Tuesday, January 29, 2019

The Progressive Race to the Bottom


By Victor Davis Hanson
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/progressive-politics-abolish-ice-tax-increases-free-college/
January 29, 2019

Related image

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar
The old Democratic party championed the working classes, wanted secure borders to protect middle-class union wage earners, and focused generous federal entitlement help on the citizen poor. Civil rights were defined as equality of opportunity for all.
That party is long dead. An updated Hubert Humphrey or even Bill Clinton would not recognize any of the present “Democrats.”
Even the old wing of elite liberals is mostly long gone, with its talk of legal immigration only, opposition to censorship, pro-Israel foreign policy, let-it-hang-out Sixties indulgence, and free speech.
It was superseded by grim progressives who are not so much interested in a square, new, or fair deal for the middle classes, as an entirely different deal that redefines everything from the Bill of Rights and the very way we elect presidents and senators to an embrace of identity politics as its first principle.
Indeed, we are currently witnessing a quite strange series of North Korean–like reeducation confessionals, from repenting erstwhile liberals and now presidential hopefuls such as Joe Biden, Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, and Kirsten Gillibrand. They and other would-be candidates parade before show cameras to apologize for their prior incorrect heresies, including their erstwhile support for drug laws, tough sentencing, and border enforcement.
The subtext of these charades is that 28-year-old socialist Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (who won her Democratic primary with 15,897 votes and with that victory an assured congressional seat in a gerrymandered Democratic district) is the new Robespierre — warning that the earth as we know it will end in twelve years, ICE must be disbanded, all student debt abolished, wealth taxes levied, and Medicare provided for all. And her political guillotine awaits any progressive with lingering stains of the Ancien RĂ©gime.
Presidential elections are now to be seen by the Left not as the end of a four-year political cycle. Instead, they are the beginning of an any-means-necessary, existential effort to reverse the proverbial will of the people and to remove or delegitimize the president. From now on, if the Left loses, then everything is in theory on the table: seeking removal of the victor by warping the Electoral College vote; or suing under the Logan Act, the emoluments clause, or the 25th Amendment; or cherry-picking federal judges to block presidential orders; or using the Congress to impeach the president; or unleashing a special counsel for years of investigation.
In other words, we are in a revolutionary cycle in which the old idea of Democrat or liberal is being superseded by progressivism — and then going well beyond even that. The new generation of Democrats no longer resents “socialist” as a right-wing slur, and “Communist” may well go through the same rehabilitation.
The new, new Left questions not the operation of American democracy but the very premise of American democracy. When the selection of the Senate leads to something abhorrent like a counterrevolutionary majority, then the Founders are proven wrong after all, and senators should not be apportioned two to a state but by population at large. The Electoral College should be ended entirely, to reflect the reality that America is the urbanized corridors of the East and West Coasts where the right people live. The Bill of Rights, especially the First and Second Amendments, is considered an impediment to social justice.
What explains this accelerating transformation of so many liberals into progressives, and so many progressives into hard-core leftists, socialists, and who knows what next? The reasons predated Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Money, lots of it, matters.
The left-wing approach to billionaires has radically changed. Aside from the rhetorical boilerplate about robber barons and the need for an income-tax rate of 70 percent, in reality the hard Left has partnered with the nation’s richest. The new big fortunes of America are now mostly in high-tech, media, and finance, not in the old conservative and muscular corporations centered in farming, manufacturing, or oil and minerals. And the new zillionaires are left-wing, and they are activist: Bezos, Bloomberg, Buffett, Gates, Zuckerberg, the Google and Apple teams, Soros, Steyer, and a host of others. Through grants, foundations, purchased media, and super PACs, astronomical amounts of money flow into federal, state, and even local midterm election campaigns, and into voter harvesting and issues from global warming and late-term abortion to open borders, gun control, and identity politics. The 2018 midterms were a mere precursor of things to come.
The new mega-wealthy envision an America in a way that satisfies identity politics while exempting their own monopolies, trusts, and billion-dollar fortunes from the ramifications of their own ideology. Unencumbered by personal consequences, they pursue boutique agendas — sort of like a few of the White Russian aristocrats who hoped to continue on by subsidizing and supporting the Bolsheviks, or the Jacobin bigwigs of the French Revolution who thought they could guide the deserving rich people into the national razor. In such a bizarro world, there is nothing wrong with tech employees forced to sleep in their cars near Silicon Valley monopolies -— as long as the owners wear T-shirts and flip-flops and rail at Trump in internal memos.
The media are not just becoming left-wing (they’ve always has been); they’re no longer even a news-gathering operation. Reporting is synonymous with editorializing. Fake news — whether the latest BuzzFeed myth or the Covington charade — is simply a word for thirtysomethings who believe that they have a duty to promote race, class, and gender agendas that they were spoon-fed in college. They too often define accuracy as the higher Truth that transcends the fossilized idea of truth predicated on obsolete ideas such as evidence, facts, and empiricism.
In terms of electronic media, the way the news is delivered through Twitter, Facebook, and Google is itself massaged to censor, aggravate, and impede conservatives and conservative thought. Orwellian selective censorship, the warping of Internet searches, and the banning of political opponents insidiously magnify progressive influence, and to such a degree that leftists are now the biggest defenders of monopolies and trusts, given the power that accrues from them to progressive causes.
We are also reaping the fruits of the new university run by hard-core leftists who have indoctrinated a generation with progressive envy and anger, while offering them little education. The resulting ignorance and arrogance make a lethal combination. Professors now in their late sixties can remember old-fashioned liberals of the 1970s and 1980s whose politics were incidental to their professional expertise, but there is now almost no one left in the academy who recalls such dinosaurs.
Instead, after the early 1980s, now-tenured progressives sought to produce leftists who took over and produced socialists. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a valuable reminder of how university education results in self-importance coupled with witlessness.
The Obama presidency also proved a watershed. It convinced Democrats that a leftist could win and move the nation radically leftward (“fundamentally transforming the nation”) by executive orders, court decisions handed down by activist judges, and the force of popular culture. In a mere eight years, formerly debatable issues such as gay marriage, planet-threatening global warming, and transgenderism in the military became boilerplate requisites of Democratic politics. Obama moved the goal posts far to the left, to such a degree that leftists today now consider the left-wing Obamas almost quaint.
The new socialism is also attributable to ten years of anemic annual economic growth below 3 percent, massive student debt, open borders, changing demography, and radical new approaches to marriage and home ownership that have radicalized the younger electorate.
Young people have the patina of affluence, with an array of electronic appurtenances and lifestyle choices, but not so much else when it comes to finding good jobs, affordable homes, and freedom from debt — especially tragic when so many got so little from the university in exchange for their borrowed money.
As a result, millions of young people have redefined adulthood as prolonged adolescence in “Life of Julia” and “Pajama Boy” style. Urban hipsters, hook-up culture, childlessness, and studio apartments have replaced the traditions of marriage, child-rearing, and home ownership before 30. Among today’s youth, one’s twenties are consumed with student debt and urban sybarite singleness, not changing diapers and patching the roof or refinishing the kitchen table.
Republicanism itself has so often failed to offer a viable economic and culture alternative, as well as a muscular and combative defense of traditional American values and tradition — at a time when globalism rewarded winners and punished losers. At the national level, the top echelons of the Republican party reiterated country-club shibboleths like “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” and marginalized social conservatives and populists as near rubes who objected to the gospel of creative destruction.
Republicanism at the presidential level was caricatured as a silk-stocking, country-club cutout of the 1950s, even as its expanding base at the local and state level was working-class. But even more important, solid presidential candidates such as John McCain and Mitt Romney campaigned as Marquess of Queensberry Republicans, as if they would rather lose nobly than win ugly. And so they did just that — lose — whether by McCain’s ruling out reference to the virulent anti-Semite and racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s inspiration personal pastor, or by Mitt Romney’s allowing moderator Candy Crawley to hijack the second presidential debate and hand it to Obama.
Such laxity was not seen as magnanimity to be reciprocated, but rather as weakness deserving of contempt by the many voters who have no ideology other than wishing to be cool and on the winning side. Progressives brilliantly exploited the idea that a Republican blue blood would say or do almost anything — or sometimes say or do almost nothing — to avoid being libeled as a racist, sexist, homophobe, nativist, or xenophobe.

Mushy Republicanism also did its part in giving us the present-day hard Left and the likes of new congressional representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, who apparently believe that anti-Semitism and racist demagoguery have lots of upsides and no real negative consequences. In the Covington farce, all too many conservatives jumped the gun to establish their liberal fides, perhaps out of fear that they’d otherwise be tagged by the Left as abettors of “white privilege.”
The bad news is that conservatives will likely increasingly be outnumbered, outspent, and out-organized unless they are shocked out of their somnolence. The quasi-good news is that the hard Left is unapologetic that it is the hard Left, not just bankrupt in its ideology in a world where socialism has demonstrably wrecked entire countries, but also predictably hypocritical and cynical, given that leftists are now really the party of the rich — and without much empathy for the deplorable and irredeemable middle classes.
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON — NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won.

Against Trump: Three Years Later

January 28, 2019
Image result for national review against trump
(Breitbart)
Three years ago this month, National Review published its controversial and now infamous entreaty, “Against Trump.” The issue was singularly devoted to making a case against Donald Trump’s then surging primary candidacy; it featured a roster of notable conservative influencers explaining why the brash Manhattan billionaire posed a dire threat to conservatism.
Exactly three years later, the magazine’s online version issued an apology for its early condemnation of Covington Catholic High School students, who, while attending the March for Life in Washington D.C., became the innocent victims of a social media ambush orchestrated and executed by the Left. Some conservative commentators who had contributed to the “Against Trump” issue quietly deleted their tweets criticizing the teens, without apology.
The irony surrounding the coincidence of the dates of those two circumstances might be considered either karma, comeuppance, or both. And it once again highlighted why Donald Trump is in the White House and Jeb Bush isn’t, and why Trump—and none of the self-proclaimed conservatives who opined in the pages of National Review three years ago—now is considered the standard bearer of American conservatism. When the Left attacks, the Right caves.
When Christian teenagers attending an event to support a cause that represents the heart of the conservative movement needed immediate and unflinching protection from a leftist mob, the self-appointed guardians of conservatism failed. Their mockery of “He Fights!” only exposes how they will not—or when they do fight they often pick the wrong battles, and how they find the whole business of political warfare beneath them—unless, of course, they can punch down at a target on their own side.
Don’t take my word for it. Here is a direct quote from that “Against Trump” issue: “[Trump’s] obsession is with ‘winning,’ regardless of the means—a spirit that is anathema to the ordered liberty that conservatives hold dear and that depends for its preservation on limits on government power.”
Still Clueless After All These Years
If anti-Trump conservatives have proven anything over the past three years, it is that they still have no clue how to prevail over the Left. With few exceptions, most notably the Brett Kavanaugh debacle (but with caveats even there), NeverTrumpers have sided with the Left. Many have fully abandoned their alleged fidelity to principles—limited government in particular—in order to cripple a president who conservatives voters elected in spite of their lofty commands to drop him.
Further, they still have no alternative to what they derisively call Trumpism.
“Trump nevertheless offers a valuable warning for the Republican Party. If responsible men irresponsibly ignore an issue as important as immigration, it will be taken up by the reckless,” the NR editors wrote in January 2016. “If they cannot advance a compelling working-class agenda, the legitimate anxieties and discontents of blue-collar voters will be exploited by demagogues. We sympathize with many of the complaints of Trump supporters about the GOP, but that doesn’t make the mogul any less flawed a vessel for them.”
So, three years later, what is the status of American conservatism, to the extent that it exists at all? Where is the working-class agenda they promised back in 2016? What’s their plan to mitigate pervasive anxieties about illegal immigration, permanent job losses, lousy trade pacts, and foreign intervention? And one year away from the Iowa caucuses, who will the Trump foes on the Right support for president?
Neoconservatism on the Ropes
To be fair, there was legitimate criticism of Trump in the “Against Trump” issue. Trump had given few reasons to believe he actually would govern as a conservative considering that many of his past positions were liberal and that he had been a reliable Democratic donor for years. Concerns about his ego and style were justified; his lack of expertise in foreign affairs and domestic policy warranted alarm. Since Trump’s election, some of the original critics have become fair-minded observers, even outright supporters, of the president. This includes NR’s editor Rich Lowry, who has challenged the “delusion” of the remaining, anti-Trump outliers.
But their initial warnings that Trump would defile conservatism and destroy the Republican Party were deeply amiss. To the contrary, it is NeverTrump that has suffered the most casualties over the past three years. The biggest fatality in the Trump era is neoconservatism, an ideology that stood in stark contrast to Trump’s far more broadly popular patriotism.
Several leading neocons contributed to the “Against Trump” issue, including Bill Kristol and John Podhoretz, whose fathers essentially founded neoconservatism. Far from adhering to conservative, or even neoconservative, principles, Kristol claimed to have found his “inner socialist” and “inner feminist” during Trump’s presidency, and has backed an authoritarian abuse of federal power in the form of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into fictional Trump-Russia election collusion. Kristol’s anti-Trump endeavors are not funded by the kind of conservatives who funded his previous work, but by a billionaire leftist and sworn enemy of the president.
Image result for kristol weekly standard
In December, The Weekly Standard, the magazine Kristol co-founded that served as the organ for neoconservatism for more than two decades, was shuttered by its owner. Its writers and editors took refuge in a new outlet that makes no mention of neoconservatism. Commentary editor John Podhoretz—who compared Trump to vulgarians such as Andrew Dice Clay and Howard Stern in his “Against Trump” appeal—just deactivated his Twitter account after posting an anti-gay slur that mocked prison rape. (For what its worth, Podhoretz’s father, Norman Podhoretz, is a Trump supporter.)
Forward! Into the Past!
The NeverTrump crusade sparked by the “Against Trump” issue is adrift and angry. In the past three years, self-proclaimed conservatives of this variety have embraced the climate change agenda, opposed tax reform, and saved Obamacare. Some encouraged Republicans to vote for Democrats in the 2018 midterm election. Any suggestion that the ruling class has failed large swaths of the American electorate and willfully ignored the plight of millions of our countrymen in order to advance their own interests, as Tucker Carlson proposed a few weeks ago, is met with scorn.
NeverTrumpers have been silent about, or worse, helped to justify, the unconstitutional and alarming weaponization of the world’s most powerful law enforcement and intelligence apparatus to undermine a rival presidential campaign, then sabotage a duly elected president.
They now are poised to back a challenger to Trump in the 2020 Republican primary. Two possible candidates are former Ohio Governor John Kasich and current Maryland Governor Larry Hogan. There is nothing identifiably conservative about either candidate; in fact, their conservative credentials looks worse than Trump’s did in 2016.
In an op-ed published this month, Kasich offered plenty of blather about how the GOP needs to address “income inequality, urban violence, drugs, climate and environment, free trade, prescription costs, infrastructure decay, cybersecurity, education and workforce readiness, [and] student debt.” True as far as it goes, but Kasich offered no specifics about how to handle any of them. In one of his last acts as governor, however, he vetoed a fetal heartbeat bill.
In his column in the New York Times last week, NeverTrumper Bret Stephens called Governor Hogan “a serious and meaningful alternative to the corroded conservatism we have in Washington today.” Apparently non-corroded conservatism means being an “institutionalist” who is pro-gun control, anti-fracking, pro-Paris Climate Accord, and pro-abortion because these are all policies that Hogan supports. “Even if Trump didn’t run, he would get more votes than Hogan,” scoffed our publisher, Chris Buskirk, at the idea of a Hogan candidacy.
So, three years after the nation’s leading conservative outlet published a lengthy appeal to purge Donald Trump from its ranks, the president has an 80 percent approval rating among American conservatives. Trump has cut taxes; restrained the regulatory behemoth; appointed a legacy bench of conservatives federal judges; challenged lazy, ungrateful allies; rewritten outdated trade pacts; confronted a chronic border crisis; and reinvigorated the country’s manufacturing base. He’s defended the unborn, the working class, the patriotic, and the faithful while rejecting the stultifying chokehold of identity politics.
Meanwhile, his so-called conservative detractors are scrounging for primary challengers that sound more like Barack Obama than William F. Buckley, Jr. The damage they’ve done to the modern-day conservative movement will long outlast Trump’s presidency.
And three years later, they have largely proven—once again—that they are still very good at failure.

Monday, January 28, 2019

Rene Girard & The Covington Catholic Boys


By ROD DREHER 
January 27, 2019
Image result for rene girard
Rene Girard
If you want to understand what happened to the Covington Catholic boys at the Lincoln Memorial — and why things like this will continue to happen — you should read the late cultural critic and theorist Rene Girard.
I’m not the first one to say this. Bishop Robert Barron has long been a reader of Girard, and the other day interpreted the event at the Lincoln Memorial in terms of Girard’s theory about the scapegoating mechanism.  Barron wrote, explaining this theory:
Roughly speaking, it unfolds as follows. When tensions arise in a group (as they inevitably do), people commence to cast about for a scapegoat, for someone or some group to blame. Deeply attractive, even addictive, the scapegoating move rapidly attracts a crowd, which in short order becomes a mob. In their common hatred of the victim, the blamers feel an ersatz sense of togetherness. Filled with the excitement born of self-righteousness, the mob then endeavors to isolate and finally eliminate the scapegoat, convinced that this will restore order to their roiled society. At the risk of succumbing to thereductio ad Hitlerum fallacy, nowhere is the Girardian more evident than in the Germany of the 1930s. Hitler ingeniously exploited the scapegoating mechanism to bring his country together—obviously in a profoundly wicked way.
In his 2001 book I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, Girard, who was one of the great geniuses of the 20th century, explains his anthropological interpretation of the Bible — the Hebrew Bible, and the Gospels — and why they have the power to reveal and defeat the cycle of murderous violence that is deeply embedded in human nature.
(If you’re the kind of whataboutist whose knee is jerking to say “but Christians commit violence too!”, let me gently suggest that you read something about Girard’s thought. You could start with this recent big piece in the New York Review Of Books, which begins with this: “Not only are his ideas about mimetic desire and human violence as far-reaching as Marx’s theories of political economy or Freud’s claims about the Oedipus complex, but the explosion of social media, the resurgence of populism, and the increasing virulence of reciprocal violence all suggest that the contemporary world is becoming more and more recognizably ‘Girardian’ in its behavior.” If you can’t get through the paywall, try this very brief introduction to Girard’s thought, then explore elsewhere on the Internet. There’s a wealth of resources.)
In I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, Girard writes about how the “concern for victims” is what sets Judaism and Christianity apart from all other archaic religions. This concern for victims has now been virtually universalized, even — paradoxically — as Christianity has begun to decline, at least in the West. You could say — but Girard doesn’t, at least not here — that Communism is a godless absolutizing of the concern for victims. What sets it apart from Nazism is that Nazism was a massive attempt to refute concern for victims as a basis for society. Following Nietzsche, Nazism condemned Christianity as “slave morality” (Nietzsche’s phrase) because it taught people to have compassion for the weak and the unfit. Communism was a pseudo-religion that tried to put a victim class on top, in a utopian push to right historic wrongs, and ended up creating hell on earth.
In a fascinating chapter on Nietzsche, Girard credits the philosopher with understanding the anthropological meaning of Christianity, but faults him for rejecting it. Girard:
He opposes, so he believes, the crowd mentality, but he does not recognize his Dionysian stance as the supreme expression of the mob in its most brutal and its most stupid tendencies.
Christianity does not yield to ulterior motives of resentment in its concern to rehabilitate victims. It is not seduced by a contaminated charity of resentment. What it does is to rectify the illusion of myths; it exposes the lie of the “satanic accusation.”
Since Nietzsche is blind to mimetic rivalry [a key Girardian concept; this is what causes violence] and its contagion, he doesn’t see that the Gospel stance toward victims does not come from prejudice in favor of the weak against the strong but is heroic resistance to violent contagion. Indeed, the Gospels embody the discernment of a small minority that dares to oppose the monstrous mimetic contagion of a Dionysian lynching.
Now, here is where Girard becomes especially interesting, and relevant to our moment. He says that today, “we hear repeated in every way that we no longer have an absolute,” but in fact the concern for victims “is our absolute.” That is, it is the basis for our morality: “it is the concern for victims that determines what is most important.” This is the case because all other sources of absolute value have been lost. More:
The current process of spiritual demagoguery and rhetorical overkill has transformed the concern for victims into a totalitarian command and a permanent inquisition. … We are living through a caricatural “ultra-Christianity” that tries to escape from the Judeo-Christian orbit by “radicalizing” the concern for victims in an anti-Christian manner. … The intellectuals and other cultural elites have promoted Christianity to the role of number one scapegoat.
Girard says we are at the advent of what he calls “the other totalitarianism,” saying that it is
the most cunning and malicious of the two, the one with the greatest future, by all evidence. At present it does not oppose Judeo-Christian aspirations but claims them as its own and questions the concern for victims on the part of Christians (not without a certain semblance of reason at the level of concrete action, given the deficiencies of historical Christianity). The other totalitarianism does not openly oppose Christianity but outflanks it on its left wing.
This is the force of what in the Christian tradition is called Antichrist. You don’t have to believe in a literal Antichrist figure to grasp what Girard is saying here. Girard points out that in the symbolic language of the New Testament, Antichrist opposes Christ by imitating him and seeking to be better than him. More:
The Antichrist boasts of bringing to human beings the peace and tolerance that Christianity promised but has failed to deliver. Actually what the radicalization of contemporary victimology produces is a return to all sorts of pagan practices: abortion euthanasia, sexual undifferentiation, Roman circus games galore but without real victims, etc.
Neo-paganism would like to turn the Ten Commandments and all of Judeo-Christian morality into some alleged intolerable violence, and indeed its primary objective is their complete abolition. Faithful observance of the moral law is perceived s complicity with the forces of persecution that are essentially religious. Since the Christian denominations have become only tardily aware of their failings in charity, their connivance with established political orders in the past and present world that are always “sacrificial,” they are particularly vulnerable to the ongoing blackmail of contemporary neo-paganism.
Neo-paganism locates happiness in the unlimited satisfaction of desires, which means the suppression of all prohibitions. This idea acquires a semblance of credibility in the limited domain of consumer goods, who prodigious multiplication, thanks to technological progress, weakens certain mimetic rivalries. The weakening of mimetic rivalries confers an appearance of plausibility, but only that, on the stance that turns the moral law into an instrument of repression and persecution.
And what happens when, having cut down all the moral laws to build a Brave New World of unlimited satisfaction, the money runs out, and the economy collapses?
In his final chapter, Girard praises the “heroism” of the scattered disciples in the wake of Jesus’s resurrection. They had no power, and in fact, knew that they had participated in “the violent contagion that murdered their master” (e.g., Peter’s denial). What they had was the power of their belief, and their ability to communicate what they had seen and experienced. And this ultimately subverted the dominant paradigm of the ancient world, which believed that scapegoats were real and necessary.
Girard believes that only genuine divine power gave them the strength to do this. He believes that it is impossible to break the spell that drives humanity to scapegoating violence without believe in “a power superior to violent contagion.” In other words, the God of the Bible.
Girard, by the way, was an atheist who came to accept his baptismal religion, Christianity, through his literary and anthropological studies. He came to believe that the Gospels were anthropologically true. His story is absolutely fascinating. InI Saw Satan Fall Like Lightning (the title is a quote from Jesus), Girard explains that, in his view,
The Bible is unique in its disclosure of the standpoint of the victims, which means that form the standpoint of the narratives, God takes the side of the victim. Not all narratives do this, but a new perspective emerges in Israel. What the people or crowd want is to justify itself and its past, and they do this by blaming someone for all their troubles. In moments of crisis caused by deep-seated rivalries a person is unjustly accused of some offense or crime. … So from a purely anthropological viewpoint, the Bible unveils the victim mechanism that lies behind polytheism and mythology, but not only behind polytheism and mythology, for its full expression underlies everything we know as human culture. The Bible recognizes this in the story of Cain and Abel. Because Cain murders his brother, God bans him form the soil, making him a wanderer on the earth, and God puts a mark on him, a sign to protect him from suffering what he made Abel suffer. Then Cain builds the first city, and so civilization begins. The story in Genesis 4 tells us, in effect, that the sign of Cain is the sign of civilization. The cross of Christ is the sign of salvation, which is revealed as the overcoming of mimetic desire and violence through the nonviolence of love and forgiveness.
Now, what does this have to do with us, in particular, us orthodox Christians?
Girard wrote these lines around the turn of the century. Since then, the “radicalization of contemporary victimology” has produced even more of exactly the effects he said they would produce. And orthodox Christianity has become even more marginalized and despised, precisely because the post-Christian left needs a scapegoat upon which to blame the sins of the world. It is hard to come up with a more perfect scapegoat for this pseudo-religion of radical victimology than a group of white male pro-life Catholics from the South, wearing MAGA hats.
Understand what I’m saying here: the actual guilt of those boys was completely beside the point in the minds of the mob. It’s not about what those boys did, or didn’t do. It’s about who they are. Their identity as white male Christian supporters of Donald Trump was the only thing that mattered to their accusers.
Similarly, the fact that Nathan Phillips, the elderly Native American, flat-out lied about the boys did not matter, nor did the fact that the Black Israelites, a hysterical hate-mongering sect, had been taunting both the white boys and the Indians with racial and sexual slurs prior to the confrontation. Those instigators were non-white, which, in the eyes of the accusing mob, made them innocent, or at least not guilty.
This is our social reality now. If you are the kind of person who thinks that if only you reject Trump and MAGA hats, you’ll be counted among the Elect, you had better wake up. Today it’s MAGA hats. One of these days, it’s going to be crosses.
Here is an apt symbol of the world that has ended, and the world that is now here. The photo on the right is the new World Trade Center lit up pink on the order of the barbaric New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, to celebrate the state legislature having affirmed legal abortion up until the point of birth:
1956 vs. 2019

