Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Quote of the Day

Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.

Lord John Maynard Keynes

Monday, August 29, 2011

Traditional Christianity Has Moved

Old news for some, but somehow I missed Alte moving her blog and changing up the format a little bit.  So while I've updated the link on the sidebar, feel free to swing by and patronize her new digs.

Friday, August 26, 2011

The Uniform and the Abdication of Individual Responsibility

Some time ago, over at Terry's Jamila's grerp's place, I read a blog post of hers about the tendency of modern parents to outsource discipline of wayward children to the police, and the adverse consequences stemming from this practice. Usually these parents are choice mommies overwhelmed by the consequences of their choice(s) and, lacking a man in the home, find their spawn to be difficult to control.

But this phenomenon is certainly not limited to the choice mommy crowd; indeed, as time passes, I increasingly read about the involvement of the authorities in the most mundane matters of discipline, either at home or at school or in society at large. What happened? Why all of the sudden do parents not have the will or the right or the responsibility to discipline their own children? Why is it that cussing at school warrants a call to the police, who happily issue the budding proto-delinquent a ticket that lands him in a courtroom (conveniently, this first visit leads to more and more visits later on...more business for the justice system...follow the money in this rent-seeking system folks), rather than a good scolding or even a good butt-whooping at home, with no rap sheet to follow? At what time did the notion that only the State and its agents have the right, the responsibility, and the expertise to punish wrongdoing, become part of the zeitgeist?

I think it has to do with the deification of State authority, authority embodied best by a uniform. In a world where it seems that all formerly impregnable social institutions are breaking down, the only social structure that seems to hold up, to deliver what it promises, is the vertically organized hierarchy employed by law enforcement agencies, fire departments, and the military. State organs all. Somehow, it seems the only institutions that function are those whose members wear a uniform. Their system works, that of the "civvies" seems irreparably broken, and we collectively cede our right, duty, and authority as citizens to "police up" our own lives to those uniformed fellows in government employ:
No symbol is more sacred in American life right now than the military uniform. The cross is divisive; the flag has been put to partisan struggle. But the uniform commands nearly automatic and universal reverence.

As the national narrative shifts from the war on terror to the specter of decline, the uniform performs another psychic function. The military is can-do, the one institution - certainly the one public institution - that still appears to work. The schools, the highways, the post office; Amtrak, FEMA, NASA and the T.S.A. - not to mention the banks, the newspapers, the health care system, and above all, Congress: nothing seems to function anymore, except the armed forces.

The term most characteristically employed, when the cult of the uniform is celebrated, is "heroes." Perhaps no word in public life of late has been more thoroughly debased by overuse. Soldiers are "heroes"; firefighters are "heroes"; police officers are "heroes" - all of them, not the special few who undoubtedly deserve the term. So unthinking has the platitude become that someone referred to national park rangers on public radio recently as "heroes" - reflexively, in passing - presumably since they wear uniforms, as well. Heroes are daddies: larger-than-life figures, unimpeachably powerful and good, who save us from evil and hurt.

"America needs heroes," it is sometimes said, a phrase that's often uttered in a wistful tone, almost cooingly, as if we were talking about a lonely child. But do we really "need heroes"? We need leaders, who marshal us to the muddle. We need role models, who show us how to deal with it. But what we really need are citizens, who refuse to infantilize themselves with talk of heroes and put their shoulders to the public wheel instead. The political scientist Jonathan Weiler sees the cult of
the uniform as a kind of citizenship-by-proxy. Soldiers and cops and firefighters, he argues, embody a notion of public service to which the rest of us are now no more than spectators.
This last paragraph, in particular, drives at the abdication of personal responsibility which headlines this post. Parents have become as infants, voluntarily rendering themselves impotent in favor of having some unrelated outside expert, uniformed officer, and/or judge parent for them. Neighbors too follow in the footsteps of parents.  They no longer regulate the culture in their neighborhoods, with the result that a hired, semi-professional constabulary with no direct investment in the neighborhood--chances are they are strangers who don't live there and/or look/act/talk like the residents--is invited to invade and maintain order. And we citizens, having given up our right and responsibility to keep the machinery of civic para-governmental institutions running, the very institutions that keep a free society free, look on passively as the weakest "box"--voting--fails time and again to yield the kind of government we want. Is the social system represented by the uniform--safe, structured, and authoritarian--really what we want?

