On Saturday, I loaded up the wife and the two little ones and we went to downtown Portland for the 'Steps for Life' march, which is a fundraiser for the Pregnancy Resource Center. Being Christian, and a reactionary one at that, I consider being pro-life at least religiously obligatory. Does it pass the test of Scripture? Absolutely. Does it pass the test of Tradition---i.e. the faith as it's been practiced by the bulk on nonheretical Christians throughout the ages? Once again, absolutely. So even though the implications for demographic hegemony aren't at all favorable, there's no way for me to weasel out. It is the will of God. Deus Vult!
But the theological implications of this aren't what I'm here to talk to you about today. Rather, I want to talk a bit some of my other observations from this little rally in the middle of Portland's heathen heart. Also marching that day was the 'Doggie Dash', and in many other years, the Breast Cancer activists are also marching.
One rally had all the kids, more in fact than would be expected from the number of adults present. As you probably guessed, it wasn't the 'Doggie Dash', although I saw a lot of golden retrievers being used as child substitutes looking longingly at the happy children marching on the opposite side of the street. The little dogs seemed far happier with the state of affairs :-)
This called a single truth into clear focus:
The pro-life movement is tactically weak---their demonstrations rarely actually intimidate anyone, much less anyone with actual political power. Furthermore, it is also strategically weak---frequently failing to get the judges and decisions it needs even when it nominally controls the appointing branch of government. It is, however, logistically strong, because it, nearly alone among white demographics (and make no mistake, said movement IS a white thing), is more than replicating itself generation after generation. I saw a lot of the social markers of homeschoolers in the crowd also, which I found encouraging.
Is it enough to be logistically strong, with poor strategy and worse tactics? History says, if you've got the time, the answer is most certainly, yes. The Roman empire, when it was still a vital civilization, endured massive tactical and strategic defeats in the 2nd Punic War against Hannibal---culminating in the disasterous battle of Cannae, but they had the logistical might to make good their losses and carry on the struggle. Eventually the Romans smashed him in the Battle of Zama, and well, Carthago delenda est. The USSR similarly made good horrendous losses in WWII against the Germans, who had tactical and strategic superiority early on.
I suppose the take-away from these is that if you've got logistical superiority, you just have to prevent a knockout blow and you can outlast your opposition. Eventually, if only by luck or Providence, you'll get a sufficiently competent general and adequate NCOs. The only real question is, do you have the time?
Tactically and strategically, the means for victory are at hand. They do, however, require that those in the movement surrender being considered 'nice' by the mainstream media and those influenced by it. Were the pro-life movement half as ruthless as the pro-gun movement learned to be in the late 1990s, the battle would already be won. The pro-life movement, assuming that it can retain its logistical supremacy, CAN win whilst being 'Nice', but it'll be a very, very long struggle, probably at least 20-30 more years. Or it could roll the dice, declare 'Here I Stand'---truly an ironic declaration for a Pople, who is best situated to declare such, and perhaps achieve victory within the United States prior to 2016. Such, however, would require a willingness to fight, and a willingness to demand obedience of its followers by the various churches, particularly the Catholic one. It's still politically necessary in the US to at least pretend a banner of Christianity in order to hold most high political office. By ripping the veneer through excommunication and expulsion, Benedict, for instance, could probably doom a large fraction of pro-choice Catholic politicians. Their own cognitive dissonance would probably cause a fair number of them to genuinely change their positions as well, so there might even be a redemptive purpose in such a declaration. People don't like the mental narrative that they cowardly submitted to their higher authority. The redeemed sinner narrative is easier on the mind, and plays better in the box office and the ballot box. So what say you Benedict?
Hired Help
3 days ago
2 comments:
Pro-lifers loose for 2 reasons: Progressives rule our society and while pro-lifers are logically correct on the value of unborn babies they don't understand how people actually view children. Children are as valuable as how old they are. People place less value in unborn children/younger children on a sliding scale. The more resources put out to growing and raising a child the more valuable the child becomes. Thus an abortion is always seen as the killing of the least valuable human being and that's the way almost everyone views it. You always see more tears for dead 12yos than for dead 1yos, it's simply a fact of life.
If you want to changes people's mind you need to understand how they really think. Almost no one really believes a fetus has no value they simply see it on the sliding scale of value as very low. You can use that do the pro-life advantage.
However, while Pro-lifers more logically correct they are just as fascist as the pro-choicers are. The proper arrangement for children coming from both traditional and the biblical basis is the parents own their own children. As such they can do anything they want with them. Asking the government to put to an end natural right of parents is quite fascistic. To arrest a parent for what they think is best with their children makes you and your kind no less progressive than the feminists. You simply are parroting an older version of progressiveness (from the 1880-1890s). You have to allow people their evil acts within their god given rights or you are no better than theocrat running a theocracy. God gave the children into the care of their parents, if their parents choose to end that life that's their business. I seem to remember about a verse where a father should put his own son to death in the old testament. I think it's clear he the authority and the right to so.
Obviously you've mistaken me for a libertarian. I'm a reactionary. I favor the normal treatment of abortion that has persisted through most Christian-influenced societies throughout history. That is to say, it's illegal and highly scandalous but we don't expend a terrific amount of energy tracking down offenders. Come to think of it, that's the normal reactionary treatment on a lot of social issues. As to whether you have the right to kill your children, well, being Southern by birth, I favor outsourcing that sort of CPS to the local community, if one exists. Total pater familias (to the point of being allowed to kill them for any reason a la Roman law) has never existed in Christian societies. I'm not afraid of the term theocracy. Somebody always rules, better the priests or warriors than the current crop of intellectuals.
Post a Comment