Heather MacDonald warns US colleges are breeding hate | Life, Liberty & Levin – Fox News

Heather MacDonald – political commentator, essayist, attorney and bestselling author of The Diversity Delusion – tells it like it is, on the danger of this delusion to the university, and to the nation.

What is “the diversity delusion”? In brief, the belief that America is awash in discrimination, and that any perceived inequality or lack of “parity” (equality of opportunity is no longer enough; now the expectation is equality of outcomes) in race or gender in any field is the result of systemic, institutional (or individual, or both) racism, sexism, etc.

MacDonald notes that there is a cottage industry of both pandering to and actively fomenting this fear on campus, and she is not the only one to note her fear that this may eventually lead to civil war, by breeding hate among students in our colleges and universities.


Nota Bene:  This belief may ultimately, I fear, create a self-fulfilling property.

If someone, or a group of people (in this case primarily white, heterosexual, Christian men, although white, heterosexual, Christian women are not immune, in this age of “intersectionality”) are told “You hate me, you’re prejudiced against me, you’re putting me down!” the initial response is likely to be shock and sadness: “No, man! I’m not! I don’t want to do that!”

The goal of the Left, of course, is for this message to be internalized, to “Oh, wow, man, I guess I am… what do I have to do to make up for it?” The answer to that is “There’s really nothing you can do to totally make up for it, because you’re you’re a straight white Christian male, but you can make reparation by becoming an ‘ally’ and kowtowing to us constantly.”

But unless this happens, and maybe eventually even if it does, the ultimate result is going to be resentment. “Why do you keep harassing me, man? I’m not doing anything to you!” And eventually, that resentment is going to, as I say, create a self-fulfilling prophecy: “You know what, man? I really am starting to hate you, now!”

And that is when it stops being about suppression of difference (ironically, a thing the Left used to claim was bad, but now actively utilizes to advance its agenda), and may begin to edge over into the civil war that MacDonald and many of us fear. Lord, have mercy upon us!

 

Virginia’s New Secession Crisis | The Imaginative Conservative

Image result for west virginia
Dolly Sods Wilderness Area, West Virginia. Credit: Kevin King. (https://wvrivers.org/2019/12/survey/)

The governor of West Virginia has invited the disaffected counties of Virginia to leave the Old Dominion and become a part of the mountain state. The loss of these counties and their “deplorables” would mark an end to what little is left of the Old Dominion’s influence in the counsels of the nation.

Source: Virginia’s New Secession Crisis ~ The Imaginative Conservative

To be honest, I have historically had mixed feelings about the very existence of West Virginia (despite my great love for John Denver’s splendid song about her) – no offense whatsoever intended to the good people living there!

But it is, to say the least, deeply ironic that the same Federal government which refused to allow the Southern States to secede from the Union – launching a horrific, bloody war to bring them back by force – was perfectly okay with allowing a separatist rump legislature to secede what is now West Virginia from the Old Dominion.

But that’s history. And history, important (indeed, vital) as it is, is sometimes taken over by current events! Given the present situation, in which (as this essay notes)

“Governor Northam and the leadership of the misnamed Democratic Party [believe] they [are] in a position to issue diktats expanding abortion, curtailing the second amendment, and punishing those who dare to criticize them,”

I am now more than half-tempted to believe that West Virginia was actually saved by an act of Divine Providence to be – potentially – a safe haven for conservative counties now part of the Old Dominion (and perhaps my home State of Maryland, too).

Whether or not this will prove possible remains to be seen, but even the prospect is encouraging. And if it does (as, again, this essay points out),

“Virginia, which is now a microcosm of the country’s culture wars, could lead a new secession movement that could go a long way to relieving the considerable pressures along the fault lines of conflict in America.”

It is true that, as author John Devanny comments,

“West Virginia may not be acting from pure motives in encouraging the secession of Virginia counties from the Richmond Junta and into a union with West Virginia. Tax revenue, economic development, and congressional representation are at stake here. But so too are the important cultural issues.”

As he also accurately notes, America is a nation built on secession. “Secession” of settlers from their native lands, the great secession of the United Colonies from Great Britain – led to military victory by General, later President, George Washington (whose birthday today, February 22nd, is) – in the American War of Independence, and of course the attempted secession of the Confederacy from the Union, in the War Between the States (which this essay also discusses, as background).

In the mid-19th century, the great divide in this country was between North and South, and although slavery played a role, it was by no means the only factor, as Davenny recounts. Nor did the divide begin in the 19th century, nor was the South the first to consider secession – points which the dominant narrative conveniently ignores.

But now, the great divide is between the urban, mostly coastal, “elites” – what Democratic presidential hopeful and multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg has openly, arrogantly, and largely erroneously called the “intelligentsia” (with its implication that all who oppose this new quasi-aristocracy are unintelligent and uneducated, the “unwashed masses” his ilk were born to dominate), and the so-called “deplorables” (e.g., those still “bitterly clinging” to God and guns – my people, in other words) in what used to be called “America’s Heartland,” but is now disparaged by the “elite” as mere “flyover country.”

The divide seems to be growing and hardening, and if something doesn’t happen to change, could end up as bitter as the divide over States’ rights, the tariff, and slavery was in the mid-1800s. And if that happens, a similarly bloody outcome is not, unfortunately, entirely inconceivable. Are we seeing a glimmer of a way out, in which States and counties realign themselves into more amenable configurations? A rebirth of authentic Federalism?

It is too early to be sure, of course. The idea that whole counties might “vote with their feet” (as well as the ballot-box) and actually switch States would have been unthinkable even a few years ago; but with the Governor of West Virginia actively inviting it, and some Virginia counties apparently considering the option, it just might be the safety value we need to keep the pressure-cooker from exploding.

Speaking personally, as much as I love Maryland, I would be very happy to join a West Virginia that protected my Second Amendment rights, did not consider that killing unborn children right up to delivery (and in the case of some radicals, possibly even after) was somehow virtuous, and in general respected those of us the “elites” deplore.

That would be, shall I say…

Almost heaven.

 

Democrats Seek Civil War, But Will Get Revolution | American Thinker

Democrats understand that an armed America can say, “No!” And they can’t have that.

Source: Democrats Seek Civil War, But Will Get Revolution – American Thinker

“Democrats conspired with foreign agents, lied, cheated, and denied due process to Donald Trump. If they were willing to do that to a duly elected president in order to obtain power, what should Americans expect them to do to them should they refuse attempts to be disarmed?” […]

“Democrats want this war.  Someone should tell them they should be careful what they wish for.”

I fervently hope and pray that it doesn’t come to that – that the worst may yet be averted. But if it does, I think this article is correct: the radical Left is going to get a radical surprise.

 

The Civil War on America’s Horizon | The American Conservative

“You accuse us of overturning our patrie by rebellion, but it is you, who, subverting all principles of the religious and political order, were the first to proclaim that insurrection is the most sacred of duties.” — French Royalist rebel to the newly-installed Jacobin government in 1793

Source: The Civil War on America’s Horizon | The American Conservative

I disagree with the author of this piece’s knee-jerk anti-Trumpism, and more generally his assertion of what amounts to moral equivalency between the President’s supporters and America’s radical Left. But that doesn’t mean the essay’s depiction of the situation in which we find ourselves is wrong. Sadly!

But I like better the analysis of both the article and the situation it describes, from Clergy in Support of the 2nd Amendment, which posted a link to this article: Continue reading “The Civil War on America’s Horizon | The American Conservative”

Democrats refuse to condemn Antifa, their own brownshirts | American Thinker

Antifa thugs in Washington, DC. Photo credit: cantfightthetendies.

As America slips into what many are calling a “cold civil war,” not a single Democrat running for president is willing to condemn Antifa, the contemporary version of the Brownshirts that terrorized opponents of the Nazis.

Source: Democrats refuse to condemn Antifa, their own brownshirts | American Thinker

I still think “Red Guards” is a more historically and ideologically accurate comparison for Antifa than the “Brownshirts,” but I also realize it has less resonance, and less recognition value. Such quibbles aside, this essay is sadly all too correct.

“Antifa activists constitute a dedicated, organized national violent organization openly suppressing political opponents, something that ought to be condemned by everyone, not just those whom they seek to silence.

“Antifa now is arming itself. History teaches us that armed thugs pave the way for monstrous political oppression. Yet the leaders of the Democratic Party are now becoming complicit with armed thugs…”

A good friend of mine (and a fellow Anglican priest) posted this on Facebook yesterday, quoting another clergyman who commented,

“In the choice between the civilized and the uncivilized, one must always choose the civilized.”

Indeed! Today’s Democrats are full of hot air about supposed “white nationalist / supremacist terrorists,” but – as this essay points out – haven’t a word to say about their own Antifa thugs, who represent the far greater threat to peace and stability. Projection at its finest!

My friend who posted this added, in a reply,

What the Jacobins did to France, and the communists to Russia, Asia and other parts of the world, Antifa would do here if they had the power to do it. That’s why they must be crushed. It’s also why any connection that can be established between Antifa and the Dems must be highlighted.

I agree, and am doing my bit to that end!

George Washington Mural, and America’s Past & Present | National Review

We’ve seen something like this fight before, in 1861 — and it didn’t end well.

Source: George Washington Mural & America’s Past & Present | National Review

“If progressives and socialists can at last convince the American public that their country was always hopelessly flawed, they can gain power to remake it based on their own interests. These elites see Americans not as unique individuals but as race, class, and gender collectives, with shared grievances from the past that must be paid out in the present and the future.”

Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest. This is what we’re up against. Dark times!

 

“Megan Rapinoe’s antics spell out exactly the type of civil war we are up against” | TheBlaze

Megan Rapinoe: The Un-American Superstar

Source: Megan Rapinoe’s antics spell out exactly the type of civil war we are up against – TheBlaze

From commentator Jesse Kelly, quoted in this essay:

“For too long the people on the Right (myself included) have called the American Left ‘socialists’ or some brand of that. But it’s dawned on me they’re something else entirely and I can’t quite put my finger on it. Even the commies loved their country. This is something worse.

“The commies didn’t want to flood their countries with illegal aliens and deport nobody. The commies would never have allowed government schools to encourage young children to question their gender. Or allowed a young boy to dress in drag and dance for men. I can’t stop thinking about that Gallup poll showing only 22 percent of Democrats are proud of their country.

“Something has really shifted. It’s not UN-American. It is ANTI-American. That’s not communism. That’s an insurgency.”

For those who may not recognize the name of Rapinoe, she’s the captain of the American soccer team that just won the World Cup – which should be an opportunity for celebration of American national pride and success, right?

Except that she’s refused to sing the National Anthem, made derogatory comments about the nation she represents, refused to attend the traditional White House congratulatory visit (before she was even invited!), and danced on the American Flag after a teammate dropped it to the ground following the victory.

(Accounts differ as to whether this was intentional or “accidental” – I find it difficult to conceive of “accidentally” dropping and stepping on Old Glory, but then I’m an old fogey about such matters. Major kudos to a third teammate, Kelley O’Hara, for rescuing the flag.)

In other words, Rapinoe actively and/or casually disrespects the country she represents, the country that has made her (in the eyes of some, at least) a superstar. That, coupled with the fact that she’s also a very active proponent of LGBTQ issues (being the sort of lesbian that used to be called a “butch dyke” back in a less politically correct age), makes her an icon of contemporary “SJW” Leftism.

The kind of Leftism, in other words, that Steve Deace (author of the linked essay) is referring to when he comments,

“If conservatism is actually going to be capable of being an effective movement going forward, its adherents need to realize that its foes aren’t primarily driven by a political ideology. No, they are devout knee-benders to a spirit of the age cult, whose iconoclastic goal is the dismantling of Western Civilization, or Judeo-Christendom, for the purposes of installing a totally different culture.”

These people don’t just have different political views from the rest of us, the kind that used to enable Senators and Representatives from the Democratic and Republican parties to debate issues passionately on the floor of Congress, and then go out for a beer or bowling afterwards. No, they have a radically different worldview, an alien and foreign ideology compared to those of us who still have a God-and-country, mom-and-apple-pie view of the world.

Like it or not, this is a war – a cultural civil war, though so far fought mostly with words rather than weapons – and the outcome is still very much in doubt.

As to the linked essay, as I’ve said so many times: read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest. It may be eye-opening for you, or it may be further confirmation of what you already knew or sensed, but either way, we need to know what we’re up against.

“An Act Concerning Religion”

1200px-Large_Broadside_on_the_Maryland_Toleration_Act.jpg
A later (18th C.?) printed broadside of the Maryland Toleration Act.

“An Act Concerning Religion.” That was the original title of what is colloquially known as the “Maryland Toleration Act of 1649,” the same year in which King Charles I (known by many Anglicans of an Anglo-Catholic and Royalist bent as King Charles the Martyr, or simply The Royal Martyr) was shamefully executed in an act of regicide by the so-called “Rump Parliament,” under the despicable Oliver Cromwell.

An attempt (only partly successful) to assure protection for Catholics in the proprietary Colony of Maryland in the wake of this act of regicide and England’s subsequent interregnum under the Puritan Parliament, later Protectorate, the Act – passed by the General Assembly of the Maryland Colony – sought to provide equal protection under law for all Trinitarian Christians, and at the same time, provide legal protection for Trinitarian Christianity (*) itself.

As such, it might, in retrospect, have been a better model (with some adjustments, discussed below) for our national view on the subject than the relevant clause of the First Amendment, which has since been stretched beyond all intention of the Founders, through what I cannot help but see as a perverse and willful misconstrual of Jefferson’s “wall of separation” comment. That appeared in a letter to the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptists, and was originally intended to assure religious people of their protection from the government, not the other way ’round.

The full text of the Maryland Toleration Act, in the original (rather archaic) form of English in which it was originally written, appears below. Its most salient section is reproduced here, in slightly updated language:

“That whatsoever person or persons within this Province and the Islands thereunto belonging shall from henceforth blaspheme God, that is Curse him, or deny our Saviour Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, or shall deny the holy Trinity [to be] the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost, or [who shall deny] the Godhead of any of the said Three persons of the Trinity or the Unity of the Godhead, or shall use or utter any reproachful speeches, words or language concerning the said Holy Trinity, or any of the said three Persons thereof, shall be punished with death [yes, it really does say that!] and confiscation or forfeiture of all his or her lands and goods to the Lord Proprietary and his heirs.”

In other words, anyone who publicly blasphemes or denies either the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity (*) or any portion thereof is to suffer both the death penalty, himself, and the seizure of his property and assets! There is also a clause prohibiting, basically, “talking smack” about a) the beliefs and practices of any particular branch of Christianity, or b) insulting practitioners of any form of Christianity not one’s own.

In other words, to put it in relatively simple and modern terms, you will not publicly denigrate Christianity, Christians, or Christian doctrine, and you will – at least publicly – be nice to other Christians. It is, frankly, hard for me to argue with either of those.

[The Act also includes a section prohibiting the profanation of the Christian Sabbath (Sunday, a.k.a. the Lord’s Day) “by frequent swearing, drunkenness or by any uncivil or disorderly recreation, or by working on that day when absolute necessity doth not require it.” I am old enough to remember the days of the “Blue Laws,” as they were called, when most places of business were closed on Sundays and other restrictions on secular activities (including sales of alcohol) were in place; and although at the time, I found it frustrating, as I have gotten older – and hopefully, more mature – I have come to realize the wisdom, both spiritually and practically, of keeping the Sabbath as a day of rest.]

Now, mind you, I am not suggesting the death penalty for anyone who fails to hold to or publicly confess the Trinitarian Christian faith! Not at all. In particular, what people believe in private is precisely that: private, and it is not the business of government to be snooping behind closed doors.

But under this system, you are not allowed to publicly assert that Christianity is a crock of bull, whatever your private opinions may be, and you must accept the basically Christian character of the society of which you are a member, if you wish to remain a member of that society. That seems entirely reasonable to me. Continue reading ““An Act Concerning Religion””

The Future of Europe is Civil War

https://republicstandard.com/content/images/2018/04/penisnularcampaign-1.jpg

Europe is committing suicide – or at least its leaders have decided to commit suicide. Whether European people decide to go along with this is, naturally, another matter.

~ Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe

Source: The Future of Europe is Civil War | Republic Standard

“Anyone who thinks for longer than ten-seconds about the nature of faith can see how obeying the laws of God is more important to the faithful than integrating with a sad shadow of a Western civilization that knows not for whom it stands. We know not why we exist. No longer allowed a national identity, Europeans are simply chattle. Though we are told that we are free, the truth is we have no freedom at all and no respite from the Orwellian demands of our masters that we ignore the obvious in favor of the fantastical.”

Unfortunately, it is only Muslims who are allowed to – and who make up the current, apparent, majority of those who care enough to – concern themselves with obeying the laws of God, rather than the dictates of a secular state (and culture) that appears to be on its last legs – “a sad shadow of a Western civilization that knows not for whom it stands.”

A Christian who dares to say “Because God wills it” – quod Deus vult eum – is branded a xenophobe, a religious bigot, a dangerous militant extremist… while the genuinely dangerous militant extremists and religious bigots – from what has since the 7th century proven itself to be the most dangerous, extreme, militant, and bigoted religious ideology on the planet – continue to get air time: on YouTube, Facebook, and TV and radio stations worldwide. Yet those who speak out against this favoritism for anti-Western forces are frequently banned for offending against some sort of nebulous and unspecified “community standards.”

“Orwellian” is right. I have maintained for years – decades! – that George Orwell was not wrong, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, only premature. I did not know how right events would prove me to be! Not that it’s something I desire. I would have given anything to be proven wrong, but it was not to be.

Today’s version of “MiniTrue” (Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth“) insists that “diversity is our strength” (cf. Orwell, 1984: “war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength”), that “multiculturalism” consists, not in maintaining the integrity of a variety of cultures in their proper historical and geographic spheres, but forcing them together in a mixed-up mélange of “diverse” sameness… at least in Western countries.

In our present environment, that kind of “diversity” is a source of division and disruption; and that is probably intentional, on the part of those who wish to break down existing structures and institutions, and re-make society into their own kind of utopia – a plan which is more likely to result is dystopia and horrific conflict, if carried through (recall that the meaning of “utopia” is “no place”).

History has repeatedly shown us that the worst outcomes are brought about by trying to usher in some version of the Kingdom of God, whether religious or secular, by our own efforts – from the Cromwellian interregnum  in England and the “Reign of Terror” in France to Stalin’s purges in the USSR and the Cultural Revolution in China, and many more examples could be cited – and mass importation of alien peoples into Western nations is following that too-familiar pattern.

That is not to say that immigrants can never become part of a society, or contribute to it in constructive and meaningful ways. They can, and they have. But that can happen only when they enter in small enough numbers, relative to the existing population, to be readily assimilated, and when they come in with the desire to become part of that society – not to transform it into what they ostensibly left behind.

In this as in so many other regards, Nature provides a model. Alien species can and do become naturalized in new regions… sometimes, if there is a niche where they can fit in without causing strain on the rest of the ecosystem.

But if alien species are introduced into a disturbed ecosystem – such as after a fire, or in an area where the integrity of the existing ecosystem has been broken by, say, logging or development – the introduced aliens frequently become invasive, and, in the absence of natural controls, end up overpopulating and choking out the native species. This is the case in human “ecosystems,” as well, and we are seeing precisely that in our present era.

But another example from Nature is when pathogens are introduced into an organism. In this case, a sufficient volume of pathogens can overwhelm the organism’s natural defenses and kill it, of course. But the introduction of pathogens does naturally evoke the production of antibodies by that organism, that fight against the pathogen.

This is what we may be seeing in the rise of what the mainstream media dismissively, disdainfully, or fearfully refers to as “far-right” organizations. Far-right some (but by no means all) of them may well be; but if so, it is only a natural counter-weight to the far-left leanings of society’s elites, in the news and other media, in academia, and in the mainstream political establishment.

Science teaches us that the nature of systems is equilibrium; that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The so-called “far right” is by no means yet equal to the existing far-left, now well along in their “long march through the institutions” – indeed, firmly entrenched therein – but it is indeed opposite. And it may well need to grow, in both size and strength, in order to bring some measure of balance to the outsize influence of the Left, and wrest the system back toward equilibrium.

Is it possible that the pendulum may then swing too far in that direction? Of course it is. That, too, is the nature of things. But the alternative is an even more complete trashing of society as it exists, the further destruction of key human institutions such as Church and Family, Blood and Soil (*). We would then enter a long Dark Age, the duration and end of which cannot even be contemplated with any certainty or confidence.

In such a Dark Age, the defenders of the West and of Christendom would be reduced to a subjected, remnant people, and although God would never abandon us, is that really the future we want, for ourselves and our descendants? It is not the future I want!

Read, and take warning.

 


* As Stephen Clay McGehee describes the latter two concepts, “a Blood and Soil movement… takes in two of the most basic concepts in all of history: Our People, and the land of our ancestors that provides the food that feeds our people. It means that while we wish all the best toward others, our immediate family comes first, followed by ever larger circles of extended family, and then on out from there. There is Our People, and there is Other People.” He elsewhere elaborates,

“‘Blood and Soil’ are the two key components of any traditional culture. Blood and soil are also the two primary requirements of a nation 1. Blood 2 refers to the people who make up that culture. It is the direct lineage; the DNA of the people who make up that group… Blood is a broader form of family. It is the racial identity of a group of people, and it provides a strong bond among that group. Soil 3 refers to a physical location that a People call home. It is also a cultural appreciation of our place in the world, and the understanding that the soil provides the food that we eat. Some, such as the Southern Agrarians, place a greater emphasis on the soil than do other groups, but it is a crucial component of any traditional culture.”