The Russian Mathematician Who Exposed the Cannibalistic Nature of Socialism

From FEE.org (June 3, 2023):

Igor Rostislavovich Shafarevich is not exactly a household name, but the man richly deserves to be remembered, a century after his birth and six years since his death. In 1923, he was born on this date—June 3—in Zhytomyr, Ukraine, about a hundred miles west of Kyiv. He died in 2017 at the age of 93, leaving behind remarkable contributions to mathematics and, of far greater interest to me, a powerful indictment of the ancient calamity known as socialism.

Shafarevich ranks high in the pantheon of 20th Century mathematicians. His name is attached to numerous pioneering theorems and formulas I can’t begin to understand, but which are celebrated as genius among the numerical cognoscenti. In 1981, he was even inducted into the prestigious Royal Society of London as one of the brightest foreign scientists ever to grace its membership.

Growing up in Ukraine under Soviet-imposed socialism, Shafarevich harbored misgivings about the system from an early age. In his 30s, he began to run afoul of it because of his outspoken support of the Eastern Orthodox faith in an officially atheist empire. He eventually morphed into a full-blown, anti-Marxist dissident and an ally of Andrei Sakharov, the physicist famous for defending human rights against the regime’s assaults. Despite his world-class credentials in mathematics, Shafarevich was fired from Moscow University because of his collaboration with Sakharov.

When the great Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (author of The Gulag Archipelago and other seminal works) delivered his famous address at Harvard University in 1978, he cited a book by Igor Shafarevich that had appeared three years before. Solzhenitsyn, in fact, wrote the Foreword to the book’s English translation.

………..

In the final third of the book, or about a hundred pages, Shafarevich offers his analysis of socialism. He argues persuasively that “at least three components of the socialist ideal—the abolition of private property, the abolition of the family and socialist equality—may be deduced from a single principle: the suppression of individuality.”

Socialism presents itself in multiple flavors, of course, but the unadulterated version promises “the greatest possible equality.” This is the height of hypocrisy and delusion, Shafarevich argues, because at the same time, socialism offers up “a strict regimentation of all of life, which would be impossible without absolute control and an all-powerful bureaucracy which would engender an incomparably greater inequality.”

Individuals participate in life as thinking, acting individuals, not as indistinguishable portions of a collectivist blob. “Cultural creativity, particularly artistic creativity, is an example,” the author points out. Renaissance Italians didn’t paint The Last Supper. Leonardo da Vinci did. “And in periods when socialist movements are on the increase, the call for the destruction of culture is heard ever more distinctly,” Shafarevich explains.

Socialism is fundamentally anti-culture because it seeks to supplant individual initiative with one-size-fits-all, top-down diktats. Its centralized, mandated blueprint is ultimately a death sentence because “Not only people but even animals cannot exist if reduced to the level of the cogs of a mechanism.” Shafarevich writes,

[A]ll the aspects of life that make it attractive and give it meaning are connected with manifestations of individuality. Therefore, a consistent implementation of the principles of socialism deprives human life of individuality and simultaneously deprives life of its meaning and attraction…it would lead to the physical extinction of the group in which these principles are in force, and if they should triumph through the world—to the extinction of mankind.

The collectivism that socialism champions is ultimately a mirage. There is no “blob” that thinks and acts. Only individuals do. So the so-called “collective”  reduces to some individuals wielding power over other individuals. Socialism is, therefore, cannibalism animated by philosophy. Shafarevich essentially told the world this a half century ago, and the world still struggles to learn it.

At the very least, we ought to thank him for letting us know on this centennial of his birth. [read more]

Socialism is truly evil.

FDA, CDC Hid Data on Spike in COVID Cases Among the Vaccinated: Documents

From NTD.com (Sept. 3, 2023):

COVID-19 cases among vaccinated seniors soared in 2021, according to newly disclosed data that was acquired by U.S. health agencies but not presented to the public.

Humetrix Cloud Services was contracted by the U.S. military to analyze vaccine data. The company performed a fresh analysis as authorities considered in 2021 whether COVID-19 vaccine boosters were necessary amid studies finding waning vaccine effectiveness.

Humetrix researchers found that the proportion of total COVID-19 cases among the seniors was increasingly comprised of vaccinated people, according to the newly disclosed documents.

For the week ending on July 31, 2021, post-vaccination COVID-19 cases represented 73 percent of the cases among people 65 and older, the company found. The elderly were 80 percent fully vaccinated at the time.

Breakthrough infection rates were higher among those who were vaccinated early, the researchers found. They estimated that the rates were twice as high in those who had been vaccinated five to six months prior, when compared to people vaccinated three to four months before.

The breakthrough cases started in January 2021, according to the data.

Protection against hospitalization was also fading, researchers discovered.

In the week ending on July 31, 2021, 63 percent of the COVID-19 hospitalizations in seniors were among the fully vaccinated, according to the documents. The same pattern of weaker protection among people who were vaccinated early was found.

Researchers calculated that the vaccine effectiveness (VE) against infection was just 33 percent while the effectiveness against hospitalization had dropped to 57 percent.

Seniors who previously had COVID-19 and recovered were more likely to avoid hospitalization, the researchers also found. Risk factors included serious underlying conditions such as obesity and being in the oldest age group, or older than 85. [read more]

Not good. So much for transparency in the Briben regime.

"Trump and Musk Share the Founder’s Mindset" main points

From Grok 3.0:

The article "Trump and Musk Share the Founder’s Mindset" outlines several key points about the collaboration between Donald Trump and Elon Musk, emphasizing their shared entrepreneurial approach to governance. Here are the main points:

1. Shared Founder’s Mindset: Both Trump and Musk are described as business founders who exhibit a "founder’s mindset," characterized by a bold mission, bias for action, aversion to bureaucracy, and relentless experimentation. This mindset contrasts with the managerial approach of most modern presidents, enabling them to pursue radical change.

2. Collaboration on Government Efficiency: The article highlights their joint effort to reduce the size and reach of the federal bureaucracy through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Despite their age difference and limited prior acquaintance, their shared vision allows them to align on goals and execution strategies

3. Disruption and Innovation: Trump and Musk apply a founder’s approach to reshape government operations, focusing on disruption, efficiency, and innovation. This includes significant reforms in agency structures, as well as policies related to cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence

4. Alliances with Other Founders: Their founder mentality facilitates partnerships with other entrepreneurial figures, such as Silicon Valley tech leaders, cryptocurrency entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists like David Sacks, Peter Thiel, and Marc Andreessen. This network supports their vision for transformative change

5. Contrast with Traditional Politics: Unlike typical politicians, Trump and Musk consistently question the purpose and function of government operations, asking, “Why are we doing this?” This approach drives their efforts to rethink how the federal government operates, setting them apart from conventional political strategies

6. Potential for Inspiration and Polarization: The article notes that their approach, like that of historical founders including America’s Founding Fathers, is likely to both inspire and alienate. It draws a parallel to Thomas Jefferson’s view on the necessity of periodic rebellion in politics

These points are drawