“Yes, It’s Time For A Divorce. We Just Can’t Get Along” – by R. Cort Kirkwood | American Remnant

Logo

Source: Yes, It’s Time For A Divorce. We Just Can’t Get Along | American Remnant

Excerpt:

“With respect to immigration and returning to the fact that we can’t get along, left-wing political scientist Robert Putnam famously found that diversity is not our strength, as the Bush-Obama-Biden Axis of Evil tells us. It is a weakness. He found that the more diverse a society is, the less trust it has. The residents of ‘diverse’ cities don’t trust anything: the mayor, their neighbors, the newspaper, the hospital, the schools … nothing.”

I hate to say I toldja so, but………!

“If the most diverse communities, as Putnam learned, show the greatest loss of trust, then a ‘multicultural’ America is good neither for the diverse communities in which trust is absent, nor for the monolithic communities the diverse communities resent because they have the things — like trust — the diverse communities don’t.”

There’s more. Much more. Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest.

A Time to Walk Apart: Reflections on “Is Separation the Answer?” by the Abbeville Institute, in light of the 2020 General Election

Reference: Is Separation the Answer? | Abbeville Institute

I am, by nature, a conciliator. I am willing to go to considerable (at times, extreme) lengths to get along, and avoid conflict, especially in my own life. But that does not mean I am blind to problems, or their implications; and it does not mean that my patience and conflict-avoidance is endless. And as I ponder the aftermath of this contested election, and the calls by many on the Democratic side to “accept the results” (which are precisely what is being contested) and, by some, to seek “peace” and “unity,” I am reminded of one of my dear late mother’s pithy aphorisms: “It all depends on whose ox is getting gored.”

Continue reading “A Time to Walk Apart: Reflections on “Is Separation the Answer?” by the Abbeville Institute, in light of the 2020 General Election”

President Signs Executive Order Abolishing Critical Race Theory | Christopher F. Rufo

How Much Is the White House Worth? | Barron's

The President has issued a full Executive Order abolishing critical race theory from the federal government, the military, and all federal contractors.

Source: President Signs Executive Order Abolishing Critical Race Theory – Christopher F. Rufo

Alas, malign ideologies are not so easily abolished – but ceasing Federal funding of them, and putting the Federal government on record as being opposed, is a valuable step in the right direction!

“The President has issued a full Executive Order abolishing critical race theory from the federal government, the military, and all federal contractors. The president has effectively declared war on critical race theory—and extended the battlefield to all of our major institutions.

To begin, the president explains that our nation was founded on the ideal that ‘all men are created equal’ and denounces critical race theory’s ‘pernicious and false belief that America is an irredeemably racist and sexist country.’

The President writes that the ‘malign ideology’ of critical race theory ‘is now migrating from the fringes of American society and threatens to infect core institutions of country.’ […]

“The President’s executive order is nothing short of astonishing: he has used all of the mechanisms of power to destroy the anti-American ideology of critical race theory—and immediately takes the fight to the bureaucracy, woke corporations, and universities. He is playing to win.”

Thank you, Mr. President.

Conservative Cowards Are To Blame For Falling Statues | The Federalist

Conservative Cowards Are To Blame For Falling Statues

Source: Conservative Cowards Are To Blame For Falling Statues

“But here’s the thing: after you write your little op-ed about how of course the evil Confederate statues have to come down, they still think you’re a racist. They just think you are a spineless one.”

There are times when you really hate to be right, to have to be the one who says, “I hate to say I told you so… but I told you so.” I have been saying since 2015 – and more than once on this blog – that regardless of what you think about Confederate statues (and flags, and other iconography, like street and school names), you’d better not be indifferent about their destruction, or removal, or alteration, or replacement.

Because love them or hate them, they’re not the goal, they’re just the low-hanging fruit for the Leftist mob. The real goal was, and is, different and bigger: the destruction of America and the West, its political and social institutions, its government and economy, its customs and traditions, its history and heritage, and their replacement with a collectivist, totalitarian Marxist utopia.

Looked at objectively, the Left has played this all too brilliantly: go after the Confederate statues and iconography, because even the so-called “conservatives” will be afraid to defend them, for fear of seeming racist, or like they’re defending slavery. Or even “anti-American,” since the Confederates were rebels and traitors… right? Well, not by their lights:

“When the South raised its sword against the Union’s Flag, it was in defense of the Union’s Constitution.” — Confederate General John B. Gordon

“I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it.” — Confederate President Jefferson Davis

“I loved the old government in 1861. I loved the old Constitution yet. I think it is the best government in the world, if administered as it was before the war. I do not hate it; I am opposing now only the radical revolutionists who are trying to destroy it.” — Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest

“All that the South has ever desired was that the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth.” — Confederate General Robert E. Lee

None of that matters, of course, to the Left. Their playbook is consistent:

Ignore or deny the fact that slavery was only one reason – and not even necessarily the biggest reason – for secession, and had nothing directly to do with sparking the War Between the States. Ignore or deny the fact that more than 260,000 Confederate soldiers died to defend their homes, families, and land from an illegal and unconstitutional invasion.

Ignore or deny the fact that there were 50,000 civilian deaths during the war, that the overall mortality rate for the South exceeded that of any country in World War I and all but the region between the Rhine and the Volga in World War II. Would Southerners have been willing to incur such casualties to defend the right of a small minority of the population to own slaves? Not likely!

Ignore, for that matter, the fact that there were four slave-holding states (plus the District of Columbia, where slavery was also legal) in the Union itself, and that Lincoln repeatedly offered that any seceded state which returned to the Union could keep its slaves (or that there were more free blacks in the South than in the North, and some of them had slaves).

Just focus on the fact that the Confederacy was made up of “slave states,” and you’ve made it impossible for good, “moderate” conservatives to object to the removal and destruction of statues and other Confederate iconography, and keep banging the drum that anyone who does object is “far-right” (and therefore “fascist”) and a “racist.” It was a brilliant plan, and it has largely succeeded.

And in the process, the Left has successfully – or seemingly so – softened up the nation for attacks on others, including (inter alia) Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, Francis Scott Key, and even Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, along with a host of lesser luminaries.

Because of the way American history has played out, all have the Achilles heel of “racism,” colonialism, or both; and by the Leftist narrative, that invalidates anything else positive they might have ever accomplished, including the creation of a nation which is so open-minded and tolerant as to allow even lunatics and seditionists like the current Left to function without being shot, beaten down, and/or imprisoned, as they would in a less free and open nation… such as the one they want to create.


“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day-by-day and minute-by-minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

— George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four


In an again brilliant example of sociopolitical aikido, they have found the soft spots: 1) that everyone in history has had something that was less-than-perfect about them, and that if compared to current mores (the historical fallacy of presentism), it often has to do with favoring one’s own people – defined today as “racism” – and 2) that no one wants to be seen as defending racism, so protests to the removals, destruction, and desecration are sporadic, muted, and easily dismissed as a “fringe.”

But if the tactics of the Left have been remarkably if dismayingly creative and effective, the response from most mainstream conservatives has been feeble and incompetent, if not missing-in-action entirely. As the quote with which I opened this put it,

“But here’s the thing: after you write your little op-ed about how of course the evil Confederate statues have to come down, they still think you’re a racist. They just think you are a spineless one.”

It is as I have said before: don’t let the camel’s nose in the tent; don’t give an inch, because if you do, they’ll sense weakness and fear, and come at you all the harder. Bullies always do. But they often run from a spirited defense – something of which there has been a notable lack, of late.

There have been some notable exceptions, but as Marcus points out further down in the linked post,

“The so-called conservatives who have been coddling mindless calls to destroy public art know who they are. So do the rest of us. These are the reasonable conservatives, the good ones, ever so careful not to be called racist. They had a compromise in mind because they always do. Throw the Confederate statues under the bus and we can save the rest…

“Do you know who is to blame [for the continued destruction]? It is not the hordes of progressives with ropes and chains; it is every conservative who thought those Jacobin lunatics could be appeased by just tearing down certain statues. It is a metaphor for the fecklessness of an American right too cowed to stand up for itself.”

They should be ashamed.

Leaving aside the complete philosophical and ethical surrender it represents, this roll-over-and-play-dead response is not even an effective tactic.

“Feed the hyenas and maybe they’ll eat us last” is not only ineffective, it’s actually counter-productive, because it leads them to expect a free meal, and thus emboldens them. The results can be seen in far too many locations throughout this once-great land.

In fact, the destruction we are seeing in American cities today is reminiscent of the Nazi Kristallnacht, the French Revolution, or a slew of Communist ones over the last century-plus. Irreplaceable elements – tangible representations – of our history and heritage (many of which are superb works of art in their own right), are being damaged and destroyed in the name of an unconscionable fallacy: the idea that the past must be judged by the standards of the present.

(Sadly, that is not the worst of it. History shows us repeatedly that where there is violence against icons, sooner or later there will be violence against institutions, and against persons. If the present chaos is left unchecked, the situation will only go from bad to worse.)

And where are those who claim their philosophy is to conserve – to protect, preserve, and transmit unimpaired to future generations – that history and heritage? Too often, silent, or entirely absent. As I say, they should be ashamed!

Here’s Marcus again:

“… what are the wages of these sad genuflections? What did you get out of the deal? Are they going to come support you now that the Founding Fathers are up against the wall? Nope. They will throw you right up against the wall with them as you insist how reasonable you are.

“To these fair-weather friends, I have a message: This is your fault. And you were well warned. For years, those of us with the courage to open our eyes knew exactly where this was going. It was never about the Confederacy, or slavery, or racism. It was always about destroying the very concept of America and replacing it with a Marxist utopia. That’s who you decided to compromise with.

“What’s done is done, but it is not too late. Now that you have seen the miles the left takes when offered an inch, you are welcome to get back in the fight for freedom. They burned you, made you look like fools. Be angry. Otherwise your silence is complicity with mobs that would destroy not just statues but the very foundations of our liberty.”

Amen.

Coronavirus reveals the weakness and danger of the “global economy”

Image result for us reliant on china for drugs

I certainly hope and pray that the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic does not end up having the kind of global impact – and especially, is not as damaging and deadly here in the US, and in other Western countries, where cases have so far been few in number – as some doomsayers seem to take perverse pleasure in predicting.

But if nothing else, I hope it does point out the weakness and danger of globalism: both open borders, and the off-shoring of major chunks of our economy, especially manufacturing. Cheap consumer goods (and cheap – not to say exploited – labor) are not the only things that can circulate freely, in such an environment.

Perhaps most sobering is the fact that we are reliant on China – China, the source of the outbreak, and the country hardest-hit by it – for many of our drugs!

As this article from last month points out,

“Everything from antibiotics to chemotherapy drugs, from antidepressants to Alzheimer’s medications to treatments for HIV/AIDS, are frequently produced by Chinese manufacturers. What’s more, the most effective breathing masks and the bulk of other personal protective equipment — key to containing the spread of coronavirus and protecting health care workers — and even the basic syringe are largely made in China.”

Another article notes that “the Food and Drug Administration estimates that at least 80 percent of the active ingredients found in all of America’s medicines come from abroad – primarily China,” and asks us to “imagine if China turned off that spigot.” Or if we are forced to turn it off ourselves, due to issues like coronavirus! A third article points out the hazards of contamination of generic drugs manufactured abroad:

“What’s responsible for the repeated drug safety lapses? The offshoring of the American drug supply to China and, to a lesser extent, India during the past couple of decades.”

It continues,

“China and India now manufacture about 80% of the drugs consumed in the U.S. This figure understates China’s dominance because many of the active ingredients in the Indian manufactured drugs come from China. The U.S. doesn’t even manufacture vital drugs like antibiotics anymore [emphasis added], with the last penicillin factory closing in 2004.”

That is chilling, or should be.

Particularly in the face of the current situation, in which reliable supplies of drugs are critical! But unfortunately, as USA Today notes,

“The coronavirus outbreak is sparking fears of drug shortages in the U.S., largely due to its disruption of pharmaceutical supplies from China and India.  The Food and Drug Administration has warned of shortages in one drug due to the coronavirus, while penicillin shipments to the U.S. from China have dried up [again, emphasis added]. The FDA said it expects the outbreak of COVID-19 to cause ‘potential disruptions to supply or shortages of critical medical products in the U.S.'”

And to make matters worse, as yet another article points out, “the U.S. is woefully unprepared to address even minor disruptions in the supply of these drugs.” This article continues,

“Medicines can be used as a weapon of war against the United States,” Rosemary Gibson, a senior adviser on health care issues at the bioethics-focused Hastings Center and co-author of China Rx: Exposing the Risks of America’s Dependence on China for Medicine, told lawmakers last month. “Supplies can be withheld. Medicines can be made with lethal contaminants or sold without any real medicine in them, rendering them ineffective.”

Then there is the whole issue of “just in time” logistics, a primary feature of the modern economy. This may have cost and efficiency advantages when everything’s working smoothly, but it leaves us highly vulnerable to disruptions in overseas sources of manufacture and supply, whether these originate in pandemics like coronavirus, international conflicts, other forms of social or political disruption, rising fuel prices, or other causes.

While the issue is obviously most vital in the fields of pharmaceuticals and medical technology, the reality is that we need to seriously rethink our entire approach to the so-called global economy, starting with a clear-eyed understanding that independence and sovereignty begin with being able to supply our own needs from our own resources and manufacturing capability, here at home.

Anything less leaves us dangerously vulnerable to disruptions abroad.

 

Faulkner: What happened to the “American Dream”?

Image result for Faulkner

Source:  Being Southern in an Age of Radicalism | Reckonin’

“[William] Faulkner at the time of his death was preparing a book to be called ‘The American Dream—What Happened to It?’ He had written some parts of it and it is a pure expression of the Southern and Jeffersonian tradition, more so than he probably realized. In a speech a year after the Nobel speech, Faulkner said that the noble American principle of a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness had become nothing more than an excuse for materialistic ease. The early Americans did not mean just the chance to chase happiness. By happiness they meant ‘not just pleasure [and] idleness, but peace, dignity, independence and self respect,’ things that had to be worked for and earned. ‘We knew it once, had it once … only something happened to us.’ We no longer ‘believed in liberty and freedom and independence as the old fathers in the old strong, dangerous times had meant it.'”

— Dr. Clyde N. Wilson, “Being Southern in an Age of Radicalismhttps://alchetron.com/cdn/clyde-n-wilson-cd1d44e9-63c9-48ee-a408-2d936c59b98-resize-750.jpeg

Clyde Wilson is a distinguished Professor Emeritus of History at the University of South Carolina. He is the author or editor of over thirty books and more than 600 published articles, essays and reviews.

The Calhoun Institute also notes that he is a paleo-conservative political commentator, a long-time contributing editor for Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture and Southern Partisan magazine, and an occasional contributor to National Review.

Wilson is best known for his expertise on the life and writings of John C. Calhoun, having compiled all his papers in twenty-eight volumes. He has been the M.E. Bradford Distinguished Chair of the Abbeville Institute, and an adjunct faculty member of the paleo-libertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Why Classical Architecture Better Serves The Public Good Than Modernist Atrocities | The Federalist

Why Classical Architecture Better Serves The Public Good Than Modernist Atrocities

Classical architecture offers the possibility of restoring beauty to gain respect for the work public buildings do in contributing to the common good.

Source: Why Classical Architecture Better Serves The Public Good Than Modernist Atrocities – The Federalist

Dr. Carroll William Westfall (PhD, Columbia University), Professor Emeritus at the Notre Dame School of Architecture, has penned (or perhaps, this being the 21st century, keyboarded) this excellent argument in favor of President Donald Trump’s recently leaked draft executive order – which may or may not actually be issued – which, as a surprisingly supportive article in The Atlantic points out, “strongly encouraged architects to adopt a classical style when they design federal courthouses and buildings in the nation’s capital.”

While there have been the usual bleated objections from the usual suspects, Dr. Westfall raises some excellent points, such as “the fact that a building is a public object that occupies a site that is necessarily part of the realm where people lead their lives. Things placed in the public realm are obliged to serve the public, common good even if privately owned, and it is the duty of government to ensure this is done.”

It is, in other words, not created merely or even primarily for the benefit of “those who seek to preserve the putative right of architects to express their interpretation of the modern era with the latest fashions on public land and at public expense.” He asserts, instead, what I would agree is the unassailable truth that “the primary purpose of a public building is to serve a public, common good,” and notes that

“Modernism gained ascendancy at the expense of classical architecture that uses valued traditions adapted with innovations, drawing on experience and new insights to fit current circumstances. This role of tradition and innovation in architecture has its counterpart in our form of government, which has its roots in ancient Greece and Rome and in the experience of governing British colonies.”

Let me reemphasize that: classical architecture… uses valued traditions adapted with innovations, drawing on experience and new insights to fit current circumstances.

This is also true of classicism and traditionalism, rightly understood, in general (as he alludes to, in referring our form of government). He further notes that “Classicism is not a style but an achievement of architectural art that renders a public service while honoring the canons of beauty as they pertain to that art.”

I have posted on “The Tyranny of Artistic Modernism” previously, so I will not rehash the point, here. But it is nothing but absurdity to claim that Classicism is simply a pro forma and unimaginative rehashing of “old stuff,” and “not who we are today.” And to the extent that there is any truth to the latter, it is an indictment of the present age, not a compliment to it!

Fortunately, a growing number of people are starting to realize that in architecture as in so many other areas of the res publica, the modernist / postmodernism “emperor” has no clothes. And more and more are beginning to develop an appreciation for classical things, classical ideas, classical values: in art and architecture no less than in other realms of public and private life.

With respect to public building and the architecture thereof, Dr. Westfall notes that “While modernist architects would fare poorly in satisfying the proposed guidelines” of President Trump’s leaked draft order,

“a growing number of architects is recovering the ability to produce classical architecture. They offer the possibility of restoring the beauty of public buildings to gain the people’s respect for the work those buildings do in contributing to the public, common good.”

He concluded that “We need these revisions to achieve this,” and I whole-heartedly concur.


The linked Federalist essay includes this bio of Dr. Westfall:

Carroll William Westfall (PhD, Columbia University) has been a professor of architecture since 1966. He began his career at Amherst College, then the University of Illinois in Chicago, the University of Virginia, and between 1998 and his retirement in 2015, at the University of Notre Dame, including four years as chairman of the School of Architecture. He has published three books and numerous articles on topics from antiquity onward, with a focus on the history of the city and particular attention to the reciprocity between the political life and the urban and architectural elements that serve the needs of citizens. He, his family, and pets now live in Richmond, Virginia.

None too shabby a resumé! His Notre Dame faculty directory bio adds,

A central theme of all of his studies has been the history of the city with particular attention to the reciprocity between the political life and the urban and architectural elements that serve the needs of citizens. His emphasis is on the usefulness of knowledge of history to practicing architects. This, rather than a stylistically based interpretation of the history of architecture, has informed all of his work. His current interests are concentrated on the architect’€™s capacity to nourish the Christian faith and on tradition and classicism in architecture and the American city with special attention to the role of Thomas Jefferson in founding a distinctive American architecture to serve a unique nation.