It’s going to get worse — a lot worse. Christians, and conservatives, need to be prepared for it. This is why I wrote The Benedict Option, and now it’s becoming ever more difficult to deny its diagnosis. Girard is right: the abolition of what we believe in is the long-term goal. This is what #ExposeChristianSchools is about: scapegoating, straight up, with the aim of marginalizing and ultimately eliminating any public manifestation of orthodox Christianity.

One immense challenge to Christians is to find a way to fight this scapegoating, and to endure it when it can’t be fought, without returning hatred for hatred. I can imagine that it would be easy for those Covington boys to be tempted by far-right white nationalism, especially given the disgraceful spectacle of some of their own woke Catholic bishops throwing them under the bus. (This is what Girard meant when he talked about churches today being “vulnerable to the ongoing blackmail of contemporary neo-paganism.”) But that would be morally wrong, and even a betrayal of the Gospel. When we lose sight of the fact that we ourselves can be part of the mob, and start to see ourselves as innocent by virtue of our identity (racial, sexual, religious, etc.), then we fall into the same scapegoating mechanism that has captured those who hate us.
I don’t know how we’re going to do this. But I know we had better get busy figuring it out. What is happening now in our civilization is not primarily political, and it won’t be solved through better politics. Read Girard. This is something happening at the most fundamental level of social psychology and cultural anthropology, and it has been building for a very long time. This is what Girard calls the “other totalitarianism.” If you’re a Christian believer, your faith tradition should have prepared you to read these particular signs of the times. Let the reader understand.

Highbrows Vs. Deplorables


January 27, 2019

Image result for european union leaders

British prime minister Theresa May, left, speaks to the press as European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker greets her as they arrive on the first day of a summit of European Union (EU) leaders at the EU headquarters in Brussels, on March 22, 2018 | Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images

“The idea of Europe is in peril.” Thus begins an 800-word open letter published on Friday in the French newspaper LibĂ©ration and other several European dailies. Written by Bernard-Henri LĂ©vy, the French philosopher, it was signed by thirty “top intellectuals” (as the Guardian put it) from twenty-one countries.

Now, anyone familiar with current affairs will readily agree that Europe – at least Western Europe – is imperiled. It’s imperiled by a European Union whose unelected leaders are determined to convert it into a sovereign superstate with its own army and with ever-expanding powers. And it’s imperiled by hordes of Muslim migrants who, having been forced upon it by those EU leaders, will, barring dramatic reversals, eventually turn the countries of Western Europe into sharia states.

But this isn’t what these “top intellectuals” mean. Note the wording of their letter: they’re not concerned with the well-being of the peoples of Europe; their preoccupation is with the idea of Europe, which is to say with the preservation and fortification of the European Union.

And their message is that the EU is imperiled by – who else? – Europeans themselves.
Who are these “top intellectuals”? The signatories include the renowned novelists Salman Rushdie, Ian McEwan, and Milan Kundera, plus an assortment of philosophers, historians, activists, and social critics, some more famous than others. Their tender concern for the EU’s health is not surprising. The EU was always a project of privileged highbrows, who helped it advance from strength to strength by lying to the governed, acting without their consent, and overruling their votes. Now, with Eastern European governments rejecting dictates from Brussels and with Western European electorates, at long last, demanding that their voices be heard and their wishes respected, the EU’s architects and partisans are balking at the audacity with which the deplorables – the peons, the peasants, the proles – are standing up to them. LĂ©vy writes:

“Enough of ‘building Europe’!” is the cry. Let’s reconnect instead with our “national soul”! Let’s rediscover our “lost identity”! This is the agenda shared by the populist forces washing over the continent. Never mind that abstractions such as “soul” and “identity” often exist only in the imagination of demagogues.
Pace LĂ©vy, a feeling of national identity has long been a potent force in the souls of men. For him and other devotees of the “idea” of an EU superstate, it has been Job One to try to eradicate that patriotism and replace it with a newly forged sense of “European identity.” Unfortunately, these EU boosters have discovered that that particular abstraction thrives only in their own demagogic imaginations, and that most of the people of Europe want nothing to do with it.

LĂ©vy’s letter goes on:
Europe is being attacked by false prophets who are drunk on resentment, and delirious at their opportunity to seize the limelight. It has been abandoned by the two great allies who in the previous century twice saved it from suicide; one across the Channel and the other across the Atlantic.
The degree to which LĂ©vy manages to turn everything upside down here is impressive. The actual false prophets are the EU’s unelected leaders and their collaborators, lackeys, and running dogs, such as LĂ©vy and his pals. They’re the ones who are, to borrow LĂ©vy’s metaphor, drunk – specifically, drunk on unearned power that they’ve seized from the once free citizens of Europe’s nation states. As for Britain and the U.S. – yes, they did save Europe from suicide twice in the twentieth century. Today, in keeping with that history, the Brexiteers in Britain and the Trump administration in the U.S. recognize the EU as, like Nazi Germany and the USSR, a misbegotten imperial project – an ideologically rooted effort, conceived and driven by an arrogant and self-regarding elite, that has steadily encroached on individual liberties, steadily weakened economies, and steadily evolved into something that looks increasingly like a suicide pact.

If twentieth-century Europe was almost destroyed by various totalitarianisms, twenty-first-century Europe now risks destruction either at the hands of Islamic totalitarianism, to which the EU honchos have kowtowed for two generations, or at the hands of the burgeoning totalitarianism of the EU itself. Or both. “Europe as an idea,” LĂ©vy tells us, “is falling apart before our eyes.” Good. The key lesson of the twentieth century – which the multitudes are waking up to even if the “intellectuals” aren’t – is that Europe’s Achilles heel isn’t populism but a susceptibility to control-happy “ideas” for the organization of societies.

Several paragraphs into his letter, LĂ©vy spells out his immediate fear: namely, that the upcoming elections to the European Parliament, which are scheduled for May, will be won by anti-EU forces who will quash “the legacy of Erasmus, Dante, Goethe and Comenius.” If the European electorate votes against the EU project, warns LĂ©vy, “A politics of disdain for intelligence and culture will have triumphed. There will be explosions of xenophobia and antisemitism. Disaster will have befallen us.” Again, it’s all topsy-turvy. Intelligence? Culture? It’s the EU that’s importing into Europe a mentality that has room for only one book – a manifesto of hate – and whose notion of culture is barbaric. Antisemitism? It’s the EU that’s flooding Europe with toxic Jew-hatred, which is preached at EU-subsidized mosques and taught at EU-subsidized madrassas. Disaster? It’s the EU that, for these and other reasons, is courting disaster.

As for xenophobia, very few native Europeans are infected with a blanket hostility toward foreigners; what’s happened is that more and more of them are opposing the introduction into their societies of primitive values and practices that could scarcely be more antithetical to their own.

As their text approaches its end, LĂ©vy’s confrères stirringly affirm that they’re “European patriots” who “refuse to resign themselves” to a “looming catastrophe” and who are fighting “a new battle for civilisation.” Yes, there’s a battle for civilization underway. They’re just on the wrong side. They also make a confession: “we believed that the continent would come together on its own, without our needing to fight for it, or to work for it. This, we told ourselves, was ‘the direction of history.’” Translation: we believed that we could gradually transform a common market into a tyrannical superstate without the rabble ever catching on or fighting back. Alas, the serfs are on to them. The proletariat are resisting. In closing, LĂ©vy and company invite readers to join them in fighting “for the idea of Europe.” We can only hope that they’re right to worry that a majority of European voters are opting, instead, to fight for themselves and their posterity – for the future, that is, of European freedom, a future in which there’s no place for a blight like the EU.

