Category: E.M. Cadwaladr

The Fatal Weaknesses of Humanism


The leftist is fundamentally a humanist.  Those on the left believe that humanity can solve its own problems, that history is the story of slow but inevitable improvement, and that God is an antiquated, retrograde illusion.  Conservatives believe that humanity makes at least as many mistakes as advances, and that we do better when we preserve long hallowed standards – typically those bequeathed to us by God.

From the humanist’s perspective, his is the only worldview that can possibly make any sense.  This is true whether the humanist in question is an educated philosophical naturalist, a rabid Marxist, or just a garden-variety nonbeliever who doesn’t give our place in the universe more than a passing thought.  Ultimately, however, humanism actually has more to do with its own version of faith than with reason, and the confidence of humanists has more to do with human psychology than with the soundness of their arguments.

At the very deepest level, almost all humanists presume, generally without even thinking about it, that the three-pound brain human beings possess just happens to have the capacity to grasp anything in the universe that is there to be grasped.  Protagoras said, in the 5th century B.C., that “man is the measure of all things.” Most people still believe that, whether they are conscious of it or not.  No one would hesitate to acknowledge that the brain of a rat has limitations.  This is self-evident when you look at the rather limited achievements of ratkind.  However, when it comes to our own brains (which modern science insists are functionally synonymous with our minds), we tend to assume that the universe stops conveniently at our capacity to understand it.  This is what “a rejection of supernaturalism” means.  It is the belief that things beyond our grasp do not exist.  This belief actually has no rational warrant.  The rat cannot see any meaning in a book – yet books are not mere piles of paper.  When the humanist sneers at a belief in the unseen, it is because he trusts the capacity of his own mind to explain a world revealed through the narrow lens of human senses.

Of course, today’s humanists certainly do believe in unseen things like radio waves – which can be detected with machines.  Much of science is devoted to making the invisible visible, the inaudible audible, and so forth.  However, we are still constrained – not only by our three-pound brain, but by the analogical limitations of our human senses.  We can make impressive telescopes and sound-amplifiers, but we can’t really understand anything we cannot at least imagine by analogy to something we ourselves can see or hear.  The nucleus of an atom isn’t really a collection of tiny spheres looking something like a bunch of grapes.  That is just a picture of reality imaginable to us.  We are creatures of analogy and metaphor.  Language is metaphor.  Mathematics is metaphor.  We can discover nothing on our own that is so removed from our own human experience as to be completely alien.  How could we?  The humanist believes that there is nothing out there to be found.  The Christian believes otherwise because experience beyond the capacities of his senses has been put inside him.

Humanism is a mirror that reflects admiringly on humanity.  This isn’t hard to figure out – it’s in the name.  When people take apart the physical world, those material things that we can grasp, they make astonishing progress.  They learn chemistry.  They invent technology.  They revel in man’s own achievement and abilities.  However, when people turn their analytical minds on the problem of their own condition, they invent provisional theories at best and unsupported narratives at worst.  The “science” of psychology consists of one rejected theoretical program after another.  Freud is debunked.  The neo-Freudians are debunked – though both Freud and his disciples live on in legend as heroic precursors of the postmodern counterculture.  Behaviorism, though it left behind all sorts of useful methodologies, is debunked in its central thesis – that what happens inside the brain (or the mind) is basically irrelevant, because other people’s behavior is all we can actually see.

In general, the hard sciences have added new knowledge from generation to generation, while the social sciences have suffered periodic revolutions – always managing to invent theories that just happen to fit the prevalent biases among intellectuals of their times.  This tendency for the social sciences to enjoy a certain detachment from empirical evidence has evolved in its own sweet all too human way.  Freud’s theories never claimed any evidence beyond the authority of Freud’s own anecdotal experiences.  That was enough to satisfy the intellectuals of his time.  Diederik Stapel’s social narratives, needing a thicker veneer of scientific respectability to suit the contemporary fashion, stood on evidence he simply fabricated as needed.  In the social sciences, the phrase “scientific study” is not the golden seal of truth, but just the golden seal of academic groupthink.

The humanist is a confused creature.  He somehow believes he is free to create a human utopia by the power of his own efforts, but at the same time, he believes in a clockwork universe that runs on the dead logic of physical matter alone.  These two beliefs are contradictory on their face.  In a clockwork universe driven by raw physical and evolutionary forces, human beings pursue not utopia, but rank self-interest.  Nor is it reasonable to assume that utopia is some sort of Darwinian byproduct, evolving blindly by the fixed processes of nature.  It hasn’t done so up until now.  Individual survival is one thing – universal happiness is quite another.

Where can this hope for the ultimate perfection of man come from?  Not from reason.  Not from evidence.  Yes, we have amazing technologies all around us – but humanity itself is little changed in its capacity for the ugliest varieties of predations.  I remember an incident a few years ago in which a mother in a nearby city made an inventive use of modern technology – by killing her baby in a microwave.  She certainly had no doubts about her own “dignity” or “worth.”  Nor is there any reason to believe she was motivated by any antiquated religious superstitions.

At its formation during the Enlightenment, humanism was very much the product of Christian values.  Like it or not, equality, concern for others, and the sanctity of human life are Christian ideals.  Unfortunately, without the underpinning of God’s eternal standards, humanism redefines itself periodically, just as psychology does.  Its real character is now more Marxist than enlightened.  We have gone from a state of tyranny to the ideal of freedom to the dream of equality to the farce of social justice.  This is a complete circle, since social justice is just tyranny with a superficial branding overhaul.  Humanism, like the postmodern notion of truth, is whatever the current authorities say it is.

Science, the unofficial guarantor of humanism, was born in a belief in an absolute and unbending truth.  The sanctity of truth is also a Christian value.  Science cannot flourish in a relativist society.  Already I have heard the peculiar phrases “white science” and “white facts” – as though different races might, perhaps, negotiate different relationships with gravity or move through time at different rates.  If this nonsense is calmly tolerated long, we can shove the scientific advances of centuries in the microwave, too.

The humanist wishes to rid himself of God so that he can, himself, become God.  We’ve seen this movie before.  It doesn’t end well.

The leftist is fundamentally a humanist.  Those on the left believe that humanity can solve its own problems, that history is the story of slow but inevitable improvement, and that God is an antiquated, retrograde illusion.  Conservatives believe that humanity makes at least as many mistakes as advances, and that we do better when we preserve long hallowed standards – typically those bequeathed to us by God.

From the humanist’s perspective, his is the only worldview that can possibly make any sense.  This is true whether the humanist in question is an educated philosophical naturalist, a rabid Marxist, or just a garden-variety nonbeliever who doesn’t give our place in the universe more than a passing thought.  Ultimately, however, humanism actually has more to do with its own version of faith than with reason, and the confidence of humanists has more to do with human psychology than with the soundness of their arguments.

At the very deepest level, almost all humanists presume, generally without even thinking about it, that the three-pound brain human beings possess just happens to have the capacity to grasp anything in the universe that is there to be grasped.  Protagoras said, in the 5th century B.C., that “man is the measure of all things.” Most people still believe that, whether they are conscious of it or not.  No one would hesitate to acknowledge that the brain of a rat has limitations.  This is self-evident when you look at the rather limited achievements of ratkind.  However, when it comes to our own brains (which modern science insists are functionally synonymous with our minds), we tend to assume that the universe stops conveniently at our capacity to understand it.  This is what “a rejection of supernaturalism” means.  It is the belief that things beyond our grasp do not exist.  This belief actually has no rational warrant.  The rat cannot see any meaning in a book – yet books are not mere piles of paper.  When the humanist sneers at a belief in the unseen, it is because he trusts the capacity of his own mind to explain a world revealed through the narrow lens of human senses.

Of course, today’s humanists certainly do believe in unseen things like radio waves – which can be detected with machines.  Much of science is devoted to making the invisible visible, the inaudible audible, and so forth.  However, we are still constrained – not only by our three-pound brain, but by the analogical limitations of our human senses.  We can make impressive telescopes and sound-amplifiers, but we can’t really understand anything we cannot at least imagine by analogy to something we ourselves can see or hear.  The nucleus of an atom isn’t really a collection of tiny spheres looking something like a bunch of grapes.  That is just a picture of reality imaginable to us.  We are creatures of analogy and metaphor.  Language is metaphor.  Mathematics is metaphor.  We can discover nothing on our own that is so removed from our own human experience as to be completely alien.  How could we?  The humanist believes that there is nothing out there to be found.  The Christian believes otherwise because experience beyond the capacities of his senses has been put inside him.

Humanism is a mirror that reflects admiringly on humanity.  This isn’t hard to figure out – it’s in the name.  When people take apart the physical world, those material things that we can grasp, they make astonishing progress.  They learn chemistry.  They invent technology.  They revel in man’s own achievement and abilities.  However, when people turn their analytical minds on the problem of their own condition, they invent provisional theories at best and unsupported narratives at worst.  The “science” of psychology consists of one rejected theoretical program after another.  Freud is debunked.  The neo-Freudians are debunked – though both Freud and his disciples live on in legend as heroic precursors of the postmodern counterculture.  Behaviorism, though it left behind all sorts of useful methodologies, is debunked in its central thesis – that what happens inside the brain (or the mind) is basically irrelevant, because other people’s behavior is all we can actually see.

In general, the hard sciences have added new knowledge from generation to generation, while the social sciences have suffered periodic revolutions – always managing to invent theories that just happen to fit the prevalent biases among intellectuals of their times.  This tendency for the social sciences to enjoy a certain detachment from empirical evidence has evolved in its own sweet all too human way.  Freud’s theories never claimed any evidence beyond the authority of Freud’s own anecdotal experiences.  That was enough to satisfy the intellectuals of his time.  Diederik Stapel’s social narratives, needing a thicker veneer of scientific respectability to suit the contemporary fashion, stood on evidence he simply fabricated as needed.  In the social sciences, the phrase “scientific study” is not the golden seal of truth, but just the golden seal of academic groupthink.

The humanist is a confused creature.  He somehow believes he is free to create a human utopia by the power of his own efforts, but at the same time, he believes in a clockwork universe that runs on the dead logic of physical matter alone.  These two beliefs are contradictory on their face.  In a clockwork universe driven by raw physical and evolutionary forces, human beings pursue not utopia, but rank self-interest.  Nor is it reasonable to assume that utopia is some sort of Darwinian byproduct, evolving blindly by the fixed processes of nature.  It hasn’t done so up until now.  Individual survival is one thing – universal happiness is quite another.

Where can this hope for the ultimate perfection of man come from?  Not from reason.  Not from evidence.  Yes, we have amazing technologies all around us – but humanity itself is little changed in its capacity for the ugliest varieties of predations.  I remember an incident a few years ago in which a mother in a nearby city made an inventive use of modern technology – by killing her baby in a microwave.  She certainly had no doubts about her own “dignity” or “worth.”  Nor is there any reason to believe she was motivated by any antiquated religious superstitions.

At its formation during the Enlightenment, humanism was very much the product of Christian values.  Like it or not, equality, concern for others, and the sanctity of human life are Christian ideals.  Unfortunately, without the underpinning of God’s eternal standards, humanism redefines itself periodically, just as psychology does.  Its real character is now more Marxist than enlightened.  We have gone from a state of tyranny to the ideal of freedom to the dream of equality to the farce of social justice.  This is a complete circle, since social justice is just tyranny with a superficial branding overhaul.  Humanism, like the postmodern notion of truth, is whatever the current authorities say it is.

Science, the unofficial guarantor of humanism, was born in a belief in an absolute and unbending truth.  The sanctity of truth is also a Christian value.  Science cannot flourish in a relativist society.  Already I have heard the peculiar phrases “white science” and “white facts” – as though different races might, perhaps, negotiate different relationships with gravity or move through time at different rates.  If this nonsense is calmly tolerated long, we can shove the scientific advances of centuries in the microwave, too.

The humanist wishes to rid himself of God so that he can, himself, become God.  We’ve seen this movie before.  It doesn’t end well.



Source link

The Anti-Christian Movement


I used to be an atheist.  My understanding of “atheism” was simply that it is the belief that there is no God.  I was an empiricist: I believed in what could be seen – the material world and nothing more.  I did not hate Christians.  At worst, I thought they were naïve and foolish for their religious beliefs, but I knew many Christians I respected, including for their insight and intelligence.

Today, “atheism” means something entirely different from a simple lack of belief in God.  What atheism has become can be more accurately described as “the anti-Christian movement.”  It is a movement that assumes that Christianity isn’t merely naïve and false, but a major cause of social ills, something worth the effort to actively ferret out and purge from our society.  This anti-Christian crusade has been both supported by, and a natural outgrowth of, the much larger program of cultural Marxism.

Anti-clericalism is nothing new, but many atheists of the past were at least coherent.  They believed that the complex triune God of Christianity was silly, but they didn’t think Shiva, Allah, or Zeus was any better.  Like me, they simply believed in the here and now and not in the unseen and scientifically unverifiable.  The new atheists are different.  They are not really bound by cold, materialist, scientific facts.  Although they claim that science and reason are on their side, they often are not very knowledgeable about either.  More often, they are interested only in co-opting the human authority science has acquired.  Science is a brand for today’s atheists, not a discipline.  The new atheism is generally forgiving toward Hinduism and can be almost reverent regarding Buddhism.  While I grant that Buddhism is essentially godless, it’s a long way from being a collection of empirical facts.  Buddha’s claims are certainly no more objectively verifiable than Christ’s.  Nirvana is no easier to find on a star chart than the Christian Heaven.

Uninterested in hard materialism, today’s atheists believe in an emotional narrative invented and reinvented at the whim of politically motivated human beings.  Today’s atheism is not a philosophical position, but a political one.  Superficially, the anti-Christian movement espouses the view that Christianity is uniquely evil in its intolerance – their word for the fact that we have standards.  Christianity, like Western civilization, is squeezed into the usual Marxist mold as just another instrument of oppression.  But without batting an eye, many of today’s atheists manage to believe that Islam, an objectively more intolerant, more misogynistic, and far more bloodthirsty system of beliefs than Christianity – is somehow forgivable, or even a net social boon.  In truth, the new atheism isn’t about helping the “oppressed” – any more than it is about the non-belief in God or the exclusive belief in the world we can grasp with our senses.  It is about being a vocal part of the identity group of avid Christian-haters.  A political entity.  It is about inventing yet another substitute sense of identity and purpose to replace the Christian sense of identity and purpose that it struggles to destroy.

The anti-Christian movement of today, like all other Marxist or neo-Marxist splinter groups, draws its strength from a simple, if unstated, promise: All the world’s aggrieved can acquire social acceptance and the unholy grail of victim status by denouncing someone else as an oppressor and working for his destruction.

In the preface of Richard Dawkins’s book The God Delusion, we find the following revealing statement:

I suspect – well, I am sure – that there are lots of people out there who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy in it, don’t believe it, or are worried about the evils that are done in its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents’ religion and wish they could, but just don’t realize that leaving is an option.

This is a Marxist meme on the time-honored pattern.  Marx himself was less whiney in tone, the product of more forthright times: “Workers of the world unite!  You have nothing to lose but your chains!”

What Dawkins is saying, perhaps without even fully understanding the meme that he himself has swallowed, is that if you’ve been raised in a Christian household, you’re a victim.  By telling you this, Richard Dawkins makes himself a kind of revolutionary hero.  If gold medals were awarded for virtue-signaling, The God Delusion would have won the prize for 2006.  Am I being unfair?  Perhaps where Dawkins lives, people who turn away from God are burned alive as witches.  Perhaps – but I doubt it.  The last time I checked, death sentences for apostasy were rather rare outside the Muslim world, where Dawkins’s book is ineffective, being banned.  Or maybe he was talking about only the sad fate of atheists being shunned by other people – the unspeakable emotional trauma of “stigma.”  Try openly declaring your Christian faith at all but a handful of universities in America, and you will find out exactly what intolerance and vindictive outrage is.  Nor is it merely Dawkins who plays this tune.  Other authors have likened a Christian upbringing to child abuse.  This is a thinly veiled threat, since child abuse is punishable by law.  Overall, the message is clear:

Renounce your faith and you’ll have instant standing as a victim; keep it, and you will be counted as one of the few groups liberals are encouraged to hate – and potentially persecute as well.

While I’m not an advocate of affirmative action, it is telling that practically all new atheists are white, and most of them are men.  This is probably no coincidence.  If you are black, Latino, female, or any foreigner with solid non-white credentials, you have ready-made victim status that will charm the neo-Marxist heart.  You don’t need atheism to get your ration of liberal street cred.  If you happen to be a white man, though, you have to make up something to earn your right to exist.  Not all white men looking for a victim group to hide in are willing to emasculate themselves as anything from beta males to “transwomen,” so anti-Christian militancy has been, for some, the painless alternative.  As the tone of cultural Marxist rhetoric becomes more strident, however, the new atheism has lost most of its value as a refuge.  Unlike being non-white, atheism is perceived as a matter of choice.  It doesn’t really count.  Unlike being a surgically altered transsexual, mere Christian-hating isn’t much of a commitment.  In the weird and wondrous world of continuous social upheaval driven by social Marxist critical theory, atheists, like gay men, are yesterday’s heroes – thrown into the liberal lake of fire as more radical departures from traditional society are concocted.  God forgives – but Marxism has no room for either gratitude or forgiveness.  Only the collective matters.  The individual is a mere means.

I used to be an atheist.  My understanding of “atheism” was simply that it is the belief that there is no God.  I was an empiricist: I believed in what could be seen – the material world and nothing more.  I did not hate Christians.  At worst, I thought they were naïve and foolish for their religious beliefs, but I knew many Christians I respected, including for their insight and intelligence.

Today, “atheism” means something entirely different from a simple lack of belief in God.  What atheism has become can be more accurately described as “the anti-Christian movement.”  It is a movement that assumes that Christianity isn’t merely naïve and false, but a major cause of social ills, something worth the effort to actively ferret out and purge from our society.  This anti-Christian crusade has been both supported by, and a natural outgrowth of, the much larger program of cultural Marxism.

Anti-clericalism is nothing new, but many atheists of the past were at least coherent.  They believed that the complex triune God of Christianity was silly, but they didn’t think Shiva, Allah, or Zeus was any better.  Like me, they simply believed in the here and now and not in the unseen and scientifically unverifiable.  The new atheists are different.  They are not really bound by cold, materialist, scientific facts.  Although they claim that science and reason are on their side, they often are not very knowledgeable about either.  More often, they are interested only in co-opting the human authority science has acquired.  Science is a brand for today’s atheists, not a discipline.  The new atheism is generally forgiving toward Hinduism and can be almost reverent regarding Buddhism.  While I grant that Buddhism is essentially godless, it’s a long way from being a collection of empirical facts.  Buddha’s claims are certainly no more objectively verifiable than Christ’s.  Nirvana is no easier to find on a star chart than the Christian Heaven.

Uninterested in hard materialism, today’s atheists believe in an emotional narrative invented and reinvented at the whim of politically motivated human beings.  Today’s atheism is not a philosophical position, but a political one.  Superficially, the anti-Christian movement espouses the view that Christianity is uniquely evil in its intolerance – their word for the fact that we have standards.  Christianity, like Western civilization, is squeezed into the usual Marxist mold as just another instrument of oppression.  But without batting an eye, many of today’s atheists manage to believe that Islam, an objectively more intolerant, more misogynistic, and far more bloodthirsty system of beliefs than Christianity – is somehow forgivable, or even a net social boon.  In truth, the new atheism isn’t about helping the “oppressed” – any more than it is about the non-belief in God or the exclusive belief in the world we can grasp with our senses.  It is about being a vocal part of the identity group of avid Christian-haters.  A political entity.  It is about inventing yet another substitute sense of identity and purpose to replace the Christian sense of identity and purpose that it struggles to destroy.

The anti-Christian movement of today, like all other Marxist or neo-Marxist splinter groups, draws its strength from a simple, if unstated, promise: All the world’s aggrieved can acquire social acceptance and the unholy grail of victim status by denouncing someone else as an oppressor and working for his destruction.

In the preface of Richard Dawkins’s book The God Delusion, we find the following revealing statement:

I suspect – well, I am sure – that there are lots of people out there who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy in it, don’t believe it, or are worried about the evils that are done in its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents’ religion and wish they could, but just don’t realize that leaving is an option.

This is a Marxist meme on the time-honored pattern.  Marx himself was less whiney in tone, the product of more forthright times: “Workers of the world unite!  You have nothing to lose but your chains!”

What Dawkins is saying, perhaps without even fully understanding the meme that he himself has swallowed, is that if you’ve been raised in a Christian household, you’re a victim.  By telling you this, Richard Dawkins makes himself a kind of revolutionary hero.  If gold medals were awarded for virtue-signaling, The God Delusion would have won the prize for 2006.  Am I being unfair?  Perhaps where Dawkins lives, people who turn away from God are burned alive as witches.  Perhaps – but I doubt it.  The last time I checked, death sentences for apostasy were rather rare outside the Muslim world, where Dawkins’s book is ineffective, being banned.  Or maybe he was talking about only the sad fate of atheists being shunned by other people – the unspeakable emotional trauma of “stigma.”  Try openly declaring your Christian faith at all but a handful of universities in America, and you will find out exactly what intolerance and vindictive outrage is.  Nor is it merely Dawkins who plays this tune.  Other authors have likened a Christian upbringing to child abuse.  This is a thinly veiled threat, since child abuse is punishable by law.  Overall, the message is clear:

Renounce your faith and you’ll have instant standing as a victim; keep it, and you will be counted as one of the few groups liberals are encouraged to hate – and potentially persecute as well.

While I’m not an advocate of affirmative action, it is telling that practically all new atheists are white, and most of them are men.  This is probably no coincidence.  If you are black, Latino, female, or any foreigner with solid non-white credentials, you have ready-made victim status that will charm the neo-Marxist heart.  You don’t need atheism to get your ration of liberal street cred.  If you happen to be a white man, though, you have to make up something to earn your right to exist.  Not all white men looking for a victim group to hide in are willing to emasculate themselves as anything from beta males to “transwomen,” so anti-Christian militancy has been, for some, the painless alternative.  As the tone of cultural Marxist rhetoric becomes more strident, however, the new atheism has lost most of its value as a refuge.  Unlike being non-white, atheism is perceived as a matter of choice.  It doesn’t really count.  Unlike being a surgically altered transsexual, mere Christian-hating isn’t much of a commitment.  In the weird and wondrous world of continuous social upheaval driven by social Marxist critical theory, atheists, like gay men, are yesterday’s heroes – thrown into the liberal lake of fire as more radical departures from traditional society are concocted.  God forgives – but Marxism has no room for either gratitude or forgiveness.  Only the collective matters.  The individual is a mere means.



Source link

Churches for People Who Dislike God


I have friends and family members who attend liberal churches.  I know a little about these institutions and have even attended their services once or twice.  Strictly speaking, I don’t think they can be accurately called “Christian” churches. Their authoritative standard is not the biblical Christ, but a pastiche of all-too-human ideas.

Historical Christianity isn’t a collection of warm, fuzzy feelings.  It encompasses many things, but at its heart, it makes bold and substantial claims about the way the universe is organized. God is God – the maker of all things, the cause that underpins all mere effects.  Man, although loved by God, is merely a creature.  The universe does not revolve around how we humans happen to feel about it.  Liberal “Christianity” has turned this basic relationship on its head.  Liberal Christians believe, typically, that God created the universe and man by an evolutionary process we ourselves can fully understand.  Now, they would have you think, God serves us like a kind of rich uncle who whispers helpful advice now and then and rigs the odds a little in our favor.

For two thousand years, real Christians have turned to the Bible as the authoritative word of God, no matter how uncomfortable the consequences.  Odd though this may seem to the secular mind, belief in the Bible’s authority is an entirely coherent belief.  We believe that God exists and that He spoke by the prophets and the apostles, creating an authoritative written text.  The unstated “doctrine” of liberal churches is far less coherent.  They believe that the Bible is subject to a kind of literary analysis (the so-called “higher critical method”), which implicitly assumes that the Scriptures themselves are faulty – requiring not merely insightful interpretation, but substantial correction by a purely human means.  In other words, they believe that academics can legitimately rewrite the Bible to explain what it would have said but for the errors of its human authors – if not the errors of God himself.

The higher critical method itself was really only the beginning.  Having wrested scriptural authority away from God and put it in the eager hands of fallible men, liberal churches have helped themselves to a host of unsupported (or very weakly supported) innovations.  For example, largely on a basis of two verses in 1 Timothy (“This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”), they have established the doctrine of universalism, by which all people are saved, irrespective of their beliefs.  Those passages in the Bible that inconveniently negate this view can, by the human authority of false teachers, be whittled away as antiquated human error.  Somehow, liberal churches manage not to see the irony in this.  They are unable to see it because they believe that the centuries have made humanity wiser, not merely in technological terms, but in moral terms as well.

The inevitability of human progress is not a Christian belief, but an entirely secular one – a tacit assumption we’ve held over from the Enlightenment.  It is not an accident that what is left after this sort of scriptural “correction” is little more than the latest postmodern social mores with a vestige of ecclesiastical authority grafted awkwardly on top.  Should we wonder about the ordination of gay clergy?  Not when the ultimate authority behind the church has been hijacked by human beings.  Vaguely comforting to its adherents this new religion may well be – but it isn’t Christianity.

This shift to the secular moral standards will be the eventual death of those mainline churches that have gone along with it.  It is as though the 2nd-century bishop Polycarp, instead of refusing to make a worship offering to Caesar, had shrugged and bowed to the norms of his day.  It is though the Apostle Paul had self-edited verses 24 through 27 of Romans 1 because he didn’t want to offend any Roman homosexuals by pointing out their sins.  In the short run, it is far easier to fill pews with congregants who are confident they’ll get an encouraging pep talk rather than be chastised with dire warnings – but in the end, the encouraging pep talk is inherently self-defeating.  Eventually, even stupid people realize that if everyone goes to Heaven, Christian or not, giving up a Sunday morning is a waste of time.  One might as well watch Star Wars and believe in “the Force.”  Liberal Christianity is just an intermediate step to atheism for people who dislike God but like the comfort of a pseudo-Christian group identity.

It is ironic that when atheists laugh at the pitiable credulity of Christians, they are often laughing at the credulity of the watered down churches secularism has itself produced.  The default assumption of many atheists is that Christians are faint-hearted morons who have a psychological need for the irrational promise of an afterlife in Heaven.  The irony is that real Christianity is in no way profligate with that guarantee.  It is only the more liberal churches with their universalist view of salvation that dole out the promise of Heaven as though it were Social Security writ large.  The theologian R.C. Sproul characterized universalism succinctly as “justification by death.”

The way in which Christianity has been bifurcated into the devout on one hand and the childish on the other becomes apparent every time we have a national election.  Functionally, polling data tend to identify real Christians as “evangelicals” – regardless of the actual meaning of the word.  Next time you hear the term in a political context, substitute the phrase “people who actually believe in God,” and you will understand what I mean.  On the other hand, news and polling institutions have no word for liberal “Christians” because they are too amorphous a blob of humanity to constitute a coherent polity.  To be a member of one of their churches, one need not believe in anything in particular – or ultimately in anything at all.

I have friends and family members who attend liberal churches.  I know a little about these institutions and have even attended their services once or twice.  Strictly speaking, I don’t think they can be accurately called “Christian” churches. Their authoritative standard is not the biblical Christ, but a pastiche of all-too-human ideas.

Historical Christianity isn’t a collection of warm, fuzzy feelings.  It encompasses many things, but at its heart, it makes bold and substantial claims about the way the universe is organized. God is God – the maker of all things, the cause that underpins all mere effects.  Man, although loved by God, is merely a creature.  The universe does not revolve around how we humans happen to feel about it.  Liberal “Christianity” has turned this basic relationship on its head.  Liberal Christians believe, typically, that God created the universe and man by an evolutionary process we ourselves can fully understand.  Now, they would have you think, God serves us like a kind of rich uncle who whispers helpful advice now and then and rigs the odds a little in our favor.

For two thousand years, real Christians have turned to the Bible as the authoritative word of God, no matter how uncomfortable the consequences.  Odd though this may seem to the secular mind, belief in the Bible’s authority is an entirely coherent belief.  We believe that God exists and that He spoke by the prophets and the apostles, creating an authoritative written text.  The unstated “doctrine” of liberal churches is far less coherent.  They believe that the Bible is subject to a kind of literary analysis (the so-called “higher critical method”), which implicitly assumes that the Scriptures themselves are faulty – requiring not merely insightful interpretation, but substantial correction by a purely human means.  In other words, they believe that academics can legitimately rewrite the Bible to explain what it would have said but for the errors of its human authors – if not the errors of God himself.

The higher critical method itself was really only the beginning.  Having wrested scriptural authority away from God and put it in the eager hands of fallible men, liberal churches have helped themselves to a host of unsupported (or very weakly supported) innovations.  For example, largely on a basis of two verses in 1 Timothy (“This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”), they have established the doctrine of universalism, by which all people are saved, irrespective of their beliefs.  Those passages in the Bible that inconveniently negate this view can, by the human authority of false teachers, be whittled away as antiquated human error.  Somehow, liberal churches manage not to see the irony in this.  They are unable to see it because they believe that the centuries have made humanity wiser, not merely in technological terms, but in moral terms as well.

The inevitability of human progress is not a Christian belief, but an entirely secular one – a tacit assumption we’ve held over from the Enlightenment.  It is not an accident that what is left after this sort of scriptural “correction” is little more than the latest postmodern social mores with a vestige of ecclesiastical authority grafted awkwardly on top.  Should we wonder about the ordination of gay clergy?  Not when the ultimate authority behind the church has been hijacked by human beings.  Vaguely comforting to its adherents this new religion may well be – but it isn’t Christianity.

This shift to the secular moral standards will be the eventual death of those mainline churches that have gone along with it.  It is as though the 2nd-century bishop Polycarp, instead of refusing to make a worship offering to Caesar, had shrugged and bowed to the norms of his day.  It is though the Apostle Paul had self-edited verses 24 through 27 of Romans 1 because he didn’t want to offend any Roman homosexuals by pointing out their sins.  In the short run, it is far easier to fill pews with congregants who are confident they’ll get an encouraging pep talk rather than be chastised with dire warnings – but in the end, the encouraging pep talk is inherently self-defeating.  Eventually, even stupid people realize that if everyone goes to Heaven, Christian or not, giving up a Sunday morning is a waste of time.  One might as well watch Star Wars and believe in “the Force.”  Liberal Christianity is just an intermediate step to atheism for people who dislike God but like the comfort of a pseudo-Christian group identity.

It is ironic that when atheists laugh at the pitiable credulity of Christians, they are often laughing at the credulity of the watered down churches secularism has itself produced.  The default assumption of many atheists is that Christians are faint-hearted morons who have a psychological need for the irrational promise of an afterlife in Heaven.  The irony is that real Christianity is in no way profligate with that guarantee.  It is only the more liberal churches with their universalist view of salvation that dole out the promise of Heaven as though it were Social Security writ large.  The theologian R.C. Sproul characterized universalism succinctly as “justification by death.”

The way in which Christianity has been bifurcated into the devout on one hand and the childish on the other becomes apparent every time we have a national election.  Functionally, polling data tend to identify real Christians as “evangelicals” – regardless of the actual meaning of the word.  Next time you hear the term in a political context, substitute the phrase “people who actually believe in God,” and you will understand what I mean.  On the other hand, news and polling institutions have no word for liberal “Christians” because they are too amorphous a blob of humanity to constitute a coherent polity.  To be a member of one of their churches, one need not believe in anything in particular – or ultimately in anything at all.



Source link

What Might Civil War Be Like?


The thought of Civil War has been in the minds of many people lately, on both sides of the political and cultural divide. This is not a thing to be wished for, though no one should kid themselves into believing it’s impossible either. Let us take a sober look at what such a conflict might entail.

To begin with, it would not look like the first American Civil War, which was essentially a war between two regions of the country with different economic interests. The divide created two separate countries, both initially contiguous, intact, and relatively homogeneous. The lines of demarcation now are only somewhat regional, and tend to correspond to differences between urban and rural populations, as well as differences of race and class. A second American Civil War would be much more similar to the Spanish Civil War, with the leftists dominating the cities and conservatives controlling the countryside. Conflicts of this nature, with enemies mixed geographically, are a formula for spontaneous mass bloodletting. India-Pakistan during the 1947 partition comes to mind as another modern example. Given an absence of legitimate government and the friction of proximity, ordinary people can be moved to settle grievances by killing one another without the need for governments to egg them on.

Some dimensions of a future civil war would be, I think, largely unprecedented. When lesser countries have imploded in violence in recent times, they have done so with most of the world around them still intact. There were other nations to offer aid, assistance and intervention, welcome or unwelcome. There were places for refugees to go. The collapse of the world’s remaining superpower would take much of the world down with it. A global economic crisis would be inevitable. The withdrawal of American forces from bases across the world to fight at home would also create a power vacuum that others, even under economic strain, would be tempted to exploit. Whichever side gained control of our nuclear arsenal, our status as a nuclear power would probably persuade other nations not to interfere in our conflict militarily, but the collapse of trade alone would produce crippling effects that would be hard to overestimate. Many components for products our manufacturing sector makes are globally sourced. Add to this the breakdown of our transportation system, dependent on oil and transecting one new front line after another. The internet would fail. It is a frail enough now. Financial systems would fail. What happens if the banks find half their assets suddenly in hostile territory? All Federal government functions, including Social Security, would fail, many of them losing their very legitimacy to one side or the other. Food production, heavily dependent on diesel fuel, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, not to mention a steady supply of genetically engineered seeds, would slump alarmingly. In short, most things we depend on are now held together by a network of delicate and complex connections. Without those connections, would you have a job? If so, in what medium of exchange could your employers manage to pay you? What would there be for you to buy? Does your town, your county, or even your state have the ability to marshal its resources into a viable economy? How many people in those entities could deal with anything worse than a weather disaster, in which they count on the fact that help is coming soon?

rom an economic perspective, I think it is fair to say that the left would have a bigger problem than the right. Cities cannot feed themselves under any conditions, and what food could be grown on America’s resource-starved farms would be gobbled up by people nearer and dearer to the farmers. Leftists would have to both secure vast territories around their urban strongholds and relearn from scratch the generations-lost art of food production. Liberal enclaves stranded in the hinterland would simply be untenable. We, on the other hand, would be critically short of new Hollywood movies. Without a steady supply of the works of Meryl Streep and Matt Damon, millions of conservatives would instantly drop dead from boredom – that is, according to Meryl Streep.

Up through the middle of the 20th century, cities were major hubs of industry, but liberal preoccupations with environmentalism have driven much of our surviving industry into rural areas. The domination of the South by the sheer scale of Northern industry that happened in the 1860s would not repeat itself in a future war. Both sides would probably have the means to manufacture basic military essentials, but producing sophisticated items like fighter planes would be simply too complex for the remaining economic base. It would be a war of soldiers, not of million-dollar robots. Were the war to stretch into years, the left would likely destroy their own economy with unfettered socialistic policies. This actually happened to the Spanish Republic in the 1930s. I can image their modern counterparts struggling to make eco-friendly weapons and organize culturally-sensitive, politically-correct collective farms.

Militarily, the left has other problems. They have saddled themselves with a longstanding disdain for military history and thought. A mob of whiney, untrained Antifa or BLM protestors doth not an army make. In recent decades, the left has sought not so much to co-opt the military as to rot it from within. When your idea of a military hero is Bowe Bergdahl or Bradley “call-me-Chelsea” Manning, it is evident that you’ve planned to fight your battles exclusively in the movies. The officer corps, or the part of it that’s worth the name, is ours. Although the left probably has a certain pool of minority ex-soldiers to draw on, I doubt they have a single general officer that still has his original issue genitalia. I’ll take a Texan and a Tar Heel against a metrosexual and a social justice warrior any day — while admitting that the latter might conduct a far more colorful parade. Much would depend on how the military happened to fragment, but even if one side or the other got the lion’s share of it there simply aren’t enough soldiers in the armed forces to garrison the entire country. More troops would have to be raised, equipped, and trained.

The right would probably win a real war, for all the reasons I have sketched above. I suspect it wouldn’t take the three years to decide the issue that it took in Spain, but predicting a short war has usually proven to be a fool’s occupation. Long or short, tens of millions of people would likely starve to death before war and reconstruction were over — far more than would die in actual fighting. Having seen a person starve to death, it is not a fate I’d wish on friends and family members — or even on my enemies. It might be, after all the legal shenanigans are done, the necessary cost of keeping western society alive — but it would no heroic action movie. Utopian ideologies die hard. War is hell.

The thought of Civil War has been in the minds of many people lately, on both sides of the political and cultural divide. This is not a thing to be wished for, though no one should kid themselves into believing it’s impossible either. Let us take a sober look at what such a conflict might entail.

To begin with, it would not look like the first American Civil War, which was essentially a war between two regions of the country with different economic interests. The divide created two separate countries, both initially contiguous, intact, and relatively homogeneous. The lines of demarcation now are only somewhat regional, and tend to correspond to differences between urban and rural populations, as well as differences of race and class. A second American Civil War would be much more similar to the Spanish Civil War, with the leftists dominating the cities and conservatives controlling the countryside. Conflicts of this nature, with enemies mixed geographically, are a formula for spontaneous mass bloodletting. India-Pakistan during the 1947 partition comes to mind as another modern example. Given an absence of legitimate government and the friction of proximity, ordinary people can be moved to settle grievances by killing one another without the need for governments to egg them on.

Some dimensions of a future civil war would be, I think, largely unprecedented. When lesser countries have imploded in violence in recent times, they have done so with most of the world around them still intact. There were other nations to offer aid, assistance and intervention, welcome or unwelcome. There were places for refugees to go. The collapse of the world’s remaining superpower would take much of the world down with it. A global economic crisis would be inevitable. The withdrawal of American forces from bases across the world to fight at home would also create a power vacuum that others, even under economic strain, would be tempted to exploit. Whichever side gained control of our nuclear arsenal, our status as a nuclear power would probably persuade other nations not to interfere in our conflict militarily, but the collapse of trade alone would produce crippling effects that would be hard to overestimate. Many components for products our manufacturing sector makes are globally sourced. Add to this the breakdown of our transportation system, dependent on oil and transecting one new front line after another. The internet would fail. It is a frail enough now. Financial systems would fail. What happens if the banks find half their assets suddenly in hostile territory? All Federal government functions, including Social Security, would fail, many of them losing their very legitimacy to one side or the other. Food production, heavily dependent on diesel fuel, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, not to mention a steady supply of genetically engineered seeds, would slump alarmingly. In short, most things we depend on are now held together by a network of delicate and complex connections. Without those connections, would you have a job? If so, in what medium of exchange could your employers manage to pay you? What would there be for you to buy? Does your town, your county, or even your state have the ability to marshal its resources into a viable economy? How many people in those entities could deal with anything worse than a weather disaster, in which they count on the fact that help is coming soon?

rom an economic perspective, I think it is fair to say that the left would have a bigger problem than the right. Cities cannot feed themselves under any conditions, and what food could be grown on America’s resource-starved farms would be gobbled up by people nearer and dearer to the farmers. Leftists would have to both secure vast territories around their urban strongholds and relearn from scratch the generations-lost art of food production. Liberal enclaves stranded in the hinterland would simply be untenable. We, on the other hand, would be critically short of new Hollywood movies. Without a steady supply of the works of Meryl Streep and Matt Damon, millions of conservatives would instantly drop dead from boredom – that is, according to Meryl Streep.

Up through the middle of the 20th century, cities were major hubs of industry, but liberal preoccupations with environmentalism have driven much of our surviving industry into rural areas. The domination of the South by the sheer scale of Northern industry that happened in the 1860s would not repeat itself in a future war. Both sides would probably have the means to manufacture basic military essentials, but producing sophisticated items like fighter planes would be simply too complex for the remaining economic base. It would be a war of soldiers, not of million-dollar robots. Were the war to stretch into years, the left would likely destroy their own economy with unfettered socialistic policies. This actually happened to the Spanish Republic in the 1930s. I can image their modern counterparts struggling to make eco-friendly weapons and organize culturally-sensitive, politically-correct collective farms.

Militarily, the left has other problems. They have saddled themselves with a longstanding disdain for military history and thought. A mob of whiney, untrained Antifa or BLM protestors doth not an army make. In recent decades, the left has sought not so much to co-opt the military as to rot it from within. When your idea of a military hero is Bowe Bergdahl or Bradley “call-me-Chelsea” Manning, it is evident that you’ve planned to fight your battles exclusively in the movies. The officer corps, or the part of it that’s worth the name, is ours. Although the left probably has a certain pool of minority ex-soldiers to draw on, I doubt they have a single general officer that still has his original issue genitalia. I’ll take a Texan and a Tar Heel against a metrosexual and a social justice warrior any day — while admitting that the latter might conduct a far more colorful parade. Much would depend on how the military happened to fragment, but even if one side or the other got the lion’s share of it there simply aren’t enough soldiers in the armed forces to garrison the entire country. More troops would have to be raised, equipped, and trained.

The right would probably win a real war, for all the reasons I have sketched above. I suspect it wouldn’t take the three years to decide the issue that it took in Spain, but predicting a short war has usually proven to be a fool’s occupation. Long or short, tens of millions of people would likely starve to death before war and reconstruction were over — far more than would die in actual fighting. Having seen a person starve to death, it is not a fate I’d wish on friends and family members — or even on my enemies. It might be, after all the legal shenanigans are done, the necessary cost of keeping western society alive — but it would no heroic action movie. Utopian ideologies die hard. War is hell.



Source link

The Impending Death of Multiculturalism



Although leftists appear to love third-world immigration, they are not so dogmatically blind as they might seem. 



Source link

The Leftist Herd


The fundamental difference between ourselves and the left isn’t that we believe in smaller government and they don’t. Nor is it that we believe in the practical necessity of borders and they don’t. It is that we believe in a life with absolute standards… and they don’t.

Take the transgender issue for example. Ten years ago, the notion that a man should be allowed to use the women’s restroom simply on the grounds that he has “declared” himself a woman would have been an absurdity to almost everyone in this country, right and left. What we didn’t realize until recently is that the two sides believed the same thing for entirely different reasons. Conservatives have access to certain moral resources progressives lack. Most of us have at least one foot grounded in the Bible, which, despite the corrosive power of liberal churches, tendeth not to move around much on the fundamentals. Things that are Biblically wrong remain Biblically wrong — forever. Even nonreligious conservatives have a sort of visceral skepticism about change – a feeling in their bones that change is at least as likely to be for the worse as for the better. Conservatives who don’t believe in God, in other words, at least believe in not reforming what isn’t currently broken. Progressives lack such standards to guide them. Cut off from any permanent underpinnings by a quixotic belief in change, they move as a herd guided only by their loudest members. Yesterday the herd believed that women’s rights were paramount, so any intrusion into a woman’s restroom by a male, especially a deviant one, was an outrage. But now — presto change-o! — the merely female has been outranked by the more trendy and interesting transgender, and women must shift a row toward the back of the progressive bus. For the progressive, any moral idea is merely a passing fashion — something to be discarded when last year’s victims start to get a little boring. To take a permanent stand on any issue would be to deny that we must follow our leaders down the perpetual road of progress — or, as an earlier generation of leftists put it a bit more honestly, a permanent state of revolution.

Progressives live on a kind of moral roulette wheel, ready to conform to whatever emotional imperative the ball happens to land on next. It was quite ironic that, during the 2016 elections, progressives launched a campaign to smear conservative Trump supporters as sharing one unique characteristic — a marked tendency toward authoritarianism. Really? This observation came from a leftist electorate so pliable to authority that they can believe even a person’s gender is merely a choice — if their opinion makers so decree. I know of no one who supported Donald Trump because he was an authority figure. He wasn’t. If that was what we wanted we would have rallied behind some senior general — not behind a real estate tycoon with orange hair. Far from voting for a human master, we picked the first candidate in decades with the courage to articulate our standards — even if the man himself hadn’t always conformed to them. We will, no doubt, abandon Trump should he betray us. We are not the people who backed Hillary Clinton, no matter how obviously crooked she was, on the grounds that, as a woman, she had a right to the presidency — at least as long as there wasn’t a candidate of color or a trendy pervert in the race. Far from being pro-authoritarian, we back those who are willing to fight for our interests and our deeply held beliefs. It is the left, not we, who grovel in cult-like groupie worship before their celebrity victim candidates du jour.

While they help themselves to a self-image of intellectual and ethical sophistication, progressives are often no more sophisticated than teenagers trying desperately to maintain their places in the “in” group. The ideal of the Christian is to live a Godly life — even in the face of humiliation, ostracism, and persecution. The ideal of the progressive is to go with the flow. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” We should not be in the least surprised about any of the recent scandals in Hollywood. Such events are scandals only by our standards — not by theirs. It was precisely the general notoriety and acceptance of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual appetites that protected him. If his predations had been a secret, some woman would have had the courage to come forward much sooner. Since they were not secret, anyone coming forward had to be willing to risk fighting Hollywood itself — not a man, but an entire subculture of people who accepted both the man and his behavior. The same phenomena has produced the Teflon-like immunity of the elites to prosecution. Any prosecutor or law enforcement agent, no matter how exalted his status, understands the risk entailed by proceeding against members of the political class. When there is no higher authority to whom one can appeal, humans succumb to their own weak and venal natures. This, too, is why progressive morality is often so amazing shallow — saying the right thing rather than doing the right thing. Keeping the dream of the welfare state on life support decades beyond its demonstrable failure. It does not matter what reality is, but only what the New York Times says reality is. The illusion, not the nation, must be protected at all costs. What is virtue to a progressive but a feeling of being in sync with of the anointed herd?

As a Christian, I am compelled to see the gulf that divides our country in Christian terms. The unity of God’s people lies in our common membership in the Body of Christ. Globally, we are genuinely diverse — yet we are all one people by the extraordinary mystery of God’s saving Grace. We all are guided by His immutable will. Collectivism, in any of its forms, is merely a sham for the Body of Christ. It is a counterfeit community lead by a group of cynical human beings who exploit a real, God-given need for belonging. Progressivism, paradoxically, fills this spiritual void by dividing its followers into an ever-expanding catalog of interest groups — often groups who really have no natural basis. There really is no such thing as a “genderqueer” community in exactly the same way there has never been such a thing a “schizophrenic” community. There is only an uneasy herd of confused, unhappy individuals who, rather than being given help and firm direction, have been given the lie of their own unique but nonexistent polities. Left to their own devices, it would be only a matter of time before progressives actively and openly courted the pedophile vote. They’ve already stood in solidarity with felon community. What standard could there be to hold them back?

The fundamental difference between ourselves and the left isn’t that we believe in smaller government and they don’t. Nor is it that we believe in the practical necessity of borders and they don’t. It is that we believe in a life with absolute standards… and they don’t.

Take the transgender issue for example. Ten years ago, the notion that a man should be allowed to use the women’s restroom simply on the grounds that he has “declared” himself a woman would have been an absurdity to almost everyone in this country, right and left. What we didn’t realize until recently is that the two sides believed the same thing for entirely different reasons. Conservatives have access to certain moral resources progressives lack. Most of us have at least one foot grounded in the Bible, which, despite the corrosive power of liberal churches, tendeth not to move around much on the fundamentals. Things that are Biblically wrong remain Biblically wrong — forever. Even nonreligious conservatives have a sort of visceral skepticism about change – a feeling in their bones that change is at least as likely to be for the worse as for the better. Conservatives who don’t believe in God, in other words, at least believe in not reforming what isn’t currently broken. Progressives lack such standards to guide them. Cut off from any permanent underpinnings by a quixotic belief in change, they move as a herd guided only by their loudest members. Yesterday the herd believed that women’s rights were paramount, so any intrusion into a woman’s restroom by a male, especially a deviant one, was an outrage. But now — presto change-o! — the merely female has been outranked by the more trendy and interesting transgender, and women must shift a row toward the back of the progressive bus. For the progressive, any moral idea is merely a passing fashion — something to be discarded when last year’s victims start to get a little boring. To take a permanent stand on any issue would be to deny that we must follow our leaders down the perpetual road of progress — or, as an earlier generation of leftists put it a bit more honestly, a permanent state of revolution.

Progressives live on a kind of moral roulette wheel, ready to conform to whatever emotional imperative the ball happens to land on next. It was quite ironic that, during the 2016 elections, progressives launched a campaign to smear conservative Trump supporters as sharing one unique characteristic — a marked tendency toward authoritarianism. Really? This observation came from a leftist electorate so pliable to authority that they can believe even a person’s gender is merely a choice — if their opinion makers so decree. I know of no one who supported Donald Trump because he was an authority figure. He wasn’t. If that was what we wanted we would have rallied behind some senior general — not behind a real estate tycoon with orange hair. Far from voting for a human master, we picked the first candidate in decades with the courage to articulate our standards — even if the man himself hadn’t always conformed to them. We will, no doubt, abandon Trump should he betray us. We are not the people who backed Hillary Clinton, no matter how obviously crooked she was, on the grounds that, as a woman, she had a right to the presidency — at least as long as there wasn’t a candidate of color or a trendy pervert in the race. Far from being pro-authoritarian, we back those who are willing to fight for our interests and our deeply held beliefs. It is the left, not we, who grovel in cult-like groupie worship before their celebrity victim candidates du jour.

While they help themselves to a self-image of intellectual and ethical sophistication, progressives are often no more sophisticated than teenagers trying desperately to maintain their places in the “in” group. The ideal of the Christian is to live a Godly life — even in the face of humiliation, ostracism, and persecution. The ideal of the progressive is to go with the flow. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” We should not be in the least surprised about any of the recent scandals in Hollywood. Such events are scandals only by our standards — not by theirs. It was precisely the general notoriety and acceptance of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual appetites that protected him. If his predations had been a secret, some woman would have had the courage to come forward much sooner. Since they were not secret, anyone coming forward had to be willing to risk fighting Hollywood itself — not a man, but an entire subculture of people who accepted both the man and his behavior. The same phenomena has produced the Teflon-like immunity of the elites to prosecution. Any prosecutor or law enforcement agent, no matter how exalted his status, understands the risk entailed by proceeding against members of the political class. When there is no higher authority to whom one can appeal, humans succumb to their own weak and venal natures. This, too, is why progressive morality is often so amazing shallow — saying the right thing rather than doing the right thing. Keeping the dream of the welfare state on life support decades beyond its demonstrable failure. It does not matter what reality is, but only what the New York Times says reality is. The illusion, not the nation, must be protected at all costs. What is virtue to a progressive but a feeling of being in sync with of the anointed herd?

As a Christian, I am compelled to see the gulf that divides our country in Christian terms. The unity of God’s people lies in our common membership in the Body of Christ. Globally, we are genuinely diverse — yet we are all one people by the extraordinary mystery of God’s saving Grace. We all are guided by His immutable will. Collectivism, in any of its forms, is merely a sham for the Body of Christ. It is a counterfeit community lead by a group of cynical human beings who exploit a real, God-given need for belonging. Progressivism, paradoxically, fills this spiritual void by dividing its followers into an ever-expanding catalog of interest groups — often groups who really have no natural basis. There really is no such thing as a “genderqueer” community in exactly the same way there has never been such a thing a “schizophrenic” community. There is only an uneasy herd of confused, unhappy individuals who, rather than being given help and firm direction, have been given the lie of their own unique but nonexistent polities. Left to their own devices, it would be only a matter of time before progressives actively and openly courted the pedophile vote. They’ve already stood in solidarity with felon community. What standard could there be to hold them back?



Source link

Deleting History


One of my wittier friends told me today “I’m starting a movement to ban Dixie cups.” If I’d have been less startled by his gallows humor I’d have replied – “Just wait a week. They’ll probably drop the ‘Dixie’ name themselves.”

The Charlottesville syndrome is upon us. Recently in Franklin, Ohio, a quiet town a little north of Cincinnati, one of the spineless breed of careerists that run most local municipalities had a miniscule plaque depicting Robert E. Lee removed. The city leaders did their work in the usual courageous bureaucratic way — which is to say they had a crew of city workers cart the monument off in the middle of the night. An organization no one had ever heard of, “Showing Up for Racial Justice” (SURJ) had threatened to make the town less quiet if the offending image of a man on a horse was not expunged. This is really quite remarkable. Franklin is a 97% white community. Its black population is under 1% — and I would be surprised if more than a handful of them have made a career of being offended by the rest of the town. The threatened protest was the work of outsiders — people who had never been to Franklin, who just decided that its monuments didn’t suit them. It should be added that if you want to be offended by a monument to a Confederate war hero in Ohio, you have to look pretty hard. We were on the Union side. Thank the internet’s inventor, Al Gore, that young activists have a way to find innocuous antique bronze plaques to be triggered by. After the removal, someone put up a crudely made sign protesting against the protestors. An enterprising SJW ripped the sign down, while screaming something shrill and incoherent about fascism. Residents, who were not given a choice about any of this, showed up at a city council meeting in droves — probably as angry at the hired bureaucrat who stole their plaque as they were at the self-appointed guardians of propriety from SURJ who descended on them with all the love of justice one would anticipate from a Viking raid.

Tempted though I am to point out the double standard of having to quietly tolerate the violent, racist rap chanting that has boomed out of passing cars for decades now, I will limit my complaints to the careless eradication of history by people who want nothing less than to pull our society out by the roots. I will spare you the obligatory “I condemn white supremacists but…” because, in plain unashamed white Anglo-Saxon English, the cultural battle lines have been drawn, and attempting to mollify the “progressives” who drew them is a waste of effort. Patriotic Americans must stand together, good and bad, clean and unclean. War is being waged on Western civilization. In that struggle, we can neither be excessively polite to our globalist enemies nor fritter away effort repudiating the bigots among us – real or imaginary. Western civilization has survived its share of bigotry. It has yet to survive what “progressives” have in mind for it.

History is not offensive. It is history. History is not a tool of oppression. It is history. It is the record of what was. It remembers what was best about us — as well as what was worst. People who seek to erase our cultural memories make war on us as surely as any terrorist does.

I neither hate nor love Robert E. Lee — but I think he was important enough to be remembered. In Mongolia, they have an enormous equestrian statue to Genghis Khan. Genghis burned whole cities to the ground, ravaged much of Eastern Europe, and may have killed as many as 40 million people. He is history. He existed. Who am I to tell the Mongolians that the statue of their national hero offends me? Are today’s leftists so weak of spirit they must believe humanity was born in Teletubbyland, and will die peacefully one day in Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood? Are they so blind to their own hypocrisy that they are willing to threaten or beat bloody anyone who denies their pacifist multicultural delusion? Yes – they are. We’ve all seen the videos to prove it.

Leftists have no respect for history because they’ve never actually read any. They’ve only read the likes of Howard Zinn. They’ve been indoctrinated from the cradle. Anything done before last year was racist, misogynist, transphobic, and laughably outdated. What the West is experiencing now is little different from China’s Cultural Revolution of the 1960s: mobs of emotionally enflamed young people encouraged by their socialist elders to tear the culture down. Leftists don’t need history to guide them — that is what the propagandist media is for. Their past, present, and future are all cynically constructed lies. The person who knows history contradicts those lies. The person who knows history can see the writing on the wall.

I neither hate nor love Robert E. Lee — but if they tear his monument down today, they’ll be burning the U.S. Constitution tomorrow, triggered by the historical artifact of the three-fifths clause. Today they burn cars — tomorrow they’ll burn people. People made into nonpersons by the simple expedient of calling them racists or fascists. We cannot expect our local councilmen or hired city managers to protect us. Their only interest is in keeping their own pampered, unprincipled hides out of the fire. We must stand together as our ancestors did — one nation under God.

One of my wittier friends told me today “I’m starting a movement to ban Dixie cups.” If I’d have been less startled by his gallows humor I’d have replied – “Just wait a week. They’ll probably drop the ‘Dixie’ name themselves.”

The Charlottesville syndrome is upon us. Recently in Franklin, Ohio, a quiet town a little north of Cincinnati, one of the spineless breed of careerists that run most local municipalities had a miniscule plaque depicting Robert E. Lee removed. The city leaders did their work in the usual courageous bureaucratic way — which is to say they had a crew of city workers cart the monument off in the middle of the night. An organization no one had ever heard of, “Showing Up for Racial Justice” (SURJ) had threatened to make the town less quiet if the offending image of a man on a horse was not expunged. This is really quite remarkable. Franklin is a 97% white community. Its black population is under 1% — and I would be surprised if more than a handful of them have made a career of being offended by the rest of the town. The threatened protest was the work of outsiders — people who had never been to Franklin, who just decided that its monuments didn’t suit them. It should be added that if you want to be offended by a monument to a Confederate war hero in Ohio, you have to look pretty hard. We were on the Union side. Thank the internet’s inventor, Al Gore, that young activists have a way to find innocuous antique bronze plaques to be triggered by. After the removal, someone put up a crudely made sign protesting against the protestors. An enterprising SJW ripped the sign down, while screaming something shrill and incoherent about fascism. Residents, who were not given a choice about any of this, showed up at a city council meeting in droves — probably as angry at the hired bureaucrat who stole their plaque as they were at the self-appointed guardians of propriety from SURJ who descended on them with all the love of justice one would anticipate from a Viking raid.

Tempted though I am to point out the double standard of having to quietly tolerate the violent, racist rap chanting that has boomed out of passing cars for decades now, I will limit my complaints to the careless eradication of history by people who want nothing less than to pull our society out by the roots. I will spare you the obligatory “I condemn white supremacists but…” because, in plain unashamed white Anglo-Saxon English, the cultural battle lines have been drawn, and attempting to mollify the “progressives” who drew them is a waste of effort. Patriotic Americans must stand together, good and bad, clean and unclean. War is being waged on Western civilization. In that struggle, we can neither be excessively polite to our globalist enemies nor fritter away effort repudiating the bigots among us – real or imaginary. Western civilization has survived its share of bigotry. It has yet to survive what “progressives” have in mind for it.

History is not offensive. It is history. History is not a tool of oppression. It is history. It is the record of what was. It remembers what was best about us — as well as what was worst. People who seek to erase our cultural memories make war on us as surely as any terrorist does.

I neither hate nor love Robert E. Lee — but I think he was important enough to be remembered. In Mongolia, they have an enormous equestrian statue to Genghis Khan. Genghis burned whole cities to the ground, ravaged much of Eastern Europe, and may have killed as many as 40 million people. He is history. He existed. Who am I to tell the Mongolians that the statue of their national hero offends me? Are today’s leftists so weak of spirit they must believe humanity was born in Teletubbyland, and will die peacefully one day in Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood? Are they so blind to their own hypocrisy that they are willing to threaten or beat bloody anyone who denies their pacifist multicultural delusion? Yes – they are. We’ve all seen the videos to prove it.

Leftists have no respect for history because they’ve never actually read any. They’ve only read the likes of Howard Zinn. They’ve been indoctrinated from the cradle. Anything done before last year was racist, misogynist, transphobic, and laughably outdated. What the West is experiencing now is little different from China’s Cultural Revolution of the 1960s: mobs of emotionally enflamed young people encouraged by their socialist elders to tear the culture down. Leftists don’t need history to guide them — that is what the propagandist media is for. Their past, present, and future are all cynically constructed lies. The person who knows history contradicts those lies. The person who knows history can see the writing on the wall.

I neither hate nor love Robert E. Lee — but if they tear his monument down today, they’ll be burning the U.S. Constitution tomorrow, triggered by the historical artifact of the three-fifths clause. Today they burn cars — tomorrow they’ll burn people. People made into nonpersons by the simple expedient of calling them racists or fascists. We cannot expect our local councilmen or hired city managers to protect us. Their only interest is in keeping their own pampered, unprincipled hides out of the fire. We must stand together as our ancestors did — one nation under God.



Source link

What Is 'Freedom of Religion'?


The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

This is a plain enough statement, if you take it for what it actually says rather than as a broad, overarching statement of unlimited religious liberty. Since most contemporary leftists cannot tell the difference between law and poetry, a bit of historical context and rational analysis may be necessary to bring us back to earth.

It is very likely that the framers of the First Amendment were trying to avoid a specific problem by including the establishment clause. At the time the document was written, England and the Europe had endured over a century of religious wars that were still fresh in the public’s imagination. These wars between different denominations of Christians had left their scars. Since most of the original thirteen American colonies had strong leanings toward one denomination or another, forbidding Congress from establishing a state religion was a reassurance to most Americans. The amendment simply meant that the Federal legislature could neither establish the most powerful domination as a national religion, nor persecute any of the weaker ones then existing or anticipated. There is little reason to believe the framers wished to create an unconditional haven for any religion whatsoever. Likewise, there is no indication in the text that the framers wished to strip state governments of every vestige of Christian influence. The First Amendment itself did not, and still doesn’t, prevent the state legislature of Virginia from opening their proceedings with a Baptist prayer, the legislature of Massachusetts with a Congregationalist prayer, or the legislature of Pennsylvania with a Quaker moment of silence. Rather, it prevents the Federal government from making that decision for them.

It is nonsense to suppose the framers wished to allow, for all time, the free exercise of any religion whatsoever. Most of the framers were educated and knowledgeable men. They would have been aware of the barbaric excesses of the pre-Christian religions of Europe, as well as the elaborate but horrific religions the Spanish had encountered in Mesoamerica. It isn’t plausible that Thomas Jefferson and his associates were prepared to tolerate anything like the religion of the Aztecs, for example, which called for human sacrifice as a central feature of its doctrine. Even the tolerant Quakers would have balked at having the beating heart of a family member ripped out from time to time — all to appease the odd beliefs of their neighbors. Similarly, there is no reason to believe the framers would have welcomed a colony of Muslims from the Barbary Coast — yearning not to breathe free, but to extend their religiously-endorsed Islamic conquest to our fledgling republic. The framers were not such naïve idealists as to put religious tolerance above the more pressing considerations of our safety and our own national sovereignty.

The popular notion that the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution is the free exercise of any religion whatsoever is not the creation of our colonial forefathers — but of much more modern, much more atheistic minds. The belief that all religions are compatible is a consequence of the belief that all religious are more-or-less alike. Atheists typically presuppose that the purpose of all religions is to provide a comforting promise of an afterlife to a gullible public, and since they believe all religions share this function it follows, in the atheist’s worldview, that all religious disagreement is superficial. Thus, it isn’t hard for an atheist to believe that a Muslim is just a Mennonite with a different hat preference. Quaint and backward perhaps, but essentially harmless. In the rare instances when members of the secular left are forced to admit that Muslims and Christians are actually quite different, they tend to assume that our modern decadent culture will erode Islam’s rough edges if given time – making yesterday’s jihadis into a bearded breed of Islamo-unitarians. People who believe in killing the infidel wherever they find them — but asking the infidel’s permission first, then killing them with kindness. In short, the leftist atheist culture has done such an effective job destroying the real substance of Western Christianity that they themselves can no longer understand what a deeply held religious conviction even is. Teaching them could be very costly for the whole of Western civilization.

The establishment clause wasn’t subverted in a single act, but has been remade gradually through a broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil War to prevent the states of the former Confederacy from achieving through state law what they had failed to achieve through open warfare. It declared that what the Federal government could not do, no state should be allowed to do either — and that what the Federal government guaranteed, no state should be allowed to deny. Yet again, a short-term solution gave birth to unintended consequences. Whereas the original U.S. Constitution protected the states from a potentially dominating Federal government, the 14th amendment reversed the original Constitution’s intent by making Federal law trump state law. While it is perhaps not such a bad idea to forbid individual states from curtailing free speech, it is less obvious that the overwhelming Christianity of a state shouldn’t be a good enough reason to enshrine the Ten Commandments on its courthouses. Moreover, since unbelief isn’t generally seen to constitute a religion (Torcaso v. Watkins notwithstanding) the functional establishment of atheism as a state creed has not been interfered with by the establishment clause. While it would create a furor to have a Christian witness sworn in by placing his hand on a copy of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, it wouldn’t raise the same Constitutional issues as swearing in a Hindu on the KJV. The word “religion” has, paradoxically, given unbelief a legally advantageous status.

When founding constitutions are interpreted to essentially reverse their original intentions, the law becomes a farce. What, exactly, is the difference between having a “living constitution” and having no constitution at all? What was once a declaration to avoid domestic religious tyranny is now being used to shield a far worse religious tyranny imported from the Middle East. And Islamists, unfortunately, do not give a damn about either our history or the cynical cleverness of “progressive” judges.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

This is a plain enough statement, if you take it for what it actually says rather than as a broad, overarching statement of unlimited religious liberty. Since most contemporary leftists cannot tell the difference between law and poetry, a bit of historical context and rational analysis may be necessary to bring us back to earth.

It is very likely that the framers of the First Amendment were trying to avoid a specific problem by including the establishment clause. At the time the document was written, England and the Europe had endured over a century of religious wars that were still fresh in the public’s imagination. These wars between different denominations of Christians had left their scars. Since most of the original thirteen American colonies had strong leanings toward one denomination or another, forbidding Congress from establishing a state religion was a reassurance to most Americans. The amendment simply meant that the Federal legislature could neither establish the most powerful domination as a national religion, nor persecute any of the weaker ones then existing or anticipated. There is little reason to believe the framers wished to create an unconditional haven for any religion whatsoever. Likewise, there is no indication in the text that the framers wished to strip state governments of every vestige of Christian influence. The First Amendment itself did not, and still doesn’t, prevent the state legislature of Virginia from opening their proceedings with a Baptist prayer, the legislature of Massachusetts with a Congregationalist prayer, or the legislature of Pennsylvania with a Quaker moment of silence. Rather, it prevents the Federal government from making that decision for them.

It is nonsense to suppose the framers wished to allow, for all time, the free exercise of any religion whatsoever. Most of the framers were educated and knowledgeable men. They would have been aware of the barbaric excesses of the pre-Christian religions of Europe, as well as the elaborate but horrific religions the Spanish had encountered in Mesoamerica. It isn’t plausible that Thomas Jefferson and his associates were prepared to tolerate anything like the religion of the Aztecs, for example, which called for human sacrifice as a central feature of its doctrine. Even the tolerant Quakers would have balked at having the beating heart of a family member ripped out from time to time — all to appease the odd beliefs of their neighbors. Similarly, there is no reason to believe the framers would have welcomed a colony of Muslims from the Barbary Coast — yearning not to breathe free, but to extend their religiously-endorsed Islamic conquest to our fledgling republic. The framers were not such naïve idealists as to put religious tolerance above the more pressing considerations of our safety and our own national sovereignty.

The popular notion that the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution is the free exercise of any religion whatsoever is not the creation of our colonial forefathers — but of much more modern, much more atheistic minds. The belief that all religions are compatible is a consequence of the belief that all religious are more-or-less alike. Atheists typically presuppose that the purpose of all religions is to provide a comforting promise of an afterlife to a gullible public, and since they believe all religions share this function it follows, in the atheist’s worldview, that all religious disagreement is superficial. Thus, it isn’t hard for an atheist to believe that a Muslim is just a Mennonite with a different hat preference. Quaint and backward perhaps, but essentially harmless. In the rare instances when members of the secular left are forced to admit that Muslims and Christians are actually quite different, they tend to assume that our modern decadent culture will erode Islam’s rough edges if given time – making yesterday’s jihadis into a bearded breed of Islamo-unitarians. People who believe in killing the infidel wherever they find them — but asking the infidel’s permission first, then killing them with kindness. In short, the leftist atheist culture has done such an effective job destroying the real substance of Western Christianity that they themselves can no longer understand what a deeply held religious conviction even is. Teaching them could be very costly for the whole of Western civilization.

The establishment clause wasn’t subverted in a single act, but has been remade gradually through a broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil War to prevent the states of the former Confederacy from achieving through state law what they had failed to achieve through open warfare. It declared that what the Federal government could not do, no state should be allowed to do either — and that what the Federal government guaranteed, no state should be allowed to deny. Yet again, a short-term solution gave birth to unintended consequences. Whereas the original U.S. Constitution protected the states from a potentially dominating Federal government, the 14th amendment reversed the original Constitution’s intent by making Federal law trump state law. While it is perhaps not such a bad idea to forbid individual states from curtailing free speech, it is less obvious that the overwhelming Christianity of a state shouldn’t be a good enough reason to enshrine the Ten Commandments on its courthouses. Moreover, since unbelief isn’t generally seen to constitute a religion (Torcaso v. Watkins notwithstanding) the functional establishment of atheism as a state creed has not been interfered with by the establishment clause. While it would create a furor to have a Christian witness sworn in by placing his hand on a copy of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, it wouldn’t raise the same Constitutional issues as swearing in a Hindu on the KJV. The word “religion” has, paradoxically, given unbelief a legally advantageous status.

When founding constitutions are interpreted to essentially reverse their original intentions, the law becomes a farce. What, exactly, is the difference between having a “living constitution” and having no constitution at all? What was once a declaration to avoid domestic religious tyranny is now being used to shield a far worse religious tyranny imported from the Middle East. And Islamists, unfortunately, do not give a damn about either our history or the cynical cleverness of “progressive” judges.



Source link

Why Finsbury Park and London Bridge Are Not Alike


A few days ago a native of the British Isles, Darren Osborne, drove his truck into a crowd of Muslims near what was once a notoriously radical mosque in the north London suburb of Finsbury Park. The modus operandi of the attack was little different from that of Muslim attacks on native Europeans in Nice, the Christmas Market in Berlin, or, most recently, on London bridge. To be sure, the victims experienced the same horror. The individual tragedies were equally great. And, we can assume, the seething hatred of the perpetrators in all these cases was equally deep — as was their love for their particular causes. There, however, the equivalency ends.

The first difference one notices between Osborne’s attacks and the others is the character of the press coverage. Immediately after the Finsbury attack, the BBC and other pseudo journalists of the left swarmed the scene to interview the Muslim bystanders. “Do you feel safe?” they asked with virtue-signaling concern. I have watched the monotonous coverage of the now depressingly frequent butchery of Europeans, British, and Americans. Not once have I heard a reporter ask the bystanders or victims of a Jihadist attack — “Do you feel safe?” Our feelings and our actual safety are of no concern. Middle-class native Europeans and white Americans are expendable. Western journalists delight in weeping over sympathetic, bloody-faced Syrian children, or refugee babies washed up on the island of Lesbos. They don’t show German children, or French children, or English children — crushed under the wheels of a terrorist’s truck. Neither have they ever shown Israeli babies mutilated in Hamas rocket attacks. There are differences indeed.

However deplorable Darren Osborne’s actions may have been, it seems likely that his motive was essentially to protect his own civilization. Were he a racist, he might as easily driven into a crowd of West Indian blacks, or rammed the store front of a Chinese restaurant. Both of those groups are much more racially different from Mr. Osborne. West Indians and Chinese, however, do not don vests of explosives nor drive trucks into crowds. West Indians and Chinese do not embody a 7th-century ideology that is bent on global conquest, and enshrines that concept as a central feature of its sacred texts. The victims of Islam lie buried from Alexandria, a Christian city lost to Muslim conquerors in 641 A.D., to Vienna, which barely held back the Islamic tide in 1683, to London and San Bernardino today. Islam has never made peace with Western civilization, nor with any other civilization for that matter. It is a death cult which divides the world into two simple spheres: The Dar al-Islam (the abode of Islam) and the Dar al-Harb (the abode of war). The West subdued this ancient enemy for a hundred and fifty years or so — which was apparently long enough for our politically correct leaders to erase our history from their memories. We have changed — Islam has not. The respite is now over.

Jihadists in the West are bent on continuing their interrupted conquests in their own ancient and brutal way. They are not ashamed of saying so — it is our Western politicians who have steadfastly refused to listen. We have all gotten sick of hearing about the “peaceful Muslim majority.” A tolerant Muslim is, to put it plainly, a Muslim who ignores his own scriptures. To be even plainer, a tolerant Muslim is really not a Muslim at all.

Liberal ecologists talk freely about “invasive species” — that is, animals deliberately or accidentally imported that gradually displace the native wildlife. Unfortunately, any further application of this concept seems to have eluded the shrunken, inward-looking, leftist mind. When it comes to cultures, leftists live in a multicultural dreamland and utterly refuse to be awakened. They not only invite the invasive species in, they crack down hard on us natives at the slightest hint of protest. Never, in all the history of the world that I am aware of, has any culture been so sickeningly intent on its own suicide as the culture of the West. Our ancestors who stopped the Moors, the Turks, and the Barbary pirates must be outraged in their graves. They have given birth to a generation not merely of sheep — but of effeminate, self-indulgent lemmings.

What is an Islamophobe? An Islamophobe is a person who has read the Koran, or read history, and is not fond of the option of either converting, being subjugated, or being killed. If Western governments stubbornly refuse to see this, our future will be filled with 7th-century Jihadist butchery — and more Darren Osbornes who have simply had enough.

A few days ago a native of the British Isles, Darren Osborne, drove his truck into a crowd of Muslims near what was once a notoriously radical mosque in the north London suburb of Finsbury Park. The modus operandi of the attack was little different from that of Muslim attacks on native Europeans in Nice, the Christmas Market in Berlin, or, most recently, on London bridge. To be sure, the victims experienced the same horror. The individual tragedies were equally great. And, we can assume, the seething hatred of the perpetrators in all these cases was equally deep — as was their love for their particular causes. There, however, the equivalency ends.

The first difference one notices between Osborne’s attacks and the others is the character of the press coverage. Immediately after the Finsbury attack, the BBC and other pseudo journalists of the left swarmed the scene to interview the Muslim bystanders. “Do you feel safe?” they asked with virtue-signaling concern. I have watched the monotonous coverage of the now depressingly frequent butchery of Europeans, British, and Americans. Not once have I heard a reporter ask the bystanders or victims of a Jihadist attack — “Do you feel safe?” Our feelings and our actual safety are of no concern. Middle-class native Europeans and white Americans are expendable. Western journalists delight in weeping over sympathetic, bloody-faced Syrian children, or refugee babies washed up on the island of Lesbos. They don’t show German children, or French children, or English children — crushed under the wheels of a terrorist’s truck. Neither have they ever shown Israeli babies mutilated in Hamas rocket attacks. There are differences indeed.

However deplorable Darren Osborne’s actions may have been, it seems likely that his motive was essentially to protect his own civilization. Were he a racist, he might as easily driven into a crowd of West Indian blacks, or rammed the store front of a Chinese restaurant. Both of those groups are much more racially different from Mr. Osborne. West Indians and Chinese, however, do not don vests of explosives nor drive trucks into crowds. West Indians and Chinese do not embody a 7th-century ideology that is bent on global conquest, and enshrines that concept as a central feature of its sacred texts. The victims of Islam lie buried from Alexandria, a Christian city lost to Muslim conquerors in 641 A.D., to Vienna, which barely held back the Islamic tide in 1683, to London and San Bernardino today. Islam has never made peace with Western civilization, nor with any other civilization for that matter. It is a death cult which divides the world into two simple spheres: The Dar al-Islam (the abode of Islam) and the Dar al-Harb (the abode of war). The West subdued this ancient enemy for a hundred and fifty years or so — which was apparently long enough for our politically correct leaders to erase our history from their memories. We have changed — Islam has not. The respite is now over.

Jihadists in the West are bent on continuing their interrupted conquests in their own ancient and brutal way. They are not ashamed of saying so — it is our Western politicians who have steadfastly refused to listen. We have all gotten sick of hearing about the “peaceful Muslim majority.” A tolerant Muslim is, to put it plainly, a Muslim who ignores his own scriptures. To be even plainer, a tolerant Muslim is really not a Muslim at all.

Liberal ecologists talk freely about “invasive species” — that is, animals deliberately or accidentally imported that gradually displace the native wildlife. Unfortunately, any further application of this concept seems to have eluded the shrunken, inward-looking, leftist mind. When it comes to cultures, leftists live in a multicultural dreamland and utterly refuse to be awakened. They not only invite the invasive species in, they crack down hard on us natives at the slightest hint of protest. Never, in all the history of the world that I am aware of, has any culture been so sickeningly intent on its own suicide as the culture of the West. Our ancestors who stopped the Moors, the Turks, and the Barbary pirates must be outraged in their graves. They have given birth to a generation not merely of sheep — but of effeminate, self-indulgent lemmings.

What is an Islamophobe? An Islamophobe is a person who has read the Koran, or read history, and is not fond of the option of either converting, being subjugated, or being killed. If Western governments stubbornly refuse to see this, our future will be filled with 7th-century Jihadist butchery — and more Darren Osbornes who have simply had enough.



Source link

A Cause for War?


For a republic to be worthy of the name, it must have certain features. Most obviously, political power must, in some meaningful sense, reside with the people and be expressed through their elected officials. Even at this most basic level, our country has a problem. To the extent that we are governed by an unelected bureaucracy we are no longer a republic. Unfortunately, the political disease that afflicts America runs far deeper than that. For power to reside with “the people” there must be a single, generally unified nation which can be identified as “the people.” This nation need not be racially, ethnically, or even religiously homogenous, but the overwhelming majority of its members do need to agree on some common set of interests and values. They need a common identity. That is what a nation is. American now contains at least two nations, and arguably many more. Democratic institutions like elections, intended to settle differences between fellow countrymen, of people who simply disagree on means or minor matters of policy — cannot settle differences of national identity. This is why organizations like the European Union and the United Nations are only superficially democratic. More to the point, elections staged between competing nations trapped under the authority of a single state — nations so different in their ideals that each seeks the other’s subjugation or destruction — such elections settle nothing. Any election that takes place under such conditions will inevitably be seen as illegitimate by the losing side. Trump, progressives say, is not their president — and neither would Hillary ever have been ours.

When elections and legislatures attempt to assert the dominance of one nation of people over another they are, in effect, engaging in a kind of warfare. It is a civil war with a bit less bloodshed — or, perhaps, it is a civil war in its initial shouting and shoving phase. Our daily outrage at the dishonest press, the usurpation of power by minor federal judges, and the predictable shrieking lunacy of our opponents only shows that most of us have not yet come to terms with the reality of our situation. We are in an existential conflict between competing nations — we are not debating the merits of particular policies. Our differences will not be resolved by orderly procedural means. Reason no longer persuades. Hallowed traditions are despised. The law has become unworthy of respect, because it is so often merely the convenient weapon of people who are willing to cause us real and tangible harm. Indeed, as progressives and conservatives have diverged, we have seen the federal authorities selectively disregard the laws made by their opponents and favor governing by the fiat of executive orders. “I have a phone and I have a pen,” Obama famously declared. He might just as well have added: “…and I don’t care what happens to those hicks in Kentucky and Kansas.”

A federal government attempting to preside over separate nations bent on one another’s destruction can be neither legitimate nor effective. Our federal government has become little more than a hideous game of ideological badminton between opposing camps of corrupt officials — smacking enraged and increasingly divided peons back and forth across the political net. Winning national elections no longer means anything, not merely because the individual officials themselves are crooked, but because the institutions they head are now unfit to govern a republic.

It is no longer possible for conservatives and progressives to coexist within a single state. Sooner or later, the emerging blood feud between our separate nations will overwhelm the superficial political game. It must. We are nationalistic; they are globalists. We are the inheritors of Western civilization; they are its detractors. We are the voice of stability; they are the voice of chaos. We are the battered remnants of Christendom; they are the unholy and improbable alliance of militant atheism and Islam.

In the last few years I have heard quite a few ordinary conservatives raise the terrifying specter of secession. I am sympathetic to their frustration but am dumbstruck by the irony. How can we secede from the suicidal, anti-American institutions the lunatic left has produced? Have progressives not, in every way imaginable, already seceded from us? How can we rebel against the United States by trying to uphold the U.S. Constitution? Are we radical and rebellious in thinking that men are men and women are women? Are we xenophobic bigots because we do not believe that every one of the 7.5 billion people in the world should be, for all practical purposes, counted as U.S. citizens? We cannot rebel against a government that has been so thoroughly usurped. We can only declare, eventually, its utter illegitimacy.

Only God can know precisely how events are going to unfold, but one need not foresee the details to feel the bitter hatred escalating. Donald Trump, though he may be well-meaning, an able manager, and the greatest showman since P.T. Barnum, lacks the power to make a unified country from two utterly antithetical and hostile nations. The more he thwarts the progressive agenda, the more desperate and violent our enemies are likely to become. Left-wing celebrities have been insulting Republican presidents for decades, but this is the first time they have raised one’s bloody head in effigy. War, the last resort of desperate people when all political and legal remedies have failed, waits only for a triggering event. It waits for people to believe their futures and their children’s futures will be so unbearable that they have nothing left to lose.

For a republic to be worthy of the name, it must have certain features. Most obviously, political power must, in some meaningful sense, reside with the people and be expressed through their elected officials. Even at this most basic level, our country has a problem. To the extent that we are governed by an unelected bureaucracy we are no longer a republic. Unfortunately, the political disease that afflicts America runs far deeper than that. For power to reside with “the people” there must be a single, generally unified nation which can be identified as “the people.” This nation need not be racially, ethnically, or even religiously homogenous, but the overwhelming majority of its members do need to agree on some common set of interests and values. They need a common identity. That is what a nation is. American now contains at least two nations, and arguably many more. Democratic institutions like elections, intended to settle differences between fellow countrymen, of people who simply disagree on means or minor matters of policy — cannot settle differences of national identity. This is why organizations like the European Union and the United Nations are only superficially democratic. More to the point, elections staged between competing nations trapped under the authority of a single state — nations so different in their ideals that each seeks the other’s subjugation or destruction — such elections settle nothing. Any election that takes place under such conditions will inevitably be seen as illegitimate by the losing side. Trump, progressives say, is not their president — and neither would Hillary ever have been ours.

When elections and legislatures attempt to assert the dominance of one nation of people over another they are, in effect, engaging in a kind of warfare. It is a civil war with a bit less bloodshed — or, perhaps, it is a civil war in its initial shouting and shoving phase. Our daily outrage at the dishonest press, the usurpation of power by minor federal judges, and the predictable shrieking lunacy of our opponents only shows that most of us have not yet come to terms with the reality of our situation. We are in an existential conflict between competing nations — we are not debating the merits of particular policies. Our differences will not be resolved by orderly procedural means. Reason no longer persuades. Hallowed traditions are despised. The law has become unworthy of respect, because it is so often merely the convenient weapon of people who are willing to cause us real and tangible harm. Indeed, as progressives and conservatives have diverged, we have seen the federal authorities selectively disregard the laws made by their opponents and favor governing by the fiat of executive orders. “I have a phone and I have a pen,” Obama famously declared. He might just as well have added: “…and I don’t care what happens to those hicks in Kentucky and Kansas.”

A federal government attempting to preside over separate nations bent on one another’s destruction can be neither legitimate nor effective. Our federal government has become little more than a hideous game of ideological badminton between opposing camps of corrupt officials — smacking enraged and increasingly divided peons back and forth across the political net. Winning national elections no longer means anything, not merely because the individual officials themselves are crooked, but because the institutions they head are now unfit to govern a republic.

It is no longer possible for conservatives and progressives to coexist within a single state. Sooner or later, the emerging blood feud between our separate nations will overwhelm the superficial political game. It must. We are nationalistic; they are globalists. We are the inheritors of Western civilization; they are its detractors. We are the voice of stability; they are the voice of chaos. We are the battered remnants of Christendom; they are the unholy and improbable alliance of militant atheism and Islam.

In the last few years I have heard quite a few ordinary conservatives raise the terrifying specter of secession. I am sympathetic to their frustration but am dumbstruck by the irony. How can we secede from the suicidal, anti-American institutions the lunatic left has produced? Have progressives not, in every way imaginable, already seceded from us? How can we rebel against the United States by trying to uphold the U.S. Constitution? Are we radical and rebellious in thinking that men are men and women are women? Are we xenophobic bigots because we do not believe that every one of the 7.5 billion people in the world should be, for all practical purposes, counted as U.S. citizens? We cannot rebel against a government that has been so thoroughly usurped. We can only declare, eventually, its utter illegitimacy.

Only God can know precisely how events are going to unfold, but one need not foresee the details to feel the bitter hatred escalating. Donald Trump, though he may be well-meaning, an able manager, and the greatest showman since P.T. Barnum, lacks the power to make a unified country from two utterly antithetical and hostile nations. The more he thwarts the progressive agenda, the more desperate and violent our enemies are likely to become. Left-wing celebrities have been insulting Republican presidents for decades, but this is the first time they have raised one’s bloody head in effigy. War, the last resort of desperate people when all political and legal remedies have failed, waits only for a triggering event. It waits for people to believe their futures and their children’s futures will be so unbearable that they have nothing left to lose.



Source link