Seems to me our collective answer is, for wont of parents, neighbors, and the body politic in general asserting and exercising their rights and duties and responsibilities, yes. We default on the question of self-rule, and look to a hero in uniform to save us from the consequences of our own abdication.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Low-Hanging Fruit

Pitchfork Pat displays a little schadenfreude when recounting Mr. Obama's apparent dilemma wrt cutting spending in the face of national bankruptcy.  Indeed, I infer he relishes the two horns Mr. Obama seems to be caught between: the anti-tax, anti-big gummint Tea Party, and his own dependent-upon-government-largesse big-gummint soak-the-rich base:
If Obama is to lead the nation out of the crisis it confronts, he has to preside over a downsizing of the welfare-warfare state - the same state that sustains his base. Obama's September program - indeed, any credible plan to revive the economy and bring our books into balance - has to include a rollback of U.S. commitments at home and abroad. Yet, domestically, this cannot be done without reducing future Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, and cutting and capping the social programs of the Great Society. Moreover, half the nation cannot freeload forever, as is the case today, contributing nary a dime in federal income taxes. And such reforms must adversely impact most Obama's political and personal base.

If he proposes new taxes, tea-party Republicans fix bayonets.

If he proposes downsizing the government and cutting and capping social programs, his most loyal constituents rise up against him.
I don't think Mr. Obama's dilemma is as difficult as Mr. Buchanan thinks it is. For white males are the only class without a country, so to speak, a class that is no fav of this administration, and as it so happens, happens to occupy a particularly vulnerable segment of the welfare-warfare State at this moment in time.

The military.

Thus it comes as no surprise that military personnel costs, already ballooning out of control at shocking speed, would come under the budget-axe scrutiny of an administration desperately looking for an easy way out of the fix they find themselves in. The choices are few, they are all hard ones, and they amount to deciding whose birthday gets taken away. Want to cut social security, as Dems recklessly threatened senior citizens with in the run-up to raising the statutory debt limit? No-go, all those entitled baby boomers and Silent-generation retirees are too powerful and too heavily female (a key Dem constituency) to go after right now. No one wants to throw granny out on the street or take away her rent-controlled apartment. What about cutting welfare, WIC, AFDC, and a panoply of other entitlements for sluggards, mockers, and irresponsible reproducers? Not without risking the ire of the race warlords, choice mommy lobby, illegal alien lobby, and others represented by the professionally aggrieved. In a world characterized by Gramscian class warfare, the strongest classes with the most powerful "Slaughtered Saints" victim imagery do what they want, while the weakest classes lacking such well-connected and influential friends endure what they must.

Which brings me back to the military. Although the military tries very hard to ensure its complexion matches that of the society from which it was drawn, compared to other recipients of Federal so-called "entitlements", it is heavily, grossly, even inexcusably Caucasian and male in its makeup, which is to say that military personnel had and have little overlap with those folks whose ballots got Mr. Obama elected. Thus this two-fer sin being a pale male in these vibrant times means that, of all the groups of people with their hands out for a FedGov payday, military personnel are the constituency that has the least potential to make trouble for this present administration, an administration that surfed to power on a wave of support from a coalition of groups addicted to the dole and impressionable youngsters riffing on hope-change.

Low-hanging fruit, I say. It is the easiest choice in a bucket full of difficult ones.

Sunday, August 21, 2011

Kellett Steps In It, Big TIme

Note: this article first appeared over at Dr. Paul Elam's A Voice For Men and is reprinted here per his request.

As I reported on recently, Mary Kellett, the Ellsworth, Maine prosecutor notorious for pursuing flimsy cases, always against men accused of sexual or domestic assaults, has put her foot in it again. Only this time it appears that her misstep has put her ankle deep in a bear trap.

A recap of the most recent case goes as follows. Keovilaisack Sayasane, 44, was charged with threatening to harm his wife with a hammer in their home. A problem for the prosecution in the case was that Sayasane’s wife was scheduled to testify for the defense. As the only eyewitness and alleged victim in the case it could have proven to be an insurmountable obstacle to a conviction.

But the wife had a change of heart about testifying when she was told by Mary Kellett that Sayasane had been convicted of killing his first wife some 25 years earlier. The Bangor Daily News reports that when the judge in the case, Justice Kevin Cuddy, learned of this, he ultimately declared a mistrial, which ended the current proceedings against Sayasane, but allows the prosecution to retry the case.

Sayasane, however, had not killed his first wife. He was convicted of manslaughter in the 1987 stabbing death of a man in Hampden, Maine.

Court transcripts reveal that both defense attorney Jeffry Toothaker and Mary Kellett informed the court that they were both given the erroneous information on Saysane’s conviction by Deputy Attorney General William Stokes, head of the Attorney General’s Office’s criminal division. But Stokes has a strikingly different story. Namely that it never happened.

This is Stoke’s version according to the Bangor Daily News:

“Stokes said he never provided any information to Kellett that indicated that the victim in the manslaughter case was Sayasane’s previous wife, or even that the victim was a woman. Stokes said he had no prior knowledge of the case before Kellett contacted him about it, and so had to go look up the information in case summaries that are kept on file at the Attorney General’s Office in Augusta.

The summary, Stokes said, indicates that the victim in the 1986 stabbing was a 21-year old man named Boudone Meuaneboutdy who was a friend of Sayasane’s. He said that is the information he forwarded to Kellett.

“Where the wife part came in, I have no knowledge,” Stokes said.

Now, assuming that Stokes is not lying, Mary Kellett has just been dropped into the fryer. On the merits of his statement alone, two factors become abundantly clear.

(1) Mary Kellett engaged in witness tampering by lying to the alleged victim in the case thus coercing her to withdraw exculpatory testimony.

(2) Mary Kellett further perpetrated a fraud on the court by misleading the judge to believe that she had been furnished information from the state AG’s office, when in fact she had been furnished no such information.

There may well be other violations that become apparent as this case is investigated further. But these two points of interest do serve as grounds for further complaints to the Overseers of the Bar in Maine, as well as to the office of Governor Paul LePage and the Office of the State Attorney General.

There is a pending bar complaint on Mary Kellett stemming from the Vladek Filler case that was filed by the National Coalition for Men. That complaint has been investigated and referred to the bar with the recommendation that sanctions against Kellett were warranted.

It was originally the position of AVfM that before a complaint was filed with the bar against Kellett for the Sayasane case that the Filler complaint would be allowed to come to conclusion. These recent revelations by the state AG of Maine are grounds to revise that decision.

The time for action is now.

On behalf of the people of the United States and in the interest of justice, AVfM will now proceed with a bar complaint against Mary Kellett for the willful fraud of a court of law and for witness tampering in a criminal proceeding. We will also be sending letters of protest and pleas for justice to Governor LePage and to the Attorney General of Maine.

I am also going to call on readers of AVfM to assist with these vital actions as quickly as possible. Please write Governor LePage and the State Attorney General and ask them why, after such demonstrated malfeasance on the part of a Maine state functionary, is she being allowed to continue prosecuting in Maine.

I am also writing Ellsworth District Attorney Carletta Bossano, Mary Kellett’s direct supervisor and the individual that holds the ultimate responsibility for actions that emanate from her office, to demand that Kellett be suspended from duties until her actions are thoroughly investigated. I ask all those interested in justice to do the same.

Finally, if you have a blog or website, no matter how large or small, I ask you to please help us go on the offensive against the Orwellian nightmare happening in Maine by posting this article, in its entirety to your site. Facebook and twitter users, please do the same, and thank you all for helping us turn up the heat on an ongoing miscarriage of justice.