HE’S THE FIRST BLACK SHERIFF, NOW HE’S HURTING AFRICAN-AMERICANS BY PROTECTING ILLEGAL ALIENS


By Daniel Greenfield
January 28, 2019
Related image
Mecklenburg Sheriff Garry McFadden addresses an audience after he was sworn in, December 4, 2018. Photo: Jonathan Strayhorn.
“287(g) is going to be history in Charlotte-Mecklenburg,” Garry McFadden had declared in Charlotte.
The crowd cheered as the leftist reality TV star won the election to become Mecklenburg County's first black sheriff.
287(g) is an odd sort of applause line, unless you know what it stands for. It meant that law enforcement officers could turn over illegal alien criminals to ICE. McFadden, the former star of Discovery Network’s I Am Homicide, had always been savvy at cashing in on his brand and spotting the next big opportunity.
McFadden, who, unlike the other candidates in the race, had refused to release his personnel record, had been suspended three times. But he had a natural knack for being a celeb and becoming the story.
As national donors poured in barrels of cash into local sheriff races in counties from Mecklenburg to Harris to Travis to Los Angeles, minority lefties like McFadden, Sally Hernandez, Ed Gonzalez and Alex Villanueva ran on pro-crime and pro-illegal platforms, knowing that their career aspirations would benefit in massive and unprecedented ways from the backing of national groups and the media.
And that’s what happened.
The ACLU alone poured in $175K in ads into the race.  Sheriff Irwin Carmichael, who had been described as the "last conservative Democrat" in Charlotte, who had kicked off his campaign with a gun raffle, finished last. Sheriff Carmichael had become a target because he had cooperated with ICE.
The defeats of law enforcement officers, like the one in Charlotte, protected illegal alien districts while sending a message to other sheriffs that if they followed the law, they would be destroyed.
Sheriff McFadden certainly got the message. Supporting illegal aliens had taken him from reality TV on a trashy network to a major elected position. And then possible aspirations for higher office beyond.
Illegal alien criminals quickly found out that McFadden was their best friend. Sheriff Carmichael had believed in enforcing the law. But there was a new sheriff in town and he had a different idea of the law.
“We’re going to have to talk about race,” McFadden insisted. “Someone said, ‘Is that the job of a sheriff?’ Well, that’s the job of this sheriff.”
Freeing criminals? Defying United States law? Those were also the jobs of this sheriff.
287(g) had led to 15,000 illegal alien criminals being processed for deportation in Mecklenburg County. The men being held for ICE in Mecklenburg included murderers, rapists and drug dealers. 40% of the misdemeanor cases had involved assaults on women. But those women were about to be sacrificed to the illegal alien lobby
There’s no way to even begin to quantify the impact of numbers like that on area crime. But McFadden quickly began providing a short demonstration when he announced that 28 illegal aliens held under 287(g) had been released. And some have been alleged to pose a threat to the public.
One of the released men is Kevin Santos.
Santos, an illegal alien, shot a man during an attempted robbery. He was being held under 287(g) until McFadden came in and set him loose. Now he’s back on the street with nothing more than an ankle bracelet between him and his victim. And the illegal alien’s African-American victim is suffering.
Being shot had left him in pain and unable to live his life normally.
“I couldn't walk, do much (running.) I was joining the Army, and I can't because of it,” the African-American man shot by the illegal alien told a reporter.
Nor did he understand why the man who shot him was back on the street.
"I'm really confused about how and why.”
The ‘how’ and the ‘why’ is that the ACLU and the national pro-illegal lobby had used an African-American reality TV star as a trojan horse for implementing a pro-illegal alien policy.
A policy that hurt the African-Americans in Charlotte likely to fall victim to illegal alien crime.
The ACLU pumped a ton of cash into the sheriff’s race in Mecklenburg. And then it had walked away. African-American voters who had backed a man they thought would defend their interests had not grasped the impact that freeing illegal alien criminals would have on their communities.
The ACLU had attacked Sheriff Carmichael for supporting, what the leftist group misleadingly claimed, was Trump’s deportation force. But the alternative to ICE is putting men like Santos back on the street.
The rash of shocking illegal alien crimes nationwide is putting a new spotlight on the cost of pro-illegal law enforcement policies at a time when opposition to ICE has virtually become the Democrat platform, and House and Senator Democrats have shut down the government to stop the rise of a border wall.
Wilbur Ernesto Martinez-Guzman was arrested for murdering four people, three of them in their seventies or eighties, in Nevada. Guzman was an illegal alien from El Salvador.
In Abilene, Texas, three illegal aliens were arrested during a search for a child molester.
In California, a police officer and several other people were murdered during crime sprees by two illegal aliens, both of whom had been put back on the street because California’s sanctuary state law had prevented local sheriffs from complying with ICE holds.
And, again in California, an illegal alien was sentenced to 401 years in prison for three counts of rape, one count of kidnapping to commit rape and seven counts of lewd acts on a child.
Macario Cerda had been previously deported and had come back. The victim's sister had asked the court not to deport him again because he would come back again.
In a country with no wall, deportation isn’t enough because the criminals keep coming back. And sanctuary state laws in states and cities, combined with the political triumphs of pro-crime figures like McFadden, are set to unleash a new wave of crime by newly untouchable illegal aliens.
That crime wave will hurt all Americans, but it will hurt African-American communities in poorer areas, that often act as a magnet for illegal aliens, most of all.
Illegal aliens not only take away entry level jobs from African-Americans, and deprive them of political influence, but they terrorize their communities and take away their lives.
The Democrats claim that illegal migration is a civil right. But their backing for illegal migration is destroying the civil rights of African-Americans. And of all Americans.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.