“Several nations, under pressure…”

…with chaos and friction for all.”  We should probably update the Pledge of Allegiance, since Old Glory no longer flies over “one nation, under God, indivisible…”  As Matt Walsh writes:

Are we joined by our shared desire to be free? No. In the minds of many, the ultimate vision of freedom is a socialist utopia where the free market is abolished and the government provides all basic needs. To me, and many others, this is a vision of slavery, not freedom. It may be true that all Americans talk about freedom, and say they want freedom, but the only commonality between the competing views of freedom is the word itself. (emphasis added)

Can we be bound by our passion for human rights? Again, no. The situation with rights is much like that with freedom. Those on the Left – not just the leftist fringes, but the mainstream of the movement – would say that mothers have a “right” to kill their offspring, some Americans have a “right” to the money and property of other Americans, biological males have a “right” to access women’s locker rooms, gay couples have a “right” to the goods and services of Christian business owners, and so on. They see a “human right” as a claim always in competition with other rights claims. One right must supersede another. The woman’s right to autonomy must trounce, violently, a child’s right to live. A college student’s right to be free of debt must overpower a wealthy man’s right to the fruit of his own labor.

What they’re really describing is one group’s struggle for power and dominance over another. It has nothing to do with rights. Rights are inherent to our human nature; by definition, human rights cannot be in competition with one another. But since we have fundamentally opposing definitions of the term, we cannot be united around it.

If we cannot be united around tradition, language, or heritage, and we also cannot be united around a shared belief in freedom and human rights, then what is left?

Not much, it would seem.  The component elements of the formerly united States are worlds apart in their worldviews, and on the crucial issues of the day, compromise is impossible between those views (i.e. either an unborn child is or isn’t a human being and worthy of protection — there is no middle ground).  In these circumstances, our elections have become less one of minute adjustments of the national course, and more one of which worldview gets to impose itself on the other for the next cycle.  That’s not a Union – it’s an abusive relationship.

The question is whether the divorce will be amicable or contested.  But I firmly believe the split, while not desirable, is now inevitable.

American insurgency

“The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea.” – Mao Zedong

Under cover of protesters reacting understandably to what appears to be yet another instance of police brutality, the enemies of our nation have launched what amounts to a full-blown insurgency.  Pallets of bricks conveniently show up in time to be thrown through store windows.  Networks of celebrities are providing bail money for those who are arrested.  Politicians are pledging support to Antifa, even as the Federal government finally labels it a terrorist organization (spoiler: it always has been).  And the airwaves are thick with misinformation and misdirection, minimizing the extent to which actual violence and destruction have become daily routine over the past week.

And if that wasn’t enough, at least one potential agent provocateur has now been arrested while posing as a National Guardsman.  Keep that in mind the first time you hear of an incident between a Guardsman and a ‘protester.’  Things are not always as they seem, especially in press reports.

This is perhaps the most dangerous moment for the U.S. since 1861.  President Abraham Lincoln rightly pointed out:

At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow?  Never!–All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. (emphasis added)

And so it was our adversaries, beginning in the Cold War, began the “long march” through American institutions, seizing control of the means to shape the culture in such a way as to alienate a significant portion of the population from loyalty to the United States.  Their efforts were greatly aided by the deep scars of slavery and racism in our country.  One of the major reasons any sort of lasting racial reconciliation eludes us is that the issue is too useful a wedge for gaining influence — and yes, this is a trick used by partisans of many persuasions.  Remember the adage “divide and conquer.”

Now we’ve arrived at a point in our cultural programming where trying to rightly discern between protest and pillaging is dismissed as ‘racist.’  Now Mao’s ‘fish’ in the above quote can swim easily in the ‘sea.’  If only pillaging were the only goal, however.

Mao Zedong literally wrote the book on insurgency, after successfully fighting the Japanese in World War II and toppling the post-war Nationalist government of China.  He identified three phases to a revolutionary insurgency:

(1)  Organize: Build cells and support
(2)  Guerilla Warfare: Undermine the Government
(3)  Conventional (open) Warfare to topple the Government

Our internal enemies are well organized and enjoy considerable support from “the commanding heights” of society: educators, politicians, entertainers, wealthy ‘movers and shakers’ and so forth.  The violence we now witness is the movement into phase two.  Our Federal, State and local leaders are confronted with a choice: show restraint, in which case they look weak, or crack down, in which case the propaganda machine will work overtime to paint them in the worst possible light.  Either way, the insurgents seek to reduce support for our government.  President Trump has openly criticized State and local leaders for not doing more to control the violence.  Contrary to published reports, he is not calling for the arrest or abuse of peaceful protesters.  (Don’t rely on reports: listen to the man’s own words.  And notice ABC’s headline for the linked video.  Do they match?)  The corporate media blur the distinction between protester and criminal so that the president’s calls for law and order appear to be an effort to curb legitimate expressions of dissent.  Heads, they win.  Tails, he loses.

Do not lose sight of the fact that during all of this chaos, the public is not paying attention to the recent declassification and release of very damning documents that show how contrived and politically motivated the entire “Russia Russia Russia” hoax was, and how Michael Flynn was wrongly targeted as part of that process.  Powerful people have great reason to do anything to keep focus from turning to these developments.  Many have remarked about 2020’s penchant for disaster. Think of the main media themes in the U.S. this year: in January, it was impeachment.  Hardly had that fizzled than we were told COVID would kill us all, so better shut society down.  Once it was clear society was tired of being shut down and was de facto on the way to opening up, suddenly a case of police brutality sets the nation on fire.  (By the way, want to see ‘diversity?’  Look at the four officers involved and fired — it wasn’t a gang of white cops, but photos of officers Thao, Kueng and Lane don’t appear in the Minneapolis Star’s report on Monday. Why is that?.)

None of these events are occurring in isolation.  This is not a normal election year.

I believe the experience gained in our overseas fights must be put to use here at home, and quickly.  The networks of support for organizing violent, criminal activity, must be rolled up, and those involved forced to pay a high price for their incitements.  There are very good reasons not to like Donald Trump, who is a deeply flawed man.  But many of his opponents (on both sides of the aisle) are no longer the “loyal opposition” — they are literally fifth columnists who are a domestic threat to the Constitution of the United States, willing to overturn an election through rumor and innuendo from within the apparatus of shadowy government agencies.  Never forget that our leaders and our armed forces take an oath requiring them to defend that document against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic.  At the very least, there are a large number of people guilty of sedition in this country.  And while treason is a word too lightly tossed around these days, an argument could be made it’s applicable in some cases as well.

Even if the government moves effectively to end the current crisis, it’s not finished.  The reason insurgency is so hard to defeat is that unless the ideas and motives behind it are completely discredited, even losing in stage three can leave a small cadre of the committed to begin all over again.  This is the type of war we have been fighting in Afghanistan and the Middle East since 9/11, and the reason Al Qaeda and Islamic State still persist, however diminished.  Killing combatants is easy.  Killing an idea is damned well impossible.  (I use “damned” deliberately, as the resiliency of Marxist and Jihadist aspirations, despite the long historical record of horrors in their names, shows the hellish perniciousness of their deceit.)

This is why the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.  We have been lulled into complacency, our attention directed anywhere other than where it needs to be.  Whether the insurgency grows to phase three or is knocked back to the starting line for another generation depends on Americans learning what’s really going on.  Lots of dots need to be connected to see the picture.  The question is whether we have the attention span and discernment to do so anymore.  Otto von Bismark, the statesman most responsible for the creation of a unified Germany in the 19th Century, is said to have remarked “God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America.”

I certainly hope that still holds true.

The clueless would-be rulers

Today’s must-read, by Walter Mead:

This is not what his critics expected. At 49% overall job approval in the latest Gallup poll, and with 60% approval of the way he is handling the coronavirus epidemic, President Trump’s standing with voters has improved even as the country closed down and the stock market underwent a historic meltdown. That may change as this unpredictable crisis develops, but bitter and often justified criticism of Mr. Trump’s decision making in the early months of the pandemic has so far failed to break the bond between the 45th president and his political base.

One reason Mr. Trump’s opponents have had such a hard time damaging his connection with voters is that they still don’t understand why so many Americans want a wrecking-ball presidency. Beyond attributing Mr. Trump’s support to a mix of racism, religious fundamentalism and profound ignorance, the president’s establishment opponents in both parties have yet to grasp the depth and intensity of the populist energy that animates his base and the Bernie Sanders movement. . . .

That a majority of the electorate is this deeply alienated from the establishment can’t be dismissed as bigotry and ignorance. There are solid and serious grounds for doubting the competence and wisdom of America’s self-proclaimed expert class. What is so intelligent and enlightened, populists ask, about a foreign-policy establishment that failed to perceive that U.S. trade policies were promoting the rise of a hostile Communist superpower with the ability to disrupt supplies of essential goods in a national emergency? What competence have the military and political establishments shown in almost two decades of tactical success and strategic impotence in Afghanistan? What came of that intervention in Libya? What was the net result of all the fine talk in the Bush and Obama administrations about building democracy in the Middle East? . . .

On domestic policy, the criticism is equally trenchant and deeply felt. Many voters believe that the U.S. establishment has produced a health-care system that is neither affordable nor universal. Higher education saddles students with increasing debt while leaving many graduates woefully unprepared for good jobs in the real world. The centrist establishment has amassed unprecedented deficits without keeping roads, bridges and pipes in good repair. It has weighed down cities and states with unmanageable levels of pension debt…

Mr. Trump’s supporters are not comparing him with an omniscient leader who always does the right thing, but with the establishment—including the bulk of the mainstream media—that largely backed a policy of engagement with China long after its pitfalls became clear. For Americans who lost their jobs to Chinese competition or who fear the possibility of a new cold war against an economically potent and technologically advanced power, Mr. Trump’s errors pale before those of the bipartisan American foreign-policy consensus…

…the U.S. establishment won’t prosper again until it comes to grip with a central political fact: Populism rises when establishment leadership fails. If conventional U.S. political leaders had been properly doing their jobs, Donald Trump would still be hosting a television show. (emphasis added)

To reinforce the point, Exhibit A, from the just-passed Senate coronavirus relief bill:

Kennedy Center

The legacy media portion of the establishment is no better, in their deranged hatred both for Trump and those in the country who prefer risking him rather than the proven failures of past leadership.  CBS screamed in a headline recently that a man died and his wife was seriously hurt after taking an anti-malarial drug (hydroxycloroquine) Trump and Democratic New York Governor Andrew Cuomo have expressed optimism about as a possible treatment for COVID-19.  The problem?  What the Arizona couple actually did was notice their fish tank cleaner contained the chemical, and consumed it as a preventative measure, without consulting any medical expert.  Only two-thirds of the way through the story does it clarify the headline: “The difference between the fish tank cleaning additive that the couple took and the drug used to treat malaria is the way they are formulated.”  In other words, despite the headline, the couple didn’t take the drug.  They drank fish tank cleaner!  A factual headline, though, wouldn’t have been potentially damaging to Trump, which seems to be the primary goal of all mainstream journalism these days, facts and context be damned.

We’re supposed to be practicing social distancing.  But the elites in this country are (and have been for some time) so far out of touch with the common person’s daily experience that it shouldn’t be a surprise the latter has had more than enough of the former.

We can no longer afford China

This writer summarizes what needs to change as a result of current events:

We tried making China rich to make the Chinese people free. The globalists’ theory was that trade would make prosperous people who would then demand their freedom, and the Chinese Communist Party would either grant it or die. It hasn’t worked. China has become more prosperous but less free. Its people live under a digital dictatorship fed by social media algorithms and always-on video surveillance. Their future is cradle-to-grave monitoring for thoughtcrime. The paranoid communists are as brutal and ruthless as ever, shuttering churches with hammer and sickle and using Uighurs and dissenters as slave labor. China uses its wealth to buy hearts and minds in Africa and positive propaganda press everywhere. China uses its wealth to fracture our own bedrock rights, as when it turned the NBA into its red, white, and blue thought-police right here on American soil. This cannot stand.

The world cannot get into this situation again. We can’t just pretend this did not happen, resume normal trade relations, go on with our lives, and keep allowing the communists to rob us blind and make us vulnerable. We can’t let China’s criminal caste of communists brutalize their own people, threaten their peaceful neighbors and menace the world. We can’t.