Why am I not surprised that he is approaching this issue from a Christian ethos? Truth, Beauty, and Goodness live! Thanks be to God!

Dr. Carol M. Swain: Critical Race Theory’s Destructive Impact on America | 1776 Unites

https://anglophilicanglican.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/swain.png

Under the guise of a venture called the “1619 Project,” revisionist history about race in America is being introduced into classrooms across America without undergoing the normal peer review expected of educational materials.

Source:  Critical Race Theory’s Destructive Impact on America | 1776 Unites

It is possible – and indeed, I frequently experience this feeling – given the current state of what passes for sociopolitical discourse in early-21st-century America, to feel like one is living in an insane asylum run by the inmates. Fortunately, every once in a while, one hears or reads something that gives one hope that sanity is not totally a thing of the past.

Such an example is this superb essay by Dr. Carol M. Swain, Ph.D., a former political science and law professor at Vanderbilt University (my graduate university, where I attended Divinity School). She writes, inter alia,

“Those who push white guilt and black victimhood ignore critical facts. One is that today’s white Americans are not responsible for the sins of generations ago. Second, slavery was an institution that blacks, Native Americans, and whites participated in as slaveholders. There’s plenty of guilt to go around there…”

“The 1619 Project is a misguided effort to keep open historical wounds while telling only half of the story. It is flawed because it is connected to critical race theory and the diversity-inclusion grievance industry that focuses on identity politics and division. Blaming today’s families for the mistakes of our ancestors is not a prescription for unifying the country or empowering racial and ethnic minorities.”

She adds,

“We can do better. Within Christian communities, there is a basis for countering destructive narratives that have invaded our educational institutions and the corporate world. The solution for hatred, bitterness, and distrust can be found in New Testament principles.

“Rather than wallow in the past and revisionists’ efforts to build a case for reparations, we, as Americans, need to move forward while practicing the forgiveness and love of neighbor that Jesus espoused. We need not look any further than the ‘golden rule’ (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) to find the tools that enable us to transcend racial and ethnic conflicts that keep us from working together and celebrating our victories.”

As I say, it is very encouraging to see / read / hear people in the African-American community – especially scholars of the caliber of Dr. Swain – beginning to push back against the dangerous absurdity of critical race theory. Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest!

Bloomberg implied farming doesn’t take intelligence in 2016 comments | Fox News

https://anglophilicanglican.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/image.jpg

Bloomberg: “I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer… Now comes the information economy… You have to have a different skill set, you have to have a lot more gray matter.”

Source: Bloomberg implied farming doesn’t take intelligence in 2016 comments | Fox News

When you’re not sure which is more breathtaking, the ignorance or the arrogance…! This is the frickin’ idiot that’s running for the Democratic Presidential ticket. I have to say, I don’t like any of them, but this is over the top. “We, the intelligentsia,” indeed. Horse puckey!

From one of the comments: “A farmer can live without Mike Bloomberg but Mike Bloomberg can’t live without a farmer, and I will side with the farmer.” Amen! Yes. So will I. Any day of the week! Bloomberg is a menace, on many levels. I have never liked him, for his opposition to the Second Amendment, but bashing farmers makes me despise him on a whole different level.

I will say one thing: this male (I won’t call him a man), and the rest of his “intelligentsia” (read: the arrogant coastal / urban elite) couldn’t live a week without what they disparage as “flyover country,” and the basket of deplorables, bitterly clinging to God and guns, who live there.

This individual is not only a sorry excuse for a political candidate, but he is a sorry excuse for a human being. Not that that’s new information, for me! I’ve known it for a long time; this is merely additional grist for the mill. I’d say he’s is full of bullsh_t, but that would be insulting to bulls. Putrid pustule of a person!

Because I hate to end on a negative note – Paul Harvey, among others, is one who thought of farmers rather differently than Bloomberg. Here he is: