Nationalist Christian Hungary is thriving: rising marriage rates, falling abortions and highest birthrates in 20 years | Voice of Europe

While European nations languish with rapidly declining birthrates, Hungary stands out with rising marriage rates, falling abortions, and its highest birthrate in 20 years, Breitbart reports.

Source: Nationalist Christian Hungary is thriving – rising marriage rates, falling abortions and highest birthrates in 20 years – Voice of Europe

“Marriage is up by 43 percent since 2010, while divorce has dropped by 22.5 percent in the same period. This demographic turnaround has not been an accident, but the fruit of deliberate programs to promote marriage and the family while defending Hungary’s cultural identity and Christian roots.”

Well done, Hungary! Well done.

Advertisements

The Right to Bear Which Arms? – 2A Interpretation and the Federalist Papers | The Truth About Guns

The 2020 presidential campaigns have just begun, but on the issue of gun control, we’re already hearing a common refrain from numerous candidates: The Second Amendment does not protect anyone’s right to own, as they put it, “weapons of war”…

Source: The Right to Bear Which Arms? – 2A Interpretation and the Federalist Papers | The Truth About Guns

But of course, as the linked essay accurately points out, this point of view is absolutely and categorically incorrect. In fact, it is 180° false and wrong-headed. It is precisely ownership of “weapons of war” that the Second Amendment does protect! As Mark Houser, author of this essay, puts it,

“The Second Amendment unambiguously protects our right to own ‘weapons of war.’ That is, weapons suitable not just for sport, but for combat.

“Many people find this obvious. It’s hard to imagine what else the Second Amendment could possibly be intended to do. James Madison wrote the Second Amendment in the aftermath of a bloody war for independence from a tyrannical empire. The first shots of that war were fired to resist disarmament. Can anyone truly believe that Madison wrote the Second Amendment with, say, hunting or target shooting in mind? It’s a preposterous notion.”

And he also correctly notes that

“Gun control proponents are quick to point out that Madison and his contemporaries didn’t imagine the sort of weapons that exist today. That’s probably true, but it’s irrelevant to the question at hand.

“We don’t say that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to typed or online publications simply because the Framers did not imagine typewriters or the internet. We don’t say that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to search and surveillance capabilities that the Framers did not imagine, such as GPS tracking.”

The Anglophilic Anglican adds: although that will be next, if we lose the 2nd Amendment – the one that guarantees all the others. Or maybe the 1st Amendment will be the next victim. By that point, it hardly matters… At any rate, Houser continues:

“Technological development doesn’t change the fundamental nature of the rights that the Bill of Rights seeks to secure.”

Amen. Read the whole thing. It’s worth it. We need to understand these matters, and be clear about them when it comes to political discourse! For too long we have let the Left define the terms of the argument. That needs to change.

PRAGER: Why So Many Mass Shootings? Ask The Right Questions And You Might Find Out | Daily Wire

Assault rifles hang on the wall for sale at Blue Ridge Arsenal in Chantilly, Virginia, on October 6, 2017.

America had plenty of guns when its mass murder rate was much lower.

Source: PRAGER: Why So Many Mass Shootings? Ask The Right Questions And You Might Find Out | Daily Wire

“America had plenty of guns when its mass murder rate was much lower… Given the same ubiquity of guns, wouldn’t the most productive question be what, if anything, has changed since the 1960s and ’70s? Of course it would. And a great deal has changed. America is much more ethnically diverse, much less religious. Boys have far fewer male role models in their lives. Fewer men marry, and normal boy behavior is largely held in contempt by their feminist teachers, principals and therapists. Do any or all of those factors matter more than the availability of guns?”

I suspect most regular readers can guess my response to this question. And it will probably not surprise you, either, that I agree with Dennis Prager when he comments,

“When you don’t ask intelligent questions, you cannot come up with intelligent answers. So, then, with regard to murder in America, until Americans stop allowing the left to ask the questions, we will have no intelligent answers.”

Indeed.

 

US declining interest in history presents risk to democracy | Financial Times

Related image

Alas, America’s curiosity about itself is suffering a prolonged bear market. What may work for individual careers poses a collective risk to US democracy.

Source: US declining interest in history presents risk to democracy | Financial Times

More on the plummeting U.S. interest in history, and its consequences. Unfortunately, the author, Edward Luce, has to get in a dig at President Trump! But he makes a number of good points, nonetheless.

Indeed, the idea that a de-emphasis on history (and other humanities) in favor of more technical fields “works for individual careers” may itself be a flawed assumption: the author himself notes that

“the biggest culprit is the widespread belief that ‘soft skills’ — such as philosophy and English, which are both in similar decline to history — do not lead to well-paid jobs. But the data do not bear this out. Engineers do better than those who study humanities. But the latter are paid roughly the same as those who graduate in the booming fields of biology and business services.”

But there is a greater cost to society generated by the near-demise of the humanities than simply missed employment opportunities. Luce goes on to comment,

“The demise of strong civics coincides with waning voter turnout, a decline in joining associations, fewer citizen’s initiatives, and other qualities once associated with American vigour. The spread of fake news is often blamed solely on social media… But the ultimate driver is the citizens who believe it.

“There is no scientific metric for gullibility. Nor can we quantitatively prove that civic ignorance imposes a political cost on society. These are questions of judgment. But if America’s origins tell us anything it is that a well-informed citizenry creates a stronger society.”

Indeed! And the reverse, sadly, is also true.

 

On the importance of civility, decency, and subsidiarity | Jonah Goldberg | National Review

“The idea that [civility and decency]… are what’s holding social conservatives back from ‘victory’ in the culture war strikes me as one of the most preposterous claims to be taken seriously by intelligent conservatives in recent memory.”

Source: Jonah Goldberg’s G-File: Endings & Beginnings | National Review

Goldberg takes a long while to get to the point (forgivable, since it’s a farewell column), but when he does, it’s a point I agree with:

“[The solution to the problems facing our country] isn’t to get the best right-wing technocrats to run the economy and the culture. It’s to deny the state the power to run either. Send power back to the communities where people live [emphasis added]. If North Dakota wants to be a theocracy, that’s fine by me as long as the Bill of Rights is respected. If California wants to turn itself into Caligula’s court, I’ll criticize it, but go for it.

“The enemy here is the state, because by aggrandizing to itself the power to tell people how to live, people put all of the blame on a far-off government in Washington — or even more distant ‘globalists’ — for their problems. Federalism, part of the forgotten portions of the Bill of Rights, is the only system that lets the most people live the way they want to live, in communities they have power to influence and direct. In a real community, there are no faceless ‘powers that be.’ There’s Phil and Sarah, or even Mom and Dad.

“And the glorious thing about this kind of pluralism — i.e., for communities, not just individuals — is that if the community you’re living in isn’t conducive to your notion of happiness or virtue, you can move somewhere that is. We want more institutions that give us a sense of meaning and belonging, not a state that promises to deliver all of it for you.”

This is (as Goldberg points out) precisely the Catholic social principle of subsidiarity, with which I also agree: the principle that things should be done by the smallest and most local group / organization / entity that is capable of doing them.

“Keep it local,” in other words. Respect difference and distinctiveness. Celebrate real diversity, not the ersatz, politically-defined version (actually identicality and sameness) I have often written against here. Allow people – no, not “allow,” recognize and embrace people’s right to – true self-expression, and self-determination… even if it’s not politically correct. Maybe especially if it’s not!

Goldberg is square on when he notes that

“It’s a cliché to say that nationalism’s resurgence is a response to globalization. Obviously, there’s truth to that. Less discussed is the fact that American nationalism — both on the right and the left — is a response to, well, nationalization.”

In other words, we have forgotten federalism, as expressed perhaps most precisely and succinctly in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, the last right enumerated (not granted: recall that we are “endowed by our Creator” – not the government! – “with certain inalienable rights”) by the Bill of Rights:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

We have lost sight of that, in our march “from sea to shining sea,” and the creation of an American empire (though without the name), and it is to our very great detriment!

We need to get it back.

 

John Cleese faces online backlash after claiming London isn’t ‘an English city any more’ | London Evening Standard

John Cleese has been criticised for saying London 'isn't really an English city anymore'

“I suspect I should apologise for my affection for the Englishness of my upbringing, but in some ways I found it calmer, more polite, more humorous, less tabloid, and less money-oriented than the one that is replacing it.”

Source: John Cleese faces online backlash after claiming London isn’t ‘an English city any more’ | London Evening Standard

Anyone who points out what to many of us is increasingly obvious – that the emperor has no clothes – is of course going to draw “backlash” from the supporters of the empire.

Actor John Cleese, best known for his work with classic British comedy troupe Monty Python, and his hilarious portrayal of English innkeeper Basil Fawlty in “Fawlty Towers,” deserves approbation not only for his tremendous comedic talent, but – in today’s world – his courage. Continue reading “John Cleese faces online backlash after claiming London isn’t ‘an English city any more’ | London Evening Standard”

“What REALLY Happened Yesterday in Oldham” | Tommy Robinson

Hey, Tommy Tommy! Tommy, Tommy, Tommy, Tommy Robinson!

I cannot guarantee that you’ll be able to see this video. At the least, there will be an “offensive content” screen to click through, and most of its features will be disabled. But at least I was able to view it, and hopefully you will be, too.

Robinson was campaigning for a slot as an MEP – Member of the European Parliament – in this weekend’s elections; sadly, that campaign was not successful.

But whether you like him or not, whether you agree with him or not, this video – showing the local police doing absolutely zilch while armed Islamic thugs, many of them brought in from out-of-town, throw bricks, rocks, bottles, and even scissors at his supporters, including women and children, gathered for a campaign rally – shows all too clearly the situation in Britain at present.

Dear God in heaven, what has happened to “England’s green and pleasant land”…?