Refuting the Anti-Christian Animus On The Alt-Right | Council of European Canadians

 

European Identitarians should recognize that Christianity has always recognized the importance of European identity and its own contribution to this identity.

Source: Refuting the Anti-Christian Animus On The Alt-Right

As I have noted previously, I am coming increasingly (if somewhat reluctantly) to view myself as an Identitarian:

not as a political statement, but as a simple and incontrovertible fact, an expression of biological (and in the case of my European identity, cultural and historical) reality. It is the actions and reactions of people on the Left that are gradually forcing me to view this [European] identity in more socio-political terms: my heritage, both genetic and cultural, is under attack, and that unfortunate fact forces me to defend it… Like a lot of folks, I mainly want to be left alone. But I also want my people to be left alone, and not to be subsumed, oppressed, overrun, interbred, or replaced. So I suppose that makes me an Identitarian… and if so, so be it. I did not choose the label, or the fight; both were forced upon me.

But what has been very frustrating to me – both as a Christian, and as a Christian clergyman – is the extent to which many of those who share this approach are sneeringly dismissive of Christianity. Some of these are the sort of militant atheists who dismiss any religion as “fairy stories” – ignoring both the fact that fairy stories often contain encoded within them deeper and more vital truths, and also the wisdom of no less a figure of contemporary atheism than Richard Dawkins, who famously tweeted,

Before we rejoice at the death throes of the relatively benign Christian religion, let’s not forget Hilaire Belloc’s menacing rhyme: “Always keep a-hold of nurse, For fear of finding something worse.”

In other words, even if you don’t believe a word of it, mere enlightened self-interest dictates supporting Christianity as a bulwark against more menacing alternatives – such as, for example, militant Islam.

But the even more central truth that European Identitarians – particularly those who consider themselves some species of European Pagan – tend, sadly, to forget is that much of what has made Europe recognizably Europe over the last two centuries results precisely from the fusion of the Classical (Greco-Roman) and Germano-Celtic branches of pre-Christian (Pagan) Europe with the (then-) new faith of Christianity.

It was a particularly advantageous fusion, and one which led to considerable mutual enrichment, and a great fluorescence of culture on the European continent. I am generally quite sympathetic to European Paganism, having particular respect and appreciation for the Celtic and Norse/Germanic branches. But if we would revert Europe to its pre-Christian state, the simple truth is that we would revert it (at least, as regards Northern Europe, whose proponents are generally the most vocal in attacking Christianity) to an age of mud huts and blood-feuds.

I do not forget the impressive accomplishments of the pre-Christian world of Hellenistic (Greco-Roman) antiquity. But it was nonetheless the Age of Faith that raised the great cathedrals and uncounted other architectural marvels; that inspired great art and magnificent music, from Gregorian chant to Baroque; that gave even the oft-warring kingdoms of Europe a larger identity as part of Christendom; and which defended that European Christendom against Muslim invasions, from the 8th through the 17th centuries.

For Europeans to reject Christianity is, as my late mother would have put it, “cutting off your nose to spite your face.” So I am very glad to see someone from the European Identity camp mount a spirited defense of the faith, as Richard Storey has done in this essay.

He addresses three allegedly (according to its critics) unique and damaging traits of Christianity, which those opponents claim to be “the great mutations” of the allegedly pure Europeanism that predated Christianity – mutations “that gave birth to the secular ideologies of [modernism]”: individualism, egalitarianism and progressivism.

That these ideas – at least in the extreme and unbalanced form in which they are found today – are indeed “mutant” ideologies, and as such are dangerous and ultimately destructive of human life and flourishing, is a viewpoint with which I cannot disagree. But that that they are unique to Christianity, or that the Christian faith is responsible for promoting them to an inappropriate degree, is the idea that needs challenging, and challenge it Storey does.

He also points out that

“Other claims in need of addressing are the revival of the defunct Nietzschean idea that Christianity is a slave ethic, produced by Jews to weaken the Roman Empire through the promotion of meekness as goodness etc., and the beliefs that Europe was and would be more peaceful without Christianity or that Christianity is somehow anti-white/European identity.”

These false claims are also addressed in his essay. Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest!


Notable quote:

“It is quite legitimate for nations to treat those differences [e.g., distinctions between ethnic nationalities] as a sacred inheritance and guard them at all costs. The Church aims at unity, a unity determined and kept alive by that supernatural love which should be actuating everybody; she does not aim at a uniformity which would only be external in its effects and would cramp the natural tendencies of the nations concerned. Every nation has its own genius, its own qualities, springing from the hidden roots of its being. The wise development, the encouragement within limits, of that genius, those qualities, does no harm; and if a nation cares to take precautions, to lay down rules, for that end, it has the Church’s approval.”

— Pope John XXIII (1961) “Mater et Magistra” (http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jo23mm.htm)

Advertisements

Jesse Kelly: “It’s Time For The United States To Divorce Before Things Get Dangerous”

https://i0.wp.com/thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/11286659155_0103115a70_h-998x687.jpg

This idea of breaking up the United States may seem a bit outlandish now, but you won’t think so once real domestic unrest comes to your town.

Source: It’s Time For The United States To Divorce Before Things Get Dangerous

Let me preface my comments by being clear: I do not wish to see this. Despite my Monarchist and Confederate leanings, I deeply love and respect the American Republic that our Founders bequeathed to us (as Benjamin Franklin perhaps presciently put it, “if you can keep it”), and which my ancestors (including my father and paternal grandfather) fought to defend.

The United States has been far from perfect, but I truly believe that (if you set aside the late unpleasantness of the mid-1860s, and a few other incidents) it has done more good in the world than otherwise. But everything has its life-cycle, and that includes nations – and the ideologies behind them. And like human relationships, though “breaking up is hard to do,” there may come a time when it is the lesser of two evils.

What Jesse Kelly calls “the peaceful solution”: “We can and will draw the map and argue over it a million different ways for a million different reasons, but draw it we must. I’ve got my own map, and I suspect the final draft would look similar.”

It is said that no one (at least, no decent person) breaks up a committed relationship unless or until the pain of remaining becomes greater than the pain of departing. I am not sure we are quite there, yet, but we seem to be heading in that direction. As this essay puts it,

“The history of the world is nations breaking up and redrawing their borders. If we want to avoid this political divide turning into a deadly one, we should do likewise.

“Stop clinging to the past and acknowledge where we are as a country, not where you want us to be, not where things were when your grandpa was storming the beaches of Normandy. Where we truly are…

“Borders move. Countries split and change hands. They do this for a myriad of reasons. Ours would be a major cultural shift toward the left and half the country refusing to go along with tyranny…”

“The GOP has many problems, but the Democratic Party has turned into something completely un-American. The United States was founded on two things: Judeo-Christian values and a limited federal government. The entire platform of modern Democrats stands completely opposite both of those.”

Sobering – even depressing! – to think about, this nonetheless carries the ring of truth, in my opinion. I am also depressed to see my home state of Maryland well above the line (and even the “Old Dominion” of Virginia!) but I also, sadly, fear that Mr. Kelly is correct. There has been such an influx of Left-leaning urbanites, over the last several decades, that neither – and certainly not Maryland – is what it used to be. That I may ultimately find myself forced to migrate South or West is a sad likelihood that I have been pondering for a long time before reading this essay.

Mr. Kelly concludes,

“This idea of breaking up the country may seem a bit outlandish now, but you won’t think so once real domestic unrest comes to your town. Our political disagreements have become a powder keg, one that already would have blown if conservatives had liberals’ emotional instability.

“Nobody is expected to cheer for this split. Cheering is not a normal reaction when couples get a divorce. We cheer for old married people on their fiftieth wedding anniversary.

“But life is imperfect. Life is hard. We both now agree that living under the other side’s value system is wholly unacceptable. The most peaceful solution we Americans can hope for now is to go our separate ways. So let us come together one last time and agree on one thing: Irreconcilable differences.”

To my great sadness, I fear that he is right. I just wish I had confidence that we could do so, peacefully, before we get to the point beyond which a peaceful settlement may prove not merely difficult, but impossible to achieve.

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.”

Europe’s Civilizational Exhaustion – Gatestone Institute

Pictured: French police eject some of the 80 migrants and pro-illegal-immigration activists who occupied the Basilica of Saint Denis, on March 18, 2018. (Image source: Video screenshot, YouTube/Kenyan News & Politics)

“In Sweden, by 2050, almost one in three people will be Muslim. The civilizational exhaustion is seen in Europeans’ falling birth rates, mushrooming public debt, chaos in the streets, and a refusal to invest in security. Islam is filling the cultural vacuum of a society with no children and which believes – wrongly – it has no enemies.”

Source: Europe’s Civilizational Exhaustion | Gatestone Institute

  • Islam is filling the cultural vacuum of a society with no children and which believes — wrongly — it has no enemies.
  • In Sweden, by 2050, almost one in three people will be Muslim.
  • The European mainstream mindset now seems to believe that “evil” comes only from our own sins: racism, sexism, elitism, xenophobia, homophobia, the guilt of the heterosexual white Western male — and never from non-European cultures. Europe now postulates an infinite idealization of the “other”, above all the migrant.
  • A tiredness seems to be why these countries do not take meaningful measures to defeat jihadism, such as closing Salafist mosques or expelling radical imams.
  • Muslim extremists understand this advantage: so long as they avoid another enormous massacre like 9/11, they will be able to continue taking away human lives and undermining the West without awakening it from its inertia.

Is this really what we want? Because it’s what we’re going to get, if we don’t – collectively – wake up, and start defending what is valuable: our history, our culture, our heritage.

This essay – which makes for sobering reading, but for that very reason should be read, marked, learned, and inwardly digested by defenders of the West – continues,

Stephen Bullivant, a professor of theology and the sociology of religion at St Mary’s University in London, recently published a report, “Europe’s Young Adults and Religion”:

“Christianity as a default, as a norm, is gone, and probably gone for good – or at least for the next 100 years,” Bullivant said.

According to Bullivant, many young Europeans “will have been baptised and then never darken the door of a church again. Cultural religious identities just aren’t being passed on from parents to children. It just washes straight off them… “And we know the Muslim birthrate is higher than the general population, and they have much higher [religious] retention rates.”

That is a very dangerous and worrying combination – to put it mildly. The situation has gotten so bad that no less a figure than Richard Dawkins, who is as this essay notes is

an atheist and the author of The God Delusion, responded to the study’s release by tweeting to his millions of Twitter followers:

Before we rejoice at the death throes of the relatively benign Christian religion, let’s not forget Hilaire Belloc’s menacing rhyme:

“Always keep a-hold of nurse
For fear of finding something worse.”

Dawkins is apparently concerned that after the demise of Christianity in Europe, there will not be an atheistic utopia, but a rising Islam.

Dawkins’ concern is well-founded. Secularists and atheists of Dawkins’ ilk – not, clearly, Dawkins himself, who though misguided is vastly more intelligent than many of his followers – have been happy enough to use Islam (*) as a foil for Christianity (and I would not be surprised if many have not rejoiced, secretly, in the deaths of Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere), believing that it is doing much of their work for them, and that they can then control and enervate it, too.

This makes about as much sense as trying to chain a dragon to boil a pot of tea. What they fail to realize is that those who passionately believe in something – whether that “something” is truth or falsehood, witness the passionate belief in Communism many still possess, despite its theoretical “defeat” in the 1980s and ’90s – will always have an edge over those who believe in nothing. And unlike the heirs of Western Christendom, Islam is not tired, not exhausted: it has had a rest of some centuries, and has awoken.

It is time, and past time, for us to awaken, too – to awaken to our peril, and to defend ourselves against it. We have a moral responsibility to do so (and as Christians, a religious duty, since Islam is a false religion, and a dangerous ideology): not only for ourselves, but for our ancestors, and for our descendants. So far, we are abjectly failing both. We are betraying our patrimony, by failing to defend it, and pass it on.

What is at stake, here? Let’s look to history: when the Iberian Peninsula fell to the Muslims, it took 700 years to reconquer it – and that was with most of the rest of Europe free. How long will the Reconquista take, if the whole West should fall? None of us will live to see it! But if we fail to wake up, we may live to see that fall.

Again I ask: is this really what we want?

 


• And more generally, multiculturalism and mass immigration, which – far from being a source of strength – weakens and breaks down cultural cohesiveness and integrity, and damages the host culture’s ability to defend itself against attacks both from within and from without. But Islam is the most significant unifying force among many of these immigrants, especially in Europe, and increasingly in the U.S., too.

Life Without Prejudice | The Imaginative Conservative

https://staytuneandalive.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/faceless-man-shst-130205.jpg?w=840

“Life without prejudice, were it ever to be tried, would soon reveal itself to be a life without principle. For prejudices are often built-in principles. They are the extract which the mind has made of experience…” (essay by Richard Weaver)

Source: Life Without Prejudice – The Imaginative Conservative

Indeed. Prejudice, and its close cousin stereotype, does not exist in a vacuum. Prejudice, which simply means “prejudgement,” is most often the fruit of individual or collective experience – a recollection of and response to either one’s own experience, or that of those whom one has reason to trust, or both. It is a process of first learning, and then predicting based upon what one has learned.

Prejudices, like stereotypes, aren’t coming out of nowhere – they do not exist in a vacuum, and even basically false or incorrect ones have at least a grain of truth in them somewhere, else they would not exist. If one has no prejudices, one has either failed to learn from past experience, or one has consciously chosen to set those experiences aside. One may reasonably question whether either is a wise course of action!

This is not a radical (or reactionary) concept, nor is it anything remotely new in the human experience: as this article accurately points out,

“in the controversial literature of a hundred years ago—or even of a couple of generations ago—you do not encounter the sort of waving of the bloody shirt of prejudice that greets you on all sides now. Men did not profess such indignation that other men had differing convictions and viewpoints. They rather expected to encounter these, and to argue with them as best they could.”

In other words, the underlying assumption of socio-political argument – however vehement it may have been in practice – was along the lines of, “I understand that you have these beliefs, these prejudices, but I want to offer evidence to convince you that you’re wrong, or at least to offer additional points to be considered.” People were not, by and large, thought to be horrible human beings simply because they had – quelle horreur! – analyzed and learned from experience, and used that experience to make predictions about other people and events, which might or might not be in error.

Richard Weaver, author of this insightful article, argues that the shift in perception of prejudice as an innate human characteristic – and by and large a helpful one, although one must be open to having one’s presuppositions challenged by facts on the ground – to something unacceptable and anathema stems in large measure from the influence of communism, in its cultural manifestation: that is to say, cultural Marxism.

Weaver points out that this ideology (which, much as Islam is much more than a religion, is much more than an economic system) insinuates itself into a culture, a society, by inducing “a general social skepticism.” Not, he notes,

“that the communists are skeptics themselves. They are the world’s leading dogmatists and authoritarians. But in order to bring about their dogmatic reconstruction of the world they need to produce this skepticism among the traditional believers. They need to make people question the supports of whatever social order they enjoy, to encourage a growing dissatisfaction and a feeling that they have inherited a bad article…

“To this end, what it knows that it must overcome is the binding element, or the cohesive force that holds a society together. For as long as this integrative power remains strong, the radical attack stands refuted and hopeless. This will explain the peculiar virulence with which communists attack those transcendental unifiers like religion, patriotism, familial relationship, and the like.

“It will also explain, if one penetrates the matter shrewdly, why they are so insistent upon their own programs of conformity, leveling, and de-individualization.”

However paradoxical it may appear at first sight, he goes on,

“we find when we examine actual cases that communities create a shared sentiment, a oneness, and a loyalty through selective differentiation of the persons who make them up. A society is a structure with many levels, offices, and roles, and the reason we feel grateful to the idea of society is that one man’s filling his role makes it possible for another to fill his role, and so on…

“[T]oo little attention is given to the fact that society exists in and through its variegation and multiplicity, and when we speak of a society’s ‘breaking down,’ we mean exactly a confusing of these roles, a loss of differentiation, and a consequent waning of the feeling of loyalty [to one another, and to society itself]…

“The point is that their hostility to distinctions of all kinds as we know them in our society conceals a desire to dissolve that society altogether. And we see that practically all traditional distinctions, whether economic, moral, social, or aesthetic, are today under assault as founded on a prejudice.”

Go ahead and read the rest of the essay. It’s worth it!

 

Blood Upon Us: Ireland, Holy Week, and 300,000 Pieces of Silver | Ethika Politika

https://external-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQB9p3uE1soT8o57&w=540&h=282&url=https%3A%2F%2Fethikapolitika.s3.amazonaws.com%2Farticles%2Fblood-hands.jpg&cfs=1&upscale=1&fallback=news_d_placeholder_publisher&_nc_hash=AQCU7xP6Jo12kQ2v

Source: Blood Upon Us: Ireland, Holy Week, and 300,000 Pieces of Silver | Ethika Politika

This came across my news-feed from a good friend’s page, with this selection quoted:

“In May of this year, Irish voters will again go to the polls to decide upon the eighth amendment to the Irish constitution. The amendment recognizes that an unborn infant has the right to live, and it effectively renders abortion, which was already illegal in all thirty-two counties, unconstitutional in the Republic of Ireland. The amendment, which was approved by a two-to-one vote in the plebiscite of 1983, is almost certain to be repealed. Legislation to liberalize abortion will follow quickly.

“We will hear the whole thing described as a leap forward for gender equality and women’s reproductive health, and so on and so forth. The repeal, the ensuing legislation, and the resulting brutal termination of the lives of Irish children in the womb will be put down to a long-overdue decline of the influence of the Catholic Church in Irish society. In short, it will be seen as a mark of the progress we have made out of the bondage of religion and into the freedom of, well, who knows what.

“In fact, the real progress we have made is from a society in which sacrifice and self-disregard were esteemed as virtue to a society in which the easy way out, always the short road to Hell, is held up as a ‘personal choice.’ It is, in short, the progress from Palm Sunday to Good Friday. It would seem that, for now at least, the children of this world are wiser than the children of the light.”

Or at least, think they are. Here is the text of the amendment in question:

“The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”

One might reasonably ask, what sort of person thinks this is a heinous and unacceptable assault on the rights of women?

I have, in general, been reticent about commenting on the issue of abortion. It is, to say the least, a controversial and emotionally-fraught issue, and one must pick the hills on which one chooses to fight and, perhaps, die (metaphorically speaking, one hopes – unlike the victims of abortion). But this move, to amend the Constitution of Ireland, hit home to me.

I spent a semester studying abroad in Ireland, in 1990. It was at that time still emphatically a Catholic – and a Christian – country, although more contemporary and “politically correct” views were already beginning to creep in. At the time, if I had any opinion on abortion at all, it was that (in the words of President Bill Clinton), it should be “safe, legal — and rare.” That is to say, legal in order to keep it safe, and viewed as a last resort for the most tragic of cases.

I still believe that, in principle. The problem, as I have come to realize in the years since, is that in practice, being safe and legal, it is far from rare. According to the Centers for Disease Control, which tracks abortions, in the U.S. in 2014 “652,639 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. The abortion rate for 2014 was 12.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 186 abortions per 1,000 live births.”

That figure is dismayingly high, and cannot be explained, I believe, as accounting for only the most tragic and extreme of circumstances. It is difficult to escape the conclusion, in other words, that for far too many people, abortion is being used as a form of birth-control, after the fact. In fact, the very slogans used imply as much.

Abortion proponents have gotten more canny, in the U.S., in recent years, as overall support for abortion has begun to slip. Rather than the older and far more in-your-face demands for “abortion on demand without apology,” they now use the kinder, gentler, more compassion-inducing “my body, my choice.” But the reality is that a fetus is not – just! – part of a woman’s body, some lump of tissue like a pancreas or a benign tumor. Her body is her own, unquestionably: but the unborn is something more.

She hosts it, of course! She carries it within her, for nine months; she nourishes it, via her umbilical cord. Until able to survive outside the womb, the unborn can only exist within the mother. These are not immaterial or incidental considerations.

But from the time it begins to form, indeed from conception, the fetus is a distinct, individual organism, with distinct, individual DNA, a distinct, individual genetic blueprint: formed from a combination of the genes of both the mother and the father, but different from either.

This is not right-wing opinion, neither is it religious doctrine; this is scientific fact (it is interesting how enthusiastically so many folks on the left trumpet science… right up until it conflicts with one of their fondly-held ideological views).

“My body, my choice” is a lie, or at best it is a half-truth, used to defend what is, in most cases, a choice of convenience. I am sorry, I know that is probably a hard thing to hear, for many people. It is not easy for me to write. But it is the truth.

Therapeutic abortion – abortion undertaken for reasons of medical necessity, in which the termination of the pregnancy is an unfortunate result, but not the intended reason, for the procedure – is one thing. But I am not here talking about therapeutic abortion, I am talking about elective abortion: abortion undertaken for the specific and sole purpose of ending the pregnancy.

That sort of abortion is certainly useful if one’s goal is population control. And it is certainly useful if one desires not to be encumbered with an unwanted pregnancy, either because one made an unwise choice, or because one’s birth control method of choice failed.

But it is not only fatal to the aborted fetus – a unique individual, and one we who are Christians cannot assume is lacking a soul, although we do not know the details of when or how God grants that – but it has been shown to have negative psycho-emotional effects on the mother, and – perhaps most controversially – has negative effects on society as well.

Between six and seven hundred thousand abortions per year cannot, in my view, help but contribute to the numbing of America, when it comes to the sanctity of life. That, in turn, leads to all sorts of unintended – and deeply negative – consequences, almost certainly including a mentality in which the mass murder of innocents becomes thinkable.

After all, if the termination of 652,639 pregnancies each year – 1,788 each and every day – is not the mass murder of innocents, it is hard to imagine what is! And it happens under the imprimatur of the legal and medical establishment.

What sort of message is that sending, out into the larger culture? What message is that sending to our young people, who are also dealing with many other demoralizing and dehumanizing messages? Not a good one, I’ll warrant.

Am I saying there is a direct, causal relationship between the two – that abortion leads directly to school shootings? Well, no… not exactly. Not directly. But indirectly? Absolutely. How could it not? Something, or someone, is inconvenient to you? Bothers you? Upsets you? Get rid of it! Kill it! Throw it away. That’s the message, unintended or no.

There are many other factors involved, too, of course. Abortion is just one factor among many. But it’s a mistake not to think that it IS a factor, in my opinion – and a fairly major one at that – in the overall loss of America’s moral bearings.

652,639 abortions is nearly 18 times the number killed in traffic fatalities annually in the U.S. (37,461 in 2016), a staggering 49 times the number killed by gun violence (13,286 in 2015) – though that number attracts the most attention – and even 2.6 times the horrific number killed by medical malpractice (estimated at around 250,000 annually).

Can this possibly not be having an effect on the psyche and morals of a nation? It’s hard to imagine how it could not. And now Ireland is poised to join the club. Sad.

 


 

For further details on the duplicity of this effort, see “Medical myths about Eighth Amendment must be challenged: Campaign of fear and misinformation has been deployed to tarnish reputation of Irish medicine.”

“What happened to America?”

This came across my newsfeed today:

What happened to America

It is a good question – one to which I have at least a partial answer.

What happened is that we are dealing with a decades-long (centuries-long, if you trace its origins back to the Enlightenment) dominion of Jacobins – or as some call them, cultural Marxists. Anti-Christianity, anti-family, and anti-tradition are their stock in trade. Islam is their battering-ram to break down what bastions of tradition still remain.

But Islam is an un-trusty weapon that can turn in the hand, and an ironic choice for people who are radically secularist and opposed to tradition. They appear to think they can control it, but they have about as much chance of that as Gollum did of controlling the One Ring of Sauron. They do not realize – or perhaps prefer not to admit, even to themselves – that they’d be among the first to be beheaded, if Islam ever did take control in the West.

Then we have the horde of otherwise well-meaning people who are not – quite! – Jacobins, but who have made an idol of “multiculturalism.” That means that Islam is not only okay, but admirable because it is a “non-Western” culture, while anything that smacks of tending to support, promote, and preserve the solidity, cohesion, and tradition of Western culture is at least suspect, if not anathema.

I pray the pendulum may swing back, before it is too late! There are signs that it is swinging. But will it be in time? Only God knows. Thankfully, He is in charge of history, and ultimately, His will shall be done. But that’s ultimately. His time is not our time: let us not forget that the Reconquista of the Iberian Peninsula took 700 years!

I hope and pray we are given the sense and the determination to defend the culture, history, and heritage of Western civilization, a.k.a. Western Christendom, so that our descendants do not need to spend the next seven centuries, or more, trying to get it back.