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?
