In the documentary “Rebranding White Nationalism: Inside the Alt-Right” The Atlantic delves further inside Spencer’s ethnocentric worldview to understand what his plans are for the so-called alt-right—namely, to bring white nationalism out of the shadows. Watch the full documentary here.
Today The Atlantic’s editors made history by choosing to endorse Hillary Clinton for president. Since the magazine’s founding in 1857, the only other candidates to receive an official endorsement were Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 and Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Here’s an excerpt from the editors’ note Against Donald Trump:
Donald Trump, on the other hand, has no record of public service and no qualifications for public office. His affect is that of an infomercial huckster; he traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic …
From the October 2016 issue: Sara Mosle digs into the classroom experiences of an author-gone-undercover-substitute teacher in her story Pity the Substitute Teacher
(Illustration credit: Sophia Foster-Dimino / The Atlantic)
When I go by this shrub thus late and hardy, and see its dangling fruit, I respect the tree, and I am grateful for Nature’s bounty, even though I cannot eat it. Here on this rugged and woody hill-side has grown an apple-tree, not planted by man, no relic of a former orchard, but a natural growth, like the pines and oaks. Most fruits which we prize and use depend entirely on our care. Corn and grain, potatoes, peaches, melons, etc., depend altogether on our planting; but the apple emulates man’s independence and enterprise. It is not simply carried, as I have said, but, like him, to some extent, it has migrated to this New World, and is even, here and there, making its way amid the aboriginal trees; just as the ox and dog and horse sometimes run wild and maintain themselves.
Even the sourest and crabbedest apple, growing in the most unfavorable position, suggests such thoughts as these, it is so noble a fruit.
Ariel Sabar’s hard-hitting reporting has caused a ripple effect within religious groups and secular ones alike. In The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus’s Wife, Sabar reveals the idiosyncrasies of the man responsible for the evidence that has caused such a stir. Read. Every. Word.
Within days, doubts mounted. The Vatican newspaper labeled the papyrus “an inept forgery.” Scholars took to their blogs to point out apparent errors in Coptic grammar as well as phrases that seemed to have been lifted from the Gospel of Thomas. Others deemed the text suspiciously in step with the zeitgeist of growing religious egalitarianism and of intrigue around the idea, popularized by The Da Vinci Code, of a married Jesus. The controversy made news around the world, including an article in these pages.
A year and a half later, however, Harvard announced the results of carbon-dating tests, multispectral imaging, and other lab analyses: The papyrus appeared to be of ancient origin, and the ink had no obviously modern ingredients. This didn’t rule out fraud. A determined forger could obtain a blank scrap of centuries-old papyrus (perhaps even on eBay, where old papyri are routinely auctioned), mix ink from ancient recipes, and fashion passable Coptic script, particularly if he or she had some scholarly training. But the scientific findings complicated the case for forgery. The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife had undergone—and passed—more state-of-the-art lab tests, inch for inch, than almost any other papyrus in history.
From the June 2016 issue, Dan P. McAdams, a psychologist, analyzes how Trump’s extraordinary personality might shape his possible presidency in The Mind of Trump:
More than even Ronald Reagan, Trump seems supremely cognizant of the fact that he is always acting. He moves through life like a man who knows he is always being observed. If all human beings are, by their very nature, social actors, then Donald Trump seems to be more so—superhuman, in this one primal sense.
Many questions have arisen about Trump during this campaign season—about his platform, his knowledge of issues, his inflammatory language, his level of comfort with political violence. This article touches on some of that. But its central aim is to create a psychological portrait of the man. Who is he, really? How does his mind work? How might he go about making decisions in office, were he to become president? And what does all that suggest about the sort of president he’d be?
Words from Henry D. Thoreau in the cover story “If Mr. Thoreau calls, tell him I’ve left the country,” written by Ray Mungo from the May 1970 issue:
“To one who habitually endeavors to contemplate the true state of things, the political state can hardly be said to have any existence whatever. It is unreal, incredible, and insignificant to him, and for him to endeavor to extract the truth from such lean material is like making sugar from linen rags, when sugar-cane may be had. Generally speaking, the political news, whether domestic or foreign, might be written to-day for the next ten years with sufficient accuracy. Most revolutions in society have not power to interest, still less alarm us; but tell me that our rivers are drying up, or the genus pine dying out in the country, and I might attend” — Henry D. Thoreau, A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers
