How we got here--explained in clear language

 Bishop Robert Barron explains the complex chaos of today, the ideologies behind the riots and violence, based on philosophies of two 19th century and two 20th century philosophers.

1.  Marx

2. Nietzsche

3. Sarte

4. Foucault

Atheism. This is critical to all of them.   Oppressed and oppressor. Class struggle.  Control of language. Culture of self-invention.  Being and non-being. Existentialism. Death of God. Power.

Ideas have consequences. https://youtu.be/8KQcm0Mi5To

Five characteristics of successful civilizations, guest blogger Michael Smitih

Earlier Michael wrote:  "It is hard for anyone with an open mind to look at the policies and executive orders of the Biden administration, contrast and compare them with those of the Trump administration, and not see the Democrat's total, unrestricted, all-out war on every aspect of America - what she is, who we are and how we live.

You can see the attacks accelerating, the condescension and threats are turning into actions - if they cannot bring us to heel with laws, rules, and regulations, if they can't make every single one of us a dependent beggar, they will make your savings worthless and break the entire country with spending and debt."

That passage made me think about how I once proposed that the most successful and long-lived civilizations of history have the five characteristics in common, that the loss of any one of the five results in decline, loss of more than one results the fall of the civilization. In these civilizations, the overwhelming majority of their members share:

• A common theism,
• A common ideology,
• A common culture,
• A love of the aforementioned, and
• A willingness to defend all the above (with deadly force and to the death, if necessary).

A common theism is important – to be a unified civilization and survive challenges from other, competing civilizations, there must be a unity at a spiritual level. Contrary to what our ruling class and the elite academia believe; the rise of Islamic terrorism is not driven by economic or political motives. Most academics and devotees of secularism deny that Islamic terrorism has a religious and spiritual genesis because they give little or no credence to their own spirituality and are motivated by a form of dialectic materialism rooted in their own fealty to socialism and communism. Jihadis come from all strata of Islamic and Western society, we have seen the wealthy and the poor, the educated and the ignorant become agents of human destruction. Islamists conceptualize this “struggle” as Islam versus the infidels – this is the only dimension they understand. If Western civilization cannot unite behind a single, motivating, spiritual organizing principle, it will fall. The Crusades are often thought of in pejorative terms but in more visceral times, the Islamic threat was far more obvious and therefore imminently more visible.

A common ideology (and by ideology, I mean a concept of freedom, liberty, and the governance necessary to preserve them) is also necessary. A common understanding of the political process, the legal environment and a broad understanding of the governing structure is essential. To avoid an arbitrary and capricious nature of savagery, people must be able to predict how their interactions will affect others and what the reaction from those “others” will be. This commonality must also be as minimal as possible – for it to bind all the civilization, it must be simple and clear enough to be understood by the most common of men in that civilization.

Like ideology, a common culture is required – and this does not mean that it is unchanging or without variation, just that it is shared across the civilization as new, unharmful and enhancing aspects of other varying cultures are assimilated (and assimilated is the key point). Important aspects providing strength to a civilization are the stability and predictability brought about by the common bonds between its people – Rousseau called it a social compact or contract. It is the mutual understanding of how things are going to work in society and what are the expectations of, and duties between, members of the civilization.

It goes without saying that the members of a given civilization must love it – that is to be totally and completely devoted to it. Members must value liberty, the systems that protect it, the culture that drives it and the spirituality that preserves it. Absent that level of devotion, the final aspect of defense is impossible - the willingness to defend the civilization with force and with the risk of one’s own life.
For better or worse, it seems clear that Western civilization has witnessed varying degrees of success in the intermixing of these five characteristics. It is a personal belief that America’s success has resulted from

 a) Christianity, 

b) the classical liberalism of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, 

c) the unique American ability to assimilate the best of the world’s cultures and create a singular American culture, 

d) the nationalism and patriotism of American exceptionalism and 

e) the willingness to expend its treasure and give the ultimate sacrifice of American lives to defend the ideals incorporated in these five characteristics and to provide the opportunity for the rest of the world to benefit from them as well.

America’s decline is not an inevitability; it is a choice – we are choosing to violate the characteristics of success (or at least we are not stopping those who are).

Every single one of these five characteristics are under active (and passive) attack. Given that the failure of one set us on a path to destruction, it is not a stretch to imagine that multiple violations of all five will spell our end just as it has the great civilizations of antiquity.

Being left is not being liberal

This is the disease of leftism.

 Climate change is more of a threat than Islamic extremism.
You think the cure for terrorism is a hug.
You think the president or people on the right are more dangerous than Islamic terrorism.
You watch The View....
You think Joe and Mika make a cute couple.
You were saddened by the television show Girls being canceled.
You have more disdain for friends who think differently than jihadists who want to kill you.
You need a “safe space.”
You think people should be fired for free speech.
You find yourself protesting in Birkenstocks.
You agree with Tucker’s second guest.
The president has caused you to lose sleep, given you rashes, harmed your sex life, or “broken you.”
You are or want to be a pundit on CNN or MSNBC.
You find Samantha Bee even mildly amusing.
You take ten private jets to a climate change summit
You have private armed security and call for gun control.
You are in the entertainment industry; yes, there are a handful of exceptions, and I mean a handful.
You have had a sexual fantasy featuring Bernie Sanders or Sarah Silverman and think a summer home in Venezuela sounds romantic.
You find Don Lemon informative.
https://spectator.org/leftism-an-incurable-disease/

It would be the same if we had a President Cruz

Does ideology matter to Trump?

Rush Limbaugh said something interesting today and I paraphrase. Donald Trump really doesn't understand the left; he isn't conservative or liberal. I think that's true--at least I've never heard him say anything about a person's ideology. I seriously doubt he knows Trotsky from Alinsky.  He's a business man accustomed to working with all types. He believes in free markets (sort of) because that's a good business principle. He thinks borders should be secure because he believes why have a border if it is ignored and drugs, criminals, etc. cross over.  It must be a shock to him to be called racist, homophobic and sexist by the middle school mean girls, since before running for President he schmoozed with all types and they fawned over him, invited him to their parties, and told him he was wonderful because of his influence. When John Civil Rights Icon says something stupid and attacks Trump, he just reacts by punching back, and doesn't delve into any socialist twaddle or diversity dribble that has kept that Icon on salary (he got to Icon status by being beaten near to death by Democrats). When the black Congressional lock step club pressure each other to not attend the inauguration and powers higher than them smack around entertainers and school marching bands, Trump takes it personally, but doesn't seem to see the fog of statism in over under around and through it where everyone has to obey, pay a fine, lose their livelihood, be shunned or jailed.

Where is the divide between liberal and conservative?

What is the dividing line between liberal and conservative?  Government.  The bigger the better for liberals, smaller and only as much as necessary for conservatives. At least that's in the speeches, both have contributed to our own bloated government. And as in many issues, some go farther to left to extreme statism like the USSR or Nazi Germany, and some farther to the right to libertarianism or anarchy, the absence of government like Haiti with no services, no army, no infrastructure.

It’s not that abortion didn’t happen before 1973 when it was legalized nationally, but now it’s government protected and supported with tax money.  Now it’s in the platform of one major party. Now many churches support it, unthinkable when I was growing up. Now it takes the lives of many blacks, females and disabled, people expendable unless old enough to vote as a block.

There's also a religious divide. 92% of Congress say they are Christians compared to only 73% of American adults.  That probably reflects the average age difference. Conservatives are more likely to be Evangelical Christians than members of Mainline denominations, and see life as sacred, even if born into poverty or difficult circumstances. At the 50% mark, half to the right, and 39% to the left with 11% uncommitted, eight denominations are Evangelical and two are Mainline.  Of the "nones" 26% are Republican, 26% uncommitted, and 49% Democrat. So you can be a liberal in good standing with no religion at all, but might have some push back on that if you are a Conservative. (Pew Research)

It’s not that families didn’t suffer from divorce and children weren’t left with no father before 1964, but now Uncle Sam brings home the bacon and women are told they can do it all--with enough government and no dad at home. Conservatives are more likely to believe that men matter. It is liberals seem to have a war against men, pushing the LGBTQ agenda and advocating for the cis-gender. The income gap is also viewed as a liberal/conservative issue--conservative economics seems aware that it depends on the number of earners in a household, with over twice as many earners in the top income quintile households (1.98) than earners per household in the lowest-income households (0.41). Two is more than 4/10th, but we're in the age of dumbed down math also encouraged more by liberals than conservatives.

It’s not that both liberals and conservatives don’t claim the rights to our constitution.  Liberals want a plastic, expanding and growing constitution. Something modern for times of crisis and dysfunction. Conservatives want the one on which our country was founded. Conservatives are much more likely to quote the founders; liberals think that could be racist since a few owned slaves, and prefer some ideological progeny of Karl Marx or Saul Alinsky. (The great lie.)

Both liberals and conservatives acknowledge we have three branches of government for checks and balances, but liberals want a weak Congress with its power shifted to the Executive or to the Judicial.  Congress, after all, represents the people through the ballot, and they can’t be as easily controlled from a central location like Washington, DC. It’s disorganized and partisan, as it was designed to be. Conservatives press for a stronger Congress, which has the power of the purse, and that‘s just unthinkable in the White House which sees all tax money as its own.  And that’s the case whether a Bush or an Obama is living there.

Liberals want higher taxes to support a stronger central government.  Conservatives claim to want more power residing in the corporate world, with more profit going to investors, not to the government directly, but they want to control politicians through their own lobbyists. Both the left and right, liberals and conservatives, accuse the other of being fat cats, made rich on corporate influence and lobbies. Of the top ten in Congress, eight are Democrats, although in looking over the entire list, no one is poor, and after doing their “public service” both liberals and conservatives enter think tanks, corporate boards and lobbyist groups.  John Boehner, recently one of the most powerful men in Congress, is now representing Big Tobacco interests. Also, I've never heard of the wealthiest Democrat, so perhaps he doesn't show up much. (List of current members of Congress by Wealth)

Liberals on Conservatives

A conservative who veers to the left is "growing," "sensitive to complexities," "nuanced," and "puts public interest ahead of ideology."

A conservative must not "impose their views" on the rest of society," and is suspect as a candidate for public life if those views are formed by Christianity (but not Islam, Buddism or Judaism).

Choice is good if killing an unborn child, but bad if the child's mother wants him to attend an alternative, charter school.

Murders at Ft. Hood trial of Muslim doctor need to be on the 5th or 6th page of the newspaper; bullying of a gay teen deserves front page story.

Serial murders of women that go on for years are just a crime, but a murder of a homosexual is a hate crime.

Disinformation in marketing by a for-profit company needs congressional hearings; disinformation in inflation (3000%) of illegal abortion death statistics to get Roe v. Wade passed was necessary for the greater good.

A gay politician like Barney Frank who is crooked and lies, whose partners have loose lips, is lauded and applauded, but a gay politican who is Republican like Mark Foley is hounded out of office. If a gay Democrat harrasses a staff member, it's business as usual; if a gay Republican does it he's a pervert especially if he's been in the closet. The victim, apparently, matters not at all.

Liberals push condoms, not marriage and fatherhood, and are very critical of conservatives who push chastity as a solution to poverty.

Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle, Republican candidates who have never spent a penny of your tax dollars or declared a war lost while our soldiers are still in harm's way are kooks and radicals, but Harry Reid, Chris Coons and Nancy Pelosi, entrenched Democrats, are just fine and trustworthy.

If bank employees don't read all the documents in a foreclosure, they are evil tools of the fat cat bankers; if congressmen or the President don't read a healthcare or a banking bill of 2,000+ pages, well, that's just the cost of doing the government's business.

More to come.

Velma and Peggy

The source of the previous political verse was Peggy Noonan reflecting on Velma Hart's comments to the President at the townhall last week, saying she was exhausted from defending him. I still believe she was a plant intended to make sure Obama looked more human in his president struggles, because really, have you ever known a politician who created a more scolding, cold image? Well, she failed, or he failed, but way too many people including Noonan and Rush Limbaugh were taken in by this exchange. I just don't buy it. He's let a lot of things slip, like the exchange with Joe the Plumber, and announcing proudly after the election that he was just a few days away from fundamentally transforming our country (to what?), but usually he's very carefully scripted by like-minded speech writers and it all scrolls across the teleprompter.

Besides, for the life of me, I can't see what Velma is complaining about, even if she's for real and not a plant. She has a cushy government job (no unemployment, only growth at the federal level); she's married and her husband has a job; she's got great perks plus veterans benefits; she's rich enough to send her kids to private school which must be about $20,000 a year per child; so what exactly was she expecting from a president who promised to transfer some wealth. She's wealthy! He was planning to take it away from her and give it to you! If she didn't crunch the numbers before voting for him in 2008, I don't feel sorry for her.

Her life, her complaints, confirm to me she's a plant. Obama's not one of us--and I'm not talking about his birth certificate. Especially he's not an American black--even Jesse Jackson complained about that before 2008. Velma's just the type of woman Obama would select for the job of poor mouthing, and trust me, she'll be blamed if this backfires.

Liberal Fascism

A really unfortunate title choice for an excellent book, says Albert Mohler, who writes some of the best book reviews on the web. Liberal Fascism: the secret of the American left from Mussolini to the politics of meaning by Jonah Goldberg also contains one of the words I hate to see in a book title, "secret." But surprise! My public library, UAPL, actually owns four copies of this title, all currently in use, so perhaps I won't need to buy it! Just from the following excerpt this sounds like a title wafflers and fence sitters need to read in the months coming up to the election. It's not your grandfather's party.

An excerpt: "American liberalism is a totalitarian political religion, but not necessarily an Orwellian one. It is nice, not brutal. Nannying, not bullying. But it is definitely totalitarian -- or "holistic," if you prefer -- in that liberalism today sees no realm of human life that is beyond political significance, from what you eat to what you smoke to what you say. Sex is political. Food is political. Sports, entertainment, your inner motives and outer appearance, all have political salience for liberal fascists. Liberals place their faith in priestly experts who know better, who plan, exhort, badger, and scold. They try to use science to discredit traditional notions of religion and faith, but they speak the language of pluralism and spirituality to defend "nontraditional" beliefs."

The stealth candidate

And I thought Clinton was Slick Willy and Nixon Tricky Dick. Obama has them both beat because even his most ardent, naive supporters know very little about him. You can't judge a man by his character if you don't have a clue who he is.

"Time and again, the man who draws so openly on King's legacy refuses to sacrifice an iota of possible political support by taking a principled stand on matters of racial justice that King said are matters of right and wrong. Instead, Obama makes cryptic or general comments that leave his position on important racial issues ambiguous or unknown." Juan Williams in today's WSJ

Unfortunately, I think we'll be finding out who he really is very soon. Republicans have contributed to this by choosing a candidate whose biggest attraction seems to be he's not as far left as Obama and will be tough on national security and doesn't advocate killing helpless babies. I wish there were more.