We depend on China for cheap labor and cheap goods. But we cannot afford China any longer. The price is too high. We must divest. We must redirect. Some of our manufacturing in China must come back home. Some must go elsewhere, to India, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, to other free republics with open societies. We must favor free peoples everywhere, shun tyrants everywhere, and do business with friends of liberty everywhere.

For our own good. (emphasis added)

A pivotal pathogen?

COVID-19 is now the topic du jour across the planet.  Perhaps nothing exemplifies the interconnectivity of our world than a novel virus that appears in China, then spreads to every continent but Antarctica.  As such, it’s causing humanity to rethink a number of trends.  We may look back on this time as a pivotal one.

The reaction to the excesses of globalism had already begun with the election of Donald Trump, who appealed in 2016 to those most left behind by the paradigm.  For the first time since Ross Perot warned in 1992 of the “giant sucking sound” of industry that would be pulled out of America through the North American Free Trade Agreement and similar arrangements, a president openly questioned whether the status quo was truly beneficial to America.  Long-ignored trade deficits with potential rivals such as China came under scrutiny, as did the practice of obtaining essential goods through such sources.

Today’s coronavirus scare will accelerate that trend, regardless how mild or deadly the virus is in the end, because for the first time, the vulnerabilities inherent in globalism are easy to understand:

While many are rightfully concerned about stopping the virus, few are focused on the fact that the more it spreads, the more the U.S. ability to treat any Americans who are stricken is vulnerable to the tender mercies of the Chinese Communist Party because of a strategic shift in health care that occurred without debate or decision in Washington.

Everything from antibiotics to chemotherapy drugs, from antidepressants to Alzheimer’s medications to treatments for HIV/AIDS, are frequently produced by Chinese manufacturers. What’s more, the most effective breathing masks and the bulk of other personal protective equipment — key to containing the spread of coronavirus and protecting health care workers — and even the basic syringe are largely made in China. The basic building blocks of U.S. health care are now under Xi’s control.

The list doesn’t stop at medical commodities, either.  The Trump administration has recognized how dependent the U.S. had become on China as a source of rare earth minerals, a strategic category of raw materials upon which many modern devices depend.  The U.S. has deposits of such minerals, but largely lacks the capacity to mine and process them — after all, everything is done more cheaply in China, right?

We are beginning to realize the multifaceted hidden costs of offshoring — costs that were never publicly factored into the promotion of globalism.  Over time, the public has come to appreciate how many manufacturing jobs were lost — jobs that provided useful work and a “living wage.”  Most criticism of the emerging global economy has been predicated on that aspect.  But what was good for the corporate bottom line devastated families both in the U.S. (unemployment and despair as skills became irrelevant) and in China (sweatshop hours, bad working conditions and little pay).  In fact, one of the revelations of the current crisis is just how bad China’s industrial and urban pollution has become.  In short, it’s cheaper to make things in China because labor can be underpaid or even conscripted, there are no Occupational Safety and Health Administration-type standards to worry about, and none of the manufacturers there have to worry about mitigating pollution (at least, until it embarrasses the government).  Those tacky inflatable holiday lawn figures (sorry, personal pet peeve) and other assorted non-essential trinkets cost far more than what WalMart charged the consumer who purchased them.

Globalism isn’t the only paradigm that will be questioned in the weeks ahead. Ever since the dawn of the Industrial Age, work increasingly has been performed outside the home, concentrated first in factories and then offices.  This drove a reorganization of society.  Families spent more time apart, as fathers, then mothers, increasingly found their sustenance by working for others.  This led to children learning more from schools and other institutions than from growing and learning within a family economy.  People left the countryside for the cities to find work.  The rise of suburbia cemented the necessity of automobiles and led to the invention of the traffic jam as infrastructure failed to keep pace.  Only since the creation of the internet has there been a serious attempt to change this equation by finding ways to work from home.

While it isn’t practical for every type of work, telecommuting may be about to get a huge turbocharge:

In the past week, companies across the U.S. have started canceling major conferences, halting most business travel and urging employees to work from home in response to the growing viral outbreak in the country. Few will require telecom operations as vast and complicated as ICANN’s, but as companies such as Twitter and Microsoft start shifting to virtual work en masse, the vision of a decentralized work world long promised by telecommuting evangelists is starting to materialize.

Even if businesses intend for their policies to be a temporary response to COVID-19, once it’s discovered that desk-based workers can be productive — possibly more so — without being corralled into cubicles, the public may seriously question a return to the old ways, with its long commutes, office squabbles and occasional control freaks.

Higher education has been gravitating toward more online learning for some time now.  As a result, many universities and colleges are somewhat prepared to continue their activity remotely by scaling up what they’re already doing in some areas.  The same cannot be said of most public elementary and secondary schools.

What if this pandemic led to decentralization, more time with family instead of traffic, increasing interest in homeschooling options, a desire for national self-sufficiency and security, and a return of well-paying industrial jobs to the U.S.?  There is a possibility the blight of COVID-19 may contain the seeds of long-term benefits.  The city of Enterprise, Alabama, has a monument to the boll weevil, an insect that devastated the cotton economy of the southern U.S. in the early 1900s.  Despite the infestation, farmers were reluctant to abandon cotton, due to its profit and ability to grow on land few other cash crops could tolerate.

Enter the lowly peanut.  An Enterprise (and enterprising) man convinced some farmers to switch to peanuts, and those who did found their fortunes rising.  By 1919, as the boll weevil continued its destruction, the county around Enterprise, Alabama, was the largest producer of peanuts in the country, and shortly began to produce peanut oil.  Local farmers continued to diversify their crops, adding sugar cane, potatoes and others, and the area found renewed prosperity.  All because of necessity brought on by a bug.

What lasting changes will today’s “bug” bring?

Thinking about family

“Ohana means family.  Family means nobody gets left behind or forgotten.”  – Lilo and Stitch

Warning: this turned into a long post.  There is a lot to unpack and consider in this article from The Atlantic magazine, entitled “The Nuclear Family was a Mistake.”  I began it expecting an attack on the so-called “traditional family.”  It is, in fact, a critique of the proverbial independent parents-with-two-kids model, but not for the reasons you might suspect:

This is the story of our times—the story of the family, once a dense cluster of many siblings and extended kin, fragmenting into ever smaller and more fragile forms. The initial result of that fragmentation, the nuclear family, didn’t seem so bad. But then, because the nuclear family is so brittle, the fragmentation continued. In many sectors of society, nuclear families fragmented into single-parent families, single-parent families into chaotic families or no families.

If you want to summarize the changes in family structure over the past century, the truest thing to say is this: We’ve made life freer for individuals and more unstable for families. We’ve made life better for adults but worse for children. We’ve moved from big, interconnected, and extended families, which helped protect the most vulnerable people in society from the shocks of life, to smaller, detached nuclear families (a married couple and their children), which give the most privileged people in society room to maximize their talents and expand their options. The shift from bigger and interconnected extended families to smaller and detached nuclear families ultimately led to a familial system that liberates the rich and ravages the working-class and the poor…

To my surprise, the author was not arguing the “nuclear family” is wrong — rather, that it is incomplete:

Continue reading

Saturday Sounds

Today is the first day of the United Kingdom’s independence of the European Union.  One of the chief proponents of that reassertion of sovereignty gave a rousing farewell address to the European Parliament Wednesday:

Naturally, it was a largely hostile audience, and their reaction to the appearance of the Union Jack was telling. Apparently national flags are not allowed in these European Union venues — indeed, they reacted as one would expect a vampire to react to garlic or a crucifix. (An apt analogy, now that I think about it, given British complaints about how much funding they had to shovel towards Brussels as a member State.)

Also note at the end how Mairead McGuinness took Mr. Farage’s use of the word “hate” completely out of context.  Despite her assertion, Farage did not direct hate toward any people or nation.  Indeed, he noted that his fellows in the UK Independence Party and Brexit Party “love the European people.”  Instead, his hatred was directed at an institution he believes (with reason) antithetical to freedom and accountable governance.  It would be the equivalent of saying, in 1980, that one loves the Russian people, but hates the Soviet Union.  Given some of the symbolism the EU has chosen, hatred is not an unreasonable position towards the project.

It does my heart good to watch this speech.  Farage is a British patriot, and he took a well-deserved victory lap here.  He is also correct in noting the divide today is between globalism and nationalism (which he referred to as populism).  Our own choices in the United States are between those who believe in serving America’s interests and those who believe themselves “citizens of the world” with no particular desire to be responsive to the average American, whom they consider to be ignorant fools.

Here’s hoping that on Wednesday, November 4, 2020, America’s patriots are doing their own victory lap.

Doctor Who?

Not long ago, Vox Day wrote a book called “SJWs Always Double Down,” detailing the fact that rather than admit being wrong, the typical Social Justice Warrior will just push harder in their desired direction in an effort to steamroll opposition.  Unfortunately, the British TV series “Doctor Who” seems to be providing a picture-perfect example of this in action:

2018: Controversially casts Jodie Whitaker as the first female incarnation of the Doctor in the half-century history of the show

2018 – 2019: Ratings for the show drop dramatically

2020: Casts Jo Martin as the first *black* female incarnation of the Doctor…

My family enjoyed the show’s “modern” run episodes until it started going downhill in the Capaldi era, about 2014.  There were always secondary characters and subtexts I could have lived without (Captain Jack being exhibit A).  But when the producers decided to gender-swap the long-running “Master” character into “Missy,” I had a strong feeling it was a trial balloon to prep viewers for doing the same with the Master’s long-time nemesis, the titular Doctor himself.  We’ve not watched a single episode since Capaldi left, although I’ve kept up with some of the reviews, which only confirmed my decision.  From the furor on fan forums, we’re far from the only ones to have jumped Tardis.  The younger crowd, having been thoroughly indoctrinated, reflexively dismisses critics of these changes as badthinkers.

The destruction of various franchises by “rebooting” them with characters who are now the opposite sex, or some LGBTQXYZABC specimen is increasingly pernicious.  It demonstrates yet again how evil is parasitical.  It doesn’t create – it only consumes, degrades and destroys.  Fortunately, there are still those who seek to create, preserve and enjoy the Good, the True and the Beautiful.

Appetite for destruction

How joyless must life be for anyone who believes humanity to be merely a plague?

Fifty years ago, I concluded that the best thing for the planet would be a peaceful phase-out of human existence. We’re causing the extinction of hundreds of thousands of other species. With us gone, I believe ecosystems will be restored and there will be enough of everything…

At 25, I wanted to show I was serious. A medical school gave me a discounted vasectomy in exchange for being a student doctor’s first try at the procedure, which was successful…

Procreation today is the moral equivalent of selling berths on a sinking ship.  It’s true that society would be greatly diminished without children, but it isn’t right to create them just because we like having them around.

And on the flip side, if they’re inconvenient, just abort them, right?  The author doesn’t say this, but one can deduce enough of his worldview that it’s a good bet he supports abortion on demand. (“Marriage never made sense to me anyway: I would have missed getting to know many wonderful women had I stuck with one.”)

This desire to destroy humanity comes straight from The Enemy, who sees in us the imago dei and strikes at it in any way possible: war, murder, abortion, suicide — anything that snuffs out the physical vessel carrying the lifebreath of God.

As the Genesis account makes clear, we were entrusted with the stewardship of the Earth.  One cannot steward if one is not around.  Are there areas in which we can do better?  Most certainly.  But the root cause of the world’s problems is not our existence.  It’s our fallen, sinful state – the same state that causes so many to worship the creation instead of the Creator.

Regarding this business of “selling berths on a sinking ship:” I can understand people who wonder about the wisdom of bringing a child into the world.  I first became an uncle days after 9/11, and I wondered what sort of world my niece and my own (then young) children would grow up in.  In many ways it hasn’t been what I would have wished for them.  But one of the advantages of studying history is a realization there truly is nothing new under the sun.  Did Americans in 1942, or 1917, or 1863 have any less reason to wonder about the world they’d leave to their posterity?  What about earlier Europeans facing the plagues, or invasion by the Mongols?  The West has enjoyed such a high standard of living since the 1950s that we forget what a rare exception to the rule this has been (and how much a Biblical worldview has been instrumental).

The West has all but lost the hope that comes from Christ.  Churches are emptying.  Bibles are unread ornaments.  People trust their own wisdom rather than that of the ages.  Other worldviews are not necessarily devoid of logic — their logic simply produces different conclusions.  If we believe our physical environment is all there is, then preserving it at any cost – even human extinction – can seem a reasonable conclusion.

Modern environmentalism (as opposed to Biblical stewardship) is a religion.  It seeks to answer “the big questions:” how did we get here (chance/evolution), why are things imperfect (human activity), and what is the solution (in this case, complete elimination of humanity).  The writer of the linked article clearly takes comfort and derives purpose from adherence to the logic of his beliefs.

But if we believe this is just a stopover on the way to eternity, then the value of each individual human being becomes infinitely greater than a world already subject to entropy, whether we’re around or not.

It behooves us not to knowingly or carelessly foul our temporary home.  It profits us even more to remember it’s just that: temporary.  But love — true, sacrificial love: that between spouses, between parents and children, between those who belong to the Body — is eternal.

American extinction

A trio of reads, looking at current trends from different lenses:

First, the Wall Street Journal notices how changing demographics are influencing the future of our politics:

For years, the establishment media has admitted that the nation’s changing electorate — almost entirely due to mass legal immigration — is dooming the Republican Party in elections across Orange County, California, and now, Virginia.

Under current legal immigration levels, the U.S. is on track to import about 15 million new foreign-born voters in the next two decades. Those 15 million new foreign-born voters include about eight million who will arrive in the country through chain migration, whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country…

Ronald Brownstein, senior editor for The Atlantic, notes that nearly 90 percent of House congressional districts with a foreign-born population above the national average were won by Democrats. This means that every congressional district with a foreign-born population exceeding roughly 14 percent had a 90 percent chance of being controlled by Democrats and only a ten percent chance of electing a Republican.

But immigration (legal and illegal) isn’t the only driver of this demographic change.  The original posterity of America’s founders, increasingly, isn’t showing up anymore:

The accentuated shift toward racial and ethnic diversity among the nation’s child population is not only driven by a growth in nonwhite racial and ethnic groups. It is also facilitated by a decline in young whites. Overall, the nation’s white population has grown tepidly–by 0.1% since 2010. It declined by 247,000 between 2016-2018 according to the new estimates. But the number of white children under age 15 has declined over the 2010-2018 year period by 2.2 million, continuing a trend already observed in the first decade of the century.

This decline in white youth reflects lower white birth rates. But more importantly for the long term, it reflects an aging of the white population that has led to proportionately fewer women in their childbearing years.

As a result of these trends, the very idea of American citizenship is being rendered moot:

Americans cherish their citizenship. ((I’m not sure that’s demonstrably true anymore — Jemison))  Yet they have all but lost it. The erosion of the citizen is insidiously accelerating in two quite different directions. It seems as if we are reverting to tribal pre-citizenship, in the manner of clan allegiances in the centuries before the rise of the Greek polis and the seventh-century-B.C. invention of the concept of the citizen (politês). Or perhaps the better comparison is to the fifth-century A.D., when northern nomadic ethnic bands crossed the Rhine and Danube and replaced the multiracially encompassing notion of “civis Romanus sum”—“I am a Roman citizen”—with tribal loyalties to fellow Goths, Huns, or Vandals…

…multiculturalism is retribalizing America, in the manner of the fragmentation and evaporation of the Roman Empire. Millions seem to owe their first loyalty to those who share similar ethnic, racial, or religious affinities rather than to shared citizenship, common traditions, and collective histories that transcend race, creed, and clan.

If we wonder why illegal alien residents who commit felonies are rarely deported or must be deported repeatedly, or why few college graduates know much about the Constitution and American history, or why loud social-justice-warrior athletes so eagerly mouth Chinese platitudes about curtailing free speech inside the United States, or why the protections offered by the First and Second Amendments depend largely on where you work or live, one of the reasons is because American citizenship as we once knew it is becoming meaningless.

I highly recommend reading and thinking about each of these linked pieces.  Those who foisted the Immigration Act of 1965 upon the country succeeded: they have dissolved the people and “elected” another… one less likely to oppose their anti-American agendas.