Remember, if we can just take one corrupt prosecutor out it will send reverberations throughout the system of feminist governance and will correct an absolute evil going in the state of Maine. Even the Bangor Daily News, previously hesitant to fully address this story, is now smelling blood. Let’s finish this. Let’s FTSU, and I mean NOW.

Contact Maine’s State Attorney General

Contact Governor Paul LePage

Contact District Attorney Carletta Bossano


Thursday, August 18, 2011

Happy Birthday to This Blog

Hard to believe, but it's been four years yesterday since I started this humble blog. Thanks to all the readers out there who add to the conversations with their comments, and thanks to the hard core readers who come back to read my opinionated blathering day after day, four years going.

Thanks also to those who will read here in the future; I know I don't post as much as I used to but that's how it had to be when priorities are concerned.

May each of you have a wonderful upcoming year and I look forward to seeing you all in the blogosphere.


Sunday, August 14, 2011

Breivik and Londonistan: Permissive Liberalism On Its Heels

The recent disorderly behavior in Londonistan brought this passage from Peter to mind:
[T]hose who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority...bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings...these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed--an accursed brood!

These people are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for “people are slaves to whatever has mastered them.”
Mists driven by a storm, indeed.  A few days ago, I wrote about how multi-kulti sec-humanist liberalism--aka, a component of the guiding philosophy of what is known as the "Left"--is at least partially responsible for creating the vacuous culture in which Anders Breivik's pathos incubated, and how quite a few of the more perceptive types in the media were picking up on that lesson.  Moreover, it seems that more than a few mainstream European leaders such as Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy, and David Cameron have at least partially recognized that multi-kulti sec-humanist liberalism is a failure, at least as far as a basis upon which to anchor a cohesive and enduring society is concerned. And now, three weeks after Utoya, we have massive race/class-based rioting and looting in shiny vibrant London, courtesy of that very same liberalism:
They are illiterate and innumerate, beyond maybe some dexterity with computer games and BlackBerries. They are essentially wild beasts. I use that phrase advisedly, because it seems appropriate to young people bereft of the discipline that might make them employable; of the conscience that distinguishes between right and wrong. They respond only to instinctive animal impulses - to eat and drink, have sex, seize or destroy the accessible property of others. [T]hey are victims of a perverted social ethos, which elevates personal freedom to an absolute, and denies the underclass the discipline - tough love - which alone might enable some of its members to escape from the swamp of dependency in which they live. They are products of a culture which gives them so much unconditionally that they are let off learning how to become human beings.
Put simply, multi-culti sec-humanist liberalism of the sort employed in the West inhibits the transmission of civilized behavior from one generation to the next, and in many ways, actively contributes to the demise of the values that comprise Western civilization in general. But this isn't something that happened yesterday; no, it's been a long time coming, and it's effects have been steadily manifesting themselves, quietly at first, but growing more and more loud as time goes on:
For this, we have to thank four decades of politically correct policing, and a gradual breakdown of the informal network of authority figures that once provided an additional element of control over the bad behaviour of young people. Adults are now reluctant, or too scared, to step in and stop things getting out of hand, or to impose a wider moral code - and in any case, they are no longer listened to. Deference to age and authority has been eroded by years of genuflection to the twin gods of multiculturalism and community cohesion.
By "community cohesion" I assume the author is referring to the cohesion of legions of sub-groups that garner greater loyalty within themselves than that paid to the collective as a whole. For diversity and multi-kulti is by definition disruptive to the cohesion of a large society, and may only be successfully maintained through coercive force.

In my post linked above, I wrote how the center does not and cannot hold in a multi-kulti sec-humanist society. There is no "there", there--no standards worth upholding, no common cultural reference point, all cultures and habits are equal (except the European, Christian culture that boot-strapped Europe out of barbarity, that culture is decidedly less than equal) and, since sec-humanism hates hates hates competing religions, particularly the Christian one that birthed it, there exists no higher power / lawgiver other than the Nietzchean will to power. It comes as no surprise then that all the authorities in Londonistan have to control the populace is the coercive power of the State. Not peers, not Church, not family, and certainly not parents (especially the much-maligned and derided fathers).  The predictable result of all this is that an ever-growing proportion of Londoners are apparently unable to regulate their own behavior, and lapse into criminality and barbarism if given the smallest opportunity.

How long large-L liberalism can survive in an environment such as this is an open question, and I predict that it will be quickly abandoned to illiberalism of one variety or the other.

Friday, August 12, 2011

Matriachal Mothers Blog

Friends, I've received a request to link to a blog entitled Matriarchal Mothers. Thought I would put it up to a vote--take a look and make a recommendation to me if I should.

Monday, August 8, 2011

The Church as Rev Limiter

I've long thought that public school erodes familial bonds and usurps parental authority over their children, particularly the father's right and responsibility to lead and teach his children, and transfers it to the State. But I have to admit that a similar practice has gone on for decades, right under my--and a I suspect millions of other Faithful homeschoolers'--noses in our own houses of worship. The practice of which I speak is age-segregated ministry, long a staple of churches who, borrowing a page from Madison Avenue, seek to tailor God's message to the youth "market":
"Divided" follows "edgy twenty-something" Christian filmmaker Philip LeClerc on a quest to find answers to why his generation is increasingly turning away from attending church. Recent surveys have shown that as many as 85 percent of young people will leave the church and many never return.

NCFIC Director Scott T. Brown told The Christian Post that today's modern concept of youth ministry is a "50-year failed experiment." Brown said that when he was a church leader in the '70s and '80s he could have been the "poster boy" for the youth ministry movement in California. However, he said he now feels that dividing children from adults at
church is an unbiblical concept borrowed from humanistic philosophies.

"The church has become divided generationally," Brown said. "It's not doing what Scripture prescribes and is actually doing something [that is] foreign [in] Scripture by dividing people by age or by life stage."
In the same way the PS stratifies their student body by age yet fails to produce a "product" that meets quality criteria upon matriculation, so too do churches stratify their congregations by age (e.g., through separate services for the old, the middle aged, and the youth), with the youth programs in particular failing to reliably produce new adherents to the Faith after they graduate.

In other words, the Church, by virtue of how it structures its services and programs, appears to self-limit the size of its own Body.

But this problem affects more than just the Church. Indeed, by outsourcing not only temporal education but spiritual education (the province of the father according to Biblical precepts) as well, our culture, to include those who call themselves Christians, has largely forgone and forgotten the model of the father-led family, and what patriarchal leadership that does remain is a hollowed-out remnant of what I think God meant the father's role in the family to be. One pastor interviewed for this article made that point explicitly when he said
"I look back and realize I did more harm to families than I ever imagined," Dellinger says in the film. "I see that more as I look back because I was usurping the authority of parents, especially fathers by having their children's hearts turn towards me - with their permission. Today, I can make more of a difference in the lives of young people through the biblical standards of fathers turning their hearts towards their children...there's something fundamentally wrong with the church's drive to say we can do a better job of raising your children than you can...God has appointed fathers to lead their children; not for someone else to do it just because they have a college degree or some seminary training. That does not qualify someone to all of a sudden become the spiritual leader of your family."
Indeed. This is characteristic of the 'certification' approach of our culture to a whole host of issues, in that the only ones qualified for a task are ones who have completed some sort of specialized training. In some cases, certification makes sense, as in aircrew or doctors or others whose skills are difficult, rare, or costly (to obtain or, alternatively, expensive in failure). But in others, certification makes far less sense, as in the case of parenting, the schooling* of one's young, and the transmittal of culture and religion,** all three of which are private matters best left to individual parents rather than self-anointed professionals or worse, government agents.

* Schooling, not education. Public school does little to educate. Ditto with college in many respects.

** Didn't literacy, the printing press, and Martin Luther pretty much take care of priestcraft? Why then the excessive deference to seminary training on the part of lay Christians?

But back to the title of this post, which is "The Church as Rev Limiter". The practice of delegating to others the important work of training ones children in the ways they should go, either via PS, where the "others" are government agents teaching a government-approved curriculum, or via youth programs, where the "others" are usually well-intentioned fellow Believers, limits both the formation of future father-led families as well as the probability of a child remaining in the church after they become an adult. The Church has wondered why so many of those who grew up in its embrace do not return after being released into the wild, perhaps high-quality youth ministries which encroach on the territory of its fathers are a contributing factor.

Thursday, August 4, 2011

Breivik Is A Failure of Liberalism

It would be easy to dismiss Breivik's shooting spree at Utoeya as the out-gassing of a "right-wing"*, "Christian"** nutjob. Yes, easy. And tempting, for doing so relieves us of the burden of self reflection and critical assessment of the conditions that spawned his violent outburst. But as easy and as tempting as it would be, it would be wrong. Canadian author David Solway, writing in WorldNetDaily, agrees:
The dynamic at work is plain to see. It should be obvious that our cultural and political blindness must eventually lead to violent social upheaval. As Islam gathers strength with every passing day in Europe, determined to impose Shariah law through incremental steps and accommodating legislation, and as the European left mounts little significant resistance to these encroachments and even enacts policies abetting the Islamic incursion into the body social, the resentment animating large segments of the European public is bound to be exploited by extremist groups and individuals. The consequence should have been entirely predictable. In failing to meet the threat of cultural subversion, the European left has facilitated the emergence of the illiberal and xenophobic branch of the far right. For as violence begins to move in from the car-burning and no-go Muslim enclaves in the margins toward the city center, as Shariah courts begin to pepper the landscape, as in the U.K., as Muslim immigrants continue to swell the welfare rolls, as rape statistics skyrocket and honor killings multiply, and as the authorities prove themselves increasingly helpless and vacillating - or even worse, as colluding - the reactionary and militant right will earn more and more legitimacy among the masses. The anemic lack of both fortitude and foresight among the political classes can only energize the factions of militant, far-right extremism.

The same applies to the Islamophilic and ever-compliant media, operating in tandem with a complacent political establishment. Their reluctance to honestly analyze the explosive matrix of a worsening situation, heaping the blame on straw men like the Christian right or conservative political figures rather than isolating the real cause of their distress, namely, the leftist collaboration with a clamorous Islamic demographic gradually infiltrating our democratic nations...

Multiculturalism has not led to harmonious diversity, as once naively assumed, but to acerbic polarization. The multicultural bromides and immigration policies currently in place will need to be rethought and rendered more appropriate to the nation's requirements.
So far, so good. Mr. Solway brings some much-needed clarity to the question of "from whence did Breivik come?", answering back that it is secular humanism's own policies that helped birthed Breivik's murderous rampage.*** But how do these policies need to be rethought and rendered more appropriate? Easier said than done, I suspect. Mr. Solway again:
[W]e will have to espouse the conservative tradition of the moderate right, based on the liberty of the individual, the rejection of violence, the duties of responsible citizenship, and a coherent pluralism that respects the customs of the majority culture rather than a fractious multiculturalism that corrodes them.
This is where things get tricky. For it is a truism that permissive liberalism--as opposed to the highly illiberal politics promulgated by those who go by the moniker "liberal" in contemporary society--is flatly unable to oppose competing aggressive and hostile ideologies precisely because it does value tolerance and pluralism. Unable to defend itself against assault, true liberalism always cedes ground, for each culture and/or ideology is equal, has a "right" to exist, one culture / ideology has just as much value as another. It cannot pass judgement on another culture or ideology, it cannot say "you've gone too far", for there is no objective reference from which to base these sorts of judgements. This is the trap that the American (and apparently, Canadian) liberal right is presently caught values freedom, and because it is liberal, it also values tolerance and peaceful coexistence, even when peaceful coexistence has proven to be impossible when faced with the hardwired hind-brain tribal instincts of humanity. Especially when said instincts are goaded by the sort of class- or group-based animus characteristic of Gramscian Marxism, the operating philosophy of a quite illiberal secular humanist theology. Such philosophies work in direct contravention of tolerance, as they encourage in-group identification and loyalty as well as competition and distrust, even "Otherization", of out-groups.

So liberalism is failing, abandoned by the very ones who claim to carry its banner. What I find interesting is that the cultural Marxist, secular humanist Left, with its animus toward Christianity and its counterproductive hatred of the national identity of white/European peoples, leaves the Left ill-prepared to oppose a much more hostile and chauvinistic culture that refuses to assimilate. Namely, Islam. Worse for themselves and their post-Christian host culture, their approach to "creeping Islamization" has been to further silence voices on the right that wish to preserve Euro culture (and by extension, and somewhat ironically, the very accommodating culture that permits secular humanism to exist in the first place****). In many ways, the secular humanist Left is a lot like Saddam Hussein in Gulf War II...more afraid of an overblown internal threat from a largely neutered Right than the much larger and more dangerous existential external threat posed by Islamic culture and Islamic jurisprudence.

Mr. Solway is correct. The Euro left did set and enforce the conditions that gave birth to Breivik's outrage, even as the Euro Left tries desperately to pin blame for his crime on the Euro Right. But I think his prescription for how right-thinking societies can avoid further Breiviks will fall short, for reasons that any programme based on tolerant and pluralist liberalism will fail to hold the center. I see three paths ahead for Norway and the West, none include the status quo. One, illiberal leftism. Two: illiberal rightism. Three: Islamicisation. All involve an abandonment of large-L Liberalism as the vacuum of belief and values is filled by the religion of secular humanism/paganism, Christianity, or Islam, respectively. For it is the habit of Man to believe in something, anything, and the thin cultural gruel proffered by Liberals is unsatisfying.

* "Right wing" in Europe is code for "fascist" or "Nazi". In Europe, the two poles of the political spectrum are delimited by the flavor of the large, oppressive government one supports. The Left likes big government and generally dislikes nationalism and nativism in favor of race- and sex-based Marxism. The European Right, on the other hand, likes big government and prefers to meld this penchance for big government with a strong nationalist/nativist/tribal streak. Ergo, accusations of 'fascism' levelled at right-wingers in Europe ring at least partially true. In American, the Left is much like the European Left, whereas the Right generally deplores the use of government to achieve its ends and generally lacks a strong nationalist/nativist streak. At least for now.

** Sorry, Breivik was not a Christian and even said so himself with his denial that he had a personal relationship with Christ. What he did want to do was propagate the cultural residue that Christianity left behind after it was extirpated from European life by the moderns, he saw this as being under siege by the cultural Marxists.

*** So why a day camp for adolescent children of Labour party members? They were the seed of those he saw as responsible for destroying his country, his people, and his culture. Yes, they were fellow Norweigans and not the Moslem horde he despised so much, but they were the children of those he saw as responsible. Not condoning what he did, mind you, just speculating as to reasons why.

**** Like a parasite that kills its host, does secular humanism destroy the Liberalism that gave birth to it. I do not think secular humanism is much compatible with Islamic jurisprudence that knows no separation of mosque and state, and the secular humanists cum pagans that take Liberalism for granted are in for a rude surprise.

Monday, August 1, 2011

C4M 2.0 on Fox News

Mr. Ablow, a psychologist and Fox columnist, laments that men don't have a vote in whether their offspring escape the uterus alive--and suggests that men should be able to say "no" to an abortion:
I believe that in those cases in which a man can make a credible claim that he is the father of a developing child in utero, in which he could be a proper custodian of that child, and in which he is willing to take full custody of that child upon its delivery, that the pregnant woman involved should not have the option to abort and should be civilly liable, and possibly criminally liable, for psychological suffering and wrongful death should she proceed to do so.
Whoa! What's this? This is way more than C4M, which seeks to grant men the right to end their  responsibilities to a child in a similar fashion to a woman's right to unilaterally end a fetus' life. Instead, Mr. Ablow is suggesting that women be required to carry a child to term if the man who sired that child wants to father it. Pretty radical, man. And if C4M went down in flames, I don't see this going anywhere for a while either, but it is interesting that it isn't just MRAs anymore who are remarking upon the gross violation of large-L Liberal principles when it comes to the condition of men in our post-Christian, post-Victorian, secular humanist society.

