

[@cliffordbates]

Glen is correct about the US, UK, and Russia offering security guarantees to the Ukrainians (for them to give up the Nuclear Weapons they inherited from the breakup of the USSR). It was called the Budapest Memorandum of December 1994.

[@cliffordbates]

But keeping one's word is the very foundation of faithfulness and keeping faith. And those who keep their promises and keep their faith are things one would value and see as virtues.

[@hawks5999]

Sunshine has been colonized by Michael O’Fallon and James Lindsay. You became the dialectic you were so worried about.

[@Cinnamonbuns13]

Anyone who has looked into WWII will know that the story is extremely complex and there are hardly any easy answers. But as it so often happens with history and current events, there is the deep historical analysis, coming at it from different schools of thought, and then there’s the mythos for public consumption, reprinted in textbooks, schoolbooks and newspapers. The mythos is what everybody has in mind when thinking about the event - the comic book story. Some of these historical myths are pillars of the collective mind, of the thoughtspace we operate in at a given time. The WWII story clearly is such a pillar-myth. My question would be: how do we know that the conventional WW2 story is not actually the ideologically driven one? It does seem that time and distance from an event has a necessary cooling effect on the emotions toward a particular narrative and lets outside observers see the matter more clearly. 1945 is like a "Year 0" for the current liberal global paradigm and the Pugcast crew is the generation most indoctrinated in that zeitgeist which may cloud their perception.

[@ArcherWarhound]

Glen seems utterly unwilling to ask the question, "Are we the baddies?" despite the evidence rapidly piling up that after The War or Northern Aggression the United States federation rapidly morphed into an empire as wicked as Rome fully hitting it's stride when it ended WW2 with nukes and set out of a never ending campaign of propaganda, spy games, and government toppling terrorism to further its imperialistic ambitions.

[@goyonman9655]

I had said the Israel episode was the most boomer episode This one tops that

[@elizabethharris382]

Go ahead and elucidate your take on the subject matter. Ad hominem isn’t necessary and is bad form.

[@yellomoth]

Boomer isn't always ad hom. Sometimes it's an apt description. Glen Sunshine clearly hasn't updated his thinking since all the lies came out from 2020. He's gifted in other ways.

[@b.t.3406]

Only boomers can use labels apparently. The Orwellian rules are laughable.

[@johnmichaelbullock594]

I love this show and have benefited from it. But this episode, it is nothing but a soap box for the man with letters after his name.

[@Mattchew2232]

It's his turn to teach. I love it. What's the problem?

[@ArcherWarhound]

I have benefited greatly from listening to you 3 over the years, and feel great affection for each of you and your personal quirks and gifts, so please take this as the bruise of a friend: this was a terribly naive overview of this current trends in thought about WW2 and it's aftermath, sadly lacking in nuance even when saying nuance and empathic readings of the motives and actions of our ancestors is required when discussing these topics. I've been feeling the itch of the writing bug lately, maybe I'll write a thorough response to this.

[@michaelblanco7435]

My chief complaint is that Sunshine and the other guys seem to think they are immune from ideological history. In other words, when we accuse those whose narratives of history are contrary to ours of being ideological, do we actually believe we are somehow not ideological also? In my view, Sunshine and the other guys are being naive here. We are all ideological, we all approach these topics from our own vantage points, and we all use history to grind our own axes. There is no objective reading of history. This is the insight of philosophical hermeneutics. We all operate within our own horizons of understanding, and these horizons are often virtually invisible to us because they function as our cognitive and cultural defaults. Yet, they powerfully impact our interpretations of history, politics, and life itself in a way that is subterranean to our consciousness.

[@furtigan]

Unbelievably shallow. Very disappointing. Entire discussion was predicted on the idea that only those scary *other* people have an ideology. Be careful with that log in your eye. Also obvious you made no effort to read the clarifying remarks @martyrmade has made after that interview. Shallow and disappointing.

[@goyonman9655]

Honestly

[@Mattchew2232]

You're accusing a brother of sin. Get specific. What log needs to be removed?

[@GlennSunshine]

I suppose I should respond to this. World War II is probably the most studied event in world history. None of the revisionists have come up with any new sources that suddenly overturn the mountains of evidence we have and have already analyzed about the war. In fact, I don't think they've actually found anything new at all that hasn't been analyzed and been taken into account by actual historians who have spent their lives studying the field. The problem is the revisionists select a limited number of sources that fit their preconceptions and ignore everything that doesn't fit. That makes it ideologically driven. That isn't the case with the scholars who use the full range of available material. There is room for debate and criticism of the conduct of the war and political compromises that were made--I am not a fan of the decision to turn eastern Europe over to Stalin, for example--but the overall picture of the war is not what they are making it out to be.

[@furtigan]

Not a sin, precisely, but the assumption that other people's interpretation of history is ideological but not their own. BTW, Darryl Cooper is also a Christian, and as far as I can tell they didn't ask him anything - or even read more of his work than just one interview - before claiming he wanted to rehabilitate Hitler. So you might want to ask them why they're "accusing a brother."

[@Mattchew2232]

@@furtigan The claim wasn't that their viewpoint wasn't ideological, but it was a discussion of truth and interpretation. So if it's not sin, no log needs to be removed. It sounds like you're making your own assumptions of what kind of interactions they've had. Also, public ideas can be interacted with publicly, and they did so respectfully (though firmly).

[@kenithandry5093]

The Stephen Wolfe Glenn speaks of, is this the same Stephen Wolfe who wrote the (terrible) book promoting Christian Nationalism, that Canon Press has published?

[@b.t.3406]

You've read the book or are you virtue signalling?

[@cliffordbates]

Martyr Made is slightly different (but less openly toxic) than Nick Fuentes. Martyr Made has a Jewish problem, as seen in his tone and how he phrased his critique of Churchill and his relations to the Bankers and Media moguls in the US, with whom Churchill had friendships in the 20s and 30s (some of whom happened to be Jews). What Martyr Made and others like him are examples of those who start rethinking and reevaluating subjects that the Mainstream Liberal View condemns characters like Hitler or the Nazis... yes they killed far fewer people than the Communists. Still, they are not "good guys" or even questionable choice-worthy guides to follow. Look, the Liberal Regime tells us lies about many things--but Hitler and the Nazis aren't one (in this case, it is like the broken clock that is right twice a day).

[@goyonman9655]

@@cliffordbates You've probably never even followed anything Martyrmade has ever said

[@furtigan]

Anybody that tells you Cooper has a thing against Jews is telling you they've never listened to the first hour of his podcast about Israel.

[@goyonman9655]

@@furtigan And peiple like this above commenter spread libel with soo much self righteousness

[@b.t.3406]

Hi Clifford: You clearly haven't listened to Cooper's interview in full. But if you think he's bad you should listen to Churchill. Yes. Churchill praised Hitler for years.