Nominalism

Is anyone really what they claim to be any more? We have communists (literally) claiming to be "greens", liberals (i.e. socialists) claiming to be "progressives" or "moderates", and moderates claiming to be conservatives. What in the world are conservatives supposed to call themselves? Others, of course, call them radicals. I, being a Libertarian, am used to being defined out of the political spectrum. But at least I have a label that accurately applies. We live in a world of RINOs and DINOs. With the superficial press and generations of government schooled masses lacking any real ability to think critically, what one calls himself is more important than what one actually is. Labels are generally accepted as descriptive, more or less, of the actual article. We have Christians, even clergy, who deny the fundamental tenets of the faith to which they supposedly adhere, yet they have no qualms about continuing to called them selves by the label whose definition they no longer (if ever) fit. As with most problems, the solution is simple, but difficult. The solution is too difficult in fact to be applied by enough of the population to make any difference: ignore labels and examine substance. But, hey, I'm a dreamer.

Suckers for Jesus

Let me first say that I am a Christian. Sadly, I must go on to descry the utter naivete of the conservative Christian community in America that has supported George W. Bush despite a left-leaning agenda merely because he speaks in superficially Christian terms. I knew Bush was a liberal in conservative clothing long before he became president. His term of preference when running for his first term made his ideology clear: "compassionate conservatism". This of course implies that standard conservatism is somehow lacking in compassion and needs to be mitigated by "compassionate" governmental programs. Pseudo-conservative ideology mixed with religious language was used as a marketing tactic and it worked and continues to work. Is Bush a Christian? I don't know. I have my doubts about anyone who was (is?) a member of a secretive society (a no-no for a Christian). And his description of Jesus as a "philosopher" leaves one wondering what his Christology actually is. But his spiritual state aside, in what way is he "conservative"? Okay, he is for cutting taxation, I'll give you that, but is that necessarily conservative when combined with fiscal abandon? The man has never seen a spending bill he didn't like. He is a war-hawk, but the idea that being hawkish is conservative is a slander on conservatives. Conservatism is strong on national defense, not enthusiastic about war. Regarding national defense I think Bush has had a mixed record at best. Does anyone really think our ports or borders are secure? Taking the fight to the terrorists is a good idea, but trying to finesse a war rather than overwhelming the enemy is not a sign of strength in my view. On spending Bush is liberal. On domestic policy he is liberal. On growth of government he is liberal. On immigration he is liberal. In many ways he is liberal in his foreign policy. So why do conservative Christians support Bush? Merely because they think he is one of them and they think that only because he makes references to prayer, god, faith, etc. Whatever happened to discernment?

Outbred

I have been suffering from melancholy for some time now. I know the cause and I know there is no cure other than fatalistic acceptance of the distressing vision that has haunted me of late: that western civilization generally and its highest expression, the United States of America, are historical aberrations destined to be subsumed beneath the tide of the barbaric cult of statism that marks most of man's history. In previous years I had not considered that I might live to see the end of the American Idea. It has been scarred and obscured, surely, but there was always hope for its survival, even eventual victory. Lately, however, sheer demographic realities have brought me close to concluding that the last echo of the shot heard around the world would reverberate within my lifetime.

The West has been cursed with material prosperity which reduces the economic necessity of large families, makes contraception more readily available, and increases the tendency of a society to selfishness and hedonism. Child-rearing becomes an obstacle to self-indulgence easily avoided by contraception or short-circuited by abortion. All of this results in a reduction in birth rates. The West will be submerged under an irresistible demographic tidal wave. This would not, in itself, be a problem if it were not for one vital truth: heredity is the single most determining factor in the perpetuation of culture, and culture matters. By "culture" I do not mean language, or esthetics (dress, art, music, etc.). I mean the deep foundational values and world view held consciously or (more often) unconsciously by a society. It is the "deep culture" of the West generally and its pinnacle expression, the American deep culture, that is destined to be extinguished by sheer force of overwhelming numbers.

When the American deep culture, already marred and distorted by ideas contrary to its basic premise, finally lapses into the footnotes of history, with it will pass the ideals of inherent individual rights and limited, subservient government. The deviation from the norm of despotism will be leveled out. Mankind will return to varying degrees and statism. The power of the state will no more be in question, merely the length of the chain by which the individual is bound.