Europe’s cultural suicide

I have written many times about the ongoing demographic collapse of Europe – namely, the fact that the native populations of the various European countries seem to be uninterested in reproducing themselves.

As the native populations are slowly replaced by immigrant populations, the native culture of the various countries is also slowly being diluted – more so by the natives than by the immigrants.  The process is slow and sporadic enough that most people don’t see it.   It’s there, however, for anyone able and willing to step back and look at the broader currents of events.

Two seemingly minor, disparate recent occurrences serve to illustrate the culture shift.

First, from The Telegraph (UK), May 2:

The European Commission has apologised for printing more than three million school diaries containing no reference to Easter or Christmas.

The diaries - 330,000 of which were delivered to UK schools - note Sikh, Hindu, Muslim and Chinese festivals, as well as highlighting ''Europe Day'' which falls on May 9.

But the lack of any acknowledgement of Easter, Christmas or any other Christian holiday angered church leaders and politicians.

Earlier this year a Commission official admitted the omission was a ''blunder''.

A “blunder”, yes – but one that would have been unthinkable a generation ago.

Next, from The Daily Mail (UK), May 9 (emphasis added):

Rules to prevent religious discrimination can now also be used to protect a belief in the BBC’s ethos of public service broadcasting, a tribunal has ruled.

Its extraordinary decision elevates the BBC’s core principle to a place in the law equivalent to Christianity.

And the move leaves the way clear for long-serving employee Devan Maistry to sue the Corporation for wrongful dismissal.

South African-born Mr Maistry, who worked for the BBC Asian Network, says he suffered discrimination for six years until he was dismissed last year.

He has filed a claim for ‘religious or belief discrimination’, which allegedly took place against his philosophical view that ‘public service broadcasting has the higher purpose of promoting cultural interchange and social cohesion’.

Birmingham employment tribunal chairman Pam Hughes decided Mr Maistry has a worthy case, and gave him the right to a full hearing later this year.

In doing so, the tribunal chairman established the principle that Mr Maistry’s love of public service broadcasting amounted to a belief which should have the same protection from discrimination that the law gives to followers of religious faiths.

It seems clear to me that the religious shift in Europe is toward secular fundamentalism – the aggressive undermining of traditional religious belief of any kind.  We can see this in both of the above stories.

In the first story, Christianity loses its privileged place in Europe’s cultural history through a “blunder” communicating that Christianity is so irrelevant to the ruling elites, nobody noticed it was missing.

In the second story (read the entire article for more examples), all religions are consigned to irrelevance through the principle espoused by the villain in the movie The Incredibles: “Everyone can be super! And when everyone's super, no-one will be.”

In the end, the joke will be on the secular fundamentalists.  Once the destruction of Europe’s native culture has reached a certain point, do they really think their secularist utopia will be realized? 

Hardly.  The immigrant populations that are filling the void left by the demographic decline of the native populations will eventually also fill the cultural void, whether the secularists like it or not.

Are we or are we not still in a housing recession? (Haiku News)

MSNBC reports May 9 on the ongoing collapse in home prices:

"Home value declines are currently equal to those we experienced during the darkest days of the housing recession. With accelerating declines during the first quarter, it is unreasonable to expect home values to return to stability by the end of 2011," [real estate data firm] Zillow chief economist Stan Humphries said in a statement.

To which I reply, using haiku*:

Why use the past tense
for the housing recession
if nothing has changed??

 

* Why haiku? Why not? Among other things, I am drawn to the (occasional) challenge of condensing my thoughts into just a few words when the topic allows.  Yes, others came up with the idea first, but I may still give it a try.  I’ll even insist on conforming to the 5-7-5 format that real haiku poets sneer at.  Okay, I confess – really all I’m doing is forcing my commentary into exactly 17 syllables!  Deal with it.

PC police raid Pooh's Corner

A Florida State University sociologist frets that children's literature is insufficiently diverse, as Fox News reports May 6:

A comprehensive study of traditional children’s book characters has determined that Pooh Corner may be rife with gender inequality.

Dr. Janice McCabe, a sociologist at Florida State University, examined nearly 6,000 children’s books between 1900 and 2000 and determined the stories have a definitive gender bias and a disproportionate representation of genders.

“We found that males are represented more frequently than females in the titles and the central characters in the book,” McCabe told Fox News Radio.

[...] “I had kind of expected that books would start off in 1900 being unequal and become more equal over time,” she said. 

“We were surprised by the historical patterns and by the animals. The fact that the animals were the most unequal and even in the 1990s there were still two male animals to every one female animal.” 

I'm wondering... are there any barriers to women in general, or feminists in particular, getting their children's stories published?  I'm not aware of any. What's stopping them?

So, what's the real problem here?  Obviously the parents are the problem:

“A lot of times this is invisible to people,” she said, encouraging parents to pay attention to gender when selecting books and reading material for their children. “I’m not saying they shouldn’t read books about men and boys,” she said. “Instead, just think about the gender of particular books and be aware of it.” 

Apparently, Mom (who typically makes the purchase decisions regarding children's books) and Dad are still trapped in the roles defined for them by our oppressive patriarchal culture, and are thus blind to the injustice of the status quo.

Hey, let's try a wacky little experiment: If children's book writers publish a bunch of "gender-balanced" books that are enjoyable and don't have an obvious agenda, maybe the public will reward them by buying the books.

I wonder why Dr. McCabe didn't think of this?

Quick Quote: James Madison on the evil of public debt

I regret, as much as any member, the unavoidable weight and duration of the burdens to be imposed; having never been a proselyte to the doctrine, that public debts are public benefits. I consider them, on the contrary, as evils which ought to be removed as fast as honor and justice will permit, and shall heartily join in the means necessary for that purpose.

– James Madison, Debates in the House of Representatives on the First Report on Public Credit, February 11, 1790; “Liberty and Order: The First American Party Struggle," edited and with a Preface by Lance Banning (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2004), Part II: The Leadership Divides

(via The Federalist Papers (Facebook))

C-Pol: One of the best blogs you’ve never read

I was surprised and pleased to see C-Pol listed by NewsReal Blog’s Walter Hudson as one of “The Top 10 Tea Party Bloggers You Need to Read”.  Due to my sporadic posting frequency, the daily visit count for C-Pol isn’t all that high, so you can be sure I noticed the spike that came from Hudson’s post.

Hudson gave the following explanation for the inclusion of the ten blogs in his list:

Among the grassroots movement, many voices have emerged to articulate a philosophy of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets. We’ve scoured the net to bring you some of the best bloggers championing that message. We sought to bring to light writers whose work deserves more attention than they currently receive. We wanted to introduce you to voices you may not have heard of before and will be glad to know. These aren’t folks who necessarily identify as Tea Partiers, but who boldly articulate the philosophy which drives the movement. Here are the top 10 Tea Party bloggers you need to read.

I’m glad that he used this standard, because there are a lot of folks out there who, like me, champion the constitutionalist philosophy but haven’t hitched their wagon to the TEA party movement.

I attended one TEA party rally in my hometown at the movement’s genesis in 2009, but since then my activism has been expressed at the ballot box and through online advocacy of constitutional government.

On C-Pol, I usually like to go beyond the daily rough-and-tumble of politics to look at the big ideas that are driving said politics.  Because of that, my posts are less frequent than you would see with a blog that  focuses on the news of the day.

The subtitle of my blog is: “Documenting the twilight years of the American republic”.  That sounds awfully pessimistic, doesn’t it? 

Given my goal of focusing on the broader currents of contemporary events and cultural trends, and given my understanding of human nature, I believe our civilization has crossed some bridges that have since crumbled behind us. 

Our opportunities to turn back the tide of statism and tyranny are rapidly dwindling, and it seems that overall, the American people are not even aware of what is slipping away.  I believe very strongly that Barack Obama has provided us with one of our last chances to elect leaders who have the political will to  roll back a century of progressive/socialist rot.

I also believe, perhaps less strongly, that the advocates of constitutional government probably won’t be able to agree on a standardbearer in the 2012 presidential primaries (seriously -- is there anybody who isn’t planning to run?), and that the establishment will likely get its favorite by default.

Thus, I am pessimistic about our country’s future, but not fatalistically so.  As long as I am able to resist the forces that are destroying our country and its culture, I will continue to do so.  My favorite communication medium is the written word, so this blog serves as my ideal outlet.

If you think that C-Pol is a worthwhile contribution to the war of ideas, please let me know in some way.  You can rate this post, you can leave a comment, you can become a Follower.  Thanks for your support!

Just one reason why Ron Paul should not be the GOP nominee in 2012

Rep. Ron Paul, libertarian Texas congressman, perennial GOP presidential candidate and opponent of 99.7% of U.S. foreign policy, has finally given his reaction to the death of Osama bin Laden.  As reported May 3 in The Hill:

Paul, a long-time skeptic of American interventionism, said that "like all other Americans, I'm glad he's gone," but raised multiple questions about the costs associated with the 10-year manhunt for the al Qaeda leader behind the 9/11 attacks.

"If we got him, I guess it's time to come home as far as I'm concerned," he said during an interview with Fox Business network.

Engaging straw men is easier than engaging the truth, I suppose.  Does he think the War on Terror was merely a global manhunt for OBL?  No, of course not, but Paul will latch on to any reason he can find, rational or not, to bring the troops home.

Al Qaeda will continue to function without its symbolic leader.  So will terror organizations not related to Al Qaeda.  Most if not all of them remain committed to our destruction.

Paul is ideologically antiwar, so no logic will persuade him that it makes sense to continue our campaign to destroy our enemies’ ability (or will) to make war against us.

The world is a very dangerous place.  It would be immeasurably more dangerous with Ron Paul in the White House.

Fake MLK quote is born in the wake of Osama bin Laden's demise

In the day and a half since terror boss Osama bin Laden was dispatched with extreme prejudice by American assets, I have seen the following quote appear countless times in my Facebook newsfeed:

I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

The quote is attributed to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

As it turns out, it's not all MLK.  Everything but the first sentence comes from King's 1963 book, Strength to Love.

The first sentence actually started out as a comment presented with the remaining quote in someone's Facebook status update.  For some reason, people who copied and pasted this person's status moved the opening quotation mark to include the comment.  Here's the original (click image to view larger version):

The extra sentence is a great sentiment, and one with which I am sure MLK would agree.  ("Fake but accurate", as newsman Dan Rather said in another context.)

Due to the tireless efforts of well-meaning people, future generations will swear up and down that MLK actually said it.

(Via: St Eutychus)

Further evidence that Obama is becoming a dictator!

I missed it on CNN, but this ad I saw on a website makes it clear: President Obama is personally setting mortgage rates now!

It's on the internet, so it must be true.

Seriously, though: This advertiser seems to think that the cult of Obama is a powerful draw.

Donald Trump is no friend of the Constitution

Donald Trump has been receiving Strange New Respect in many corners of the conservative movement, largely because he has proven himself adept at forcing a lot of relevant issues through the media barricades.

BUT… the fact that he can put Obama and the rest of the Left on the defensive does not mean he is worthy of the GOP presidential nomination in 2012. 

He has plenty of business sense, but he appears to be seriously lacking in Constitutional sense.  Michelle Malkin gives an egregious example in her April 22 essay:

Too many mega-developers like Trump have achieved success by using and abusing the government's ability to commandeer private property for purported "public use." Invoking the Fifth Amendment takings clause, real estate moguls, parking garage builders, mall developers and sports palace architects have colluded with elected officials to pull off legalized theft in the name of reducing "blight." Under eminent domain, the definition of "public purpose" has been stretched like Silly Putty to cover everything from roads and bridges to high-end retail stores, baseball stadiums and casinos.

While casting himself as America's new constitutional savior, Trump has shown reckless disregard for fundamental private property rights.

In the early years of this blog, I posted often about cities that seize private property through eminent domain proceedings, only to turn the property over to private developers who promised more money for the tax coffers than the previous owner brought in (this tax revenue increase was the “public use” justification!).  The practice, even though it was upheld by the Supremes in the Kelo decision, is manifestly contrary to what the authors of the 5th Amendment ‘takings’ clause intended.

Trump, apparently, has no respect for the private property rights of those who stand in the way of his business interests.  And we should support him because…?

It’s becoming increasingly likely that conservatives will not like the 2012 GOP presidential nominee

Why?  Because, it seems, every politician with any kind of conservative following, hoping to harness the anti-Obama sentiment, will end up tossing their hats into the ring.

The latest to come to my attention is Roy Moore.  Moore gained fame (or notoriety, depending on one’s perspective) in 2003 – eight years ago – as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court when he defiantly placed a Ten Commandments monument outside the state’s courthouse.

He went on to parlay his fame into two unsuccessful bids for the Alabama GOP gubernatorial nomination.

His chance of gaining the GOP presidential nomination next year barely registers on the scale, but he does have his loyal fans among conservatives.

Now, as conservatives start to rally around an increasing number of flags, we’re increasing the likelihood that whatever candidate the establishment settles on will cruise to the nomination with the support of a ridiculously small plurality of GOP voter support.

Again.

Many conservatives recognize the problem, but the solution usually proffered is: “All conservatives should unite behind my favorite candidate!  Problem solved!”

To which other conservatives reply: “In your dreams!’

And so, as the rhetorical brawling goes on and on, our country slides ever deeper into the abyss.

There’s simply no way to spin the budget deal as a victory for fiscal sanity

Politics is the art of the possible. -- Otto von Bismarck

Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

If $38 billion out of a $1.5 trillion budget shortfall is all that was possible, we’re done for.

If the United Nations had existed in the 1860s…

Imagine, if you will, that the United Nations existed in the 1860s. 

Upon receiving news of Sherman’s March to the Sea, it would not be farfetched to presume that the leading power of the day, Great Britain, would have assembled a coalition of the willing and, armed with the appropriate UN resolutions, intervened on behalf of the Confederacy*.

By the rules of “humanitarian intervention” under which we apparently operate today, it doesn’t matter whether or not Lincoln had any legitimate interest in keeping the union together** – the actions of his generals would have brought upon the north the wrath of the nations.

Just saying.

* Just like today, the nation leading the coalition would have had its personal reasons for wanting to deal some serious hurt to the offending government.  So then, as today, one wonders if the motivation for the intervention would have been completely altruistic.
 
** I have my own opinions on this, but they are not germane to this post.

In Libya, it may be that the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy – but the Obama administration has no clue one way or the other

Yesterday, Byron York wrote about the staggering incoherence of the decision process that led to our “kinetic military action” in Libya:

Admiral James Stavridis, commander of NATO and overall chief of U.S. and coalition forces in the Libyan war, says American intelligence agents are "examining very closely" the rebel forces for whom U.S. forces have gone to war.  So far, Stavridis says, the U.S. has discovered "flickers" of the presence of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, although Stavridis calls the opposition leadership "responsible."

[…]

Stavridis' testimony raises two questions.  One is the extent of al Qaeda and other terrorist presence; what is a flicker?  The second question is why the United States did not complete its "due diligence" before, and not after, going to war. "I don't say this critically of you, because you didn't make this decision," Inhofe said to Stavridis, "but wouldn't that have been a good idea to find out before we took the steps we are taking?"

Why are we in Libya right now?  Who are these rebels that we’re assisting?  Do we really know enough about the “opposition leadership” to conclude that they’re “responsible”?  Does the Obama administration really care if they are?  When is the last time that the U.S. took sides in a civil war, knowing little or nothing about the side we supported?

Senator Biden thinks President Obama should be impeached for going to war against Libya

Senator Joe Biden, campaigning for president in 2007, does not mince his words* regarding a president’s constitutional war powers.  He is absolutely unwavering in his insistence that if a president goes to war with a country in the absence of an imminent threat to the US – even worse, without congressional approval – this is an impeachable offense:

* (Although, it could be said that he never minces his words regarding anything.  It’s quite entertaining sometimes.)

Senator Obama opposes President Obama’s use of force in Libya

In a December 2007 interview with the Boston Globe, candidate Obama had this to say about presidents who send our military to war without first consulting Congress:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.