Mr. Ablow continues by inveighing against the social narrative suggested by such a sorry state of current affairs:
We are ignoring the quiet message that current abortion policy conveys to every American male: You have no voice in, and, therefore, no responsibility for, the pregnancies which you help to create. Your descendants are disposable, at the whim of the women you choose to be intimate with.

[Fathers' lack of a veto] over abortions is connected psychologically to the epidemic of absentee fathers in this country. We can't, on the one hand, be credible in bemoaning the number of single mothers raising their children, while, on the other hand, giving men the clear message that bringing new lives to the planet is the exclusive domain, and under the exclusive control, of women.

Whether stated or not, the underlying message of withholding from men their proper rights to father the children they create is that they are not proper custodians, nor properly responsible, for their children.
The choice mommy debate in our society is a curious one, one that seems to speak out of both sides of its mouth while coherently attacking the one institution that renders the debate moot: fatherhood. Here's what I mean: on one hand, the traditionalists rightly bemoan the hordes of choice mommies out there, intuiting as they do--and the data backs their sense of propriety--that children fare much better when they have the social investment both mother and father. However, heir cultural blinders still exclusively blame men for broken homes, and they shame the father for abandoning his woman and her brood in such a state of vulnerability.

The feminists/secularists, for their part, celebrate the exclusive control that choice motherhood grants to Women, Inc., yet recognize that a woman on her own often lacks the resources (time, energy, money) to successfully matriculate her children. Such excess resources generally reside with men.  As a result, they covet the resources of men and seek ways to separate a man from his resources in such a way as to be able to lay claim to the fruits of his labor, all while discarding the man.  Again we see a heavy dollop of shame for putatively shirking his financial responsibilities to the abandoned woman and her brood in their state of vulnerability.

Thus, via shame, men are attacked from both the left and the right flanks; fathers, thus enveloped in a social-policy Cannae, are overrun. They are stripped of any say in the fate of their offspring (yielding their left flank to feminists), yet held to be responsible for their offspring and their offpring's mother (yielding their right flank to trads).   Both sides profit from the wholesale cashiering of men for the financial benefit of women and the family law industry.

Mr. Ablow was wise to side-step the usual arguments about abortion in this opinion piece (e.g., the farcical and patently untrue "my body, my choice" pap) and shoot straight up to the larger-meta narrative...the message sent by our culture that awards women, whether or not they are mature or competent enough to make such a decision, the choice of life or death for the fetus (literally) and the fetus' father (figuratively). And that meta-narrative screams loud and clear: a fellow's child is disposable, and he himself is essentially a bystander. Except for when the bill for little Johnny is due. Little wonder then that there are so many sperm donors, deadbeat dads, baby mamas, and child support dramas...for that is what our culture seems to say it wants. Were it to want a different outcome, say, men invested in their children and women's choices tempered with responsibility, the narrative would be different.

Then right at the very end of his article, Mr. Ablow pre-emptively deflates the abortionists predictable counter-argument that--horrors--if men were given an abortion veto, women could be "forced to take an unwanted child to term"
I am absolutely certain that no woman needs to become pregnant who wishes not to become pregnant. Women taking full responsibility for their sexual activity and their bodies would mean that no woman would face the prospect of being compelled to bring a child to term.
Wow. Body slam from the top turnbuckle. How dare he turn the "responsibility" yoke around like that, and suggest that responsible behavior on the part of women negates the need for an abortion in the first place?

All told, a fairly radical piece to appear in such a putatively mainstream news outlet like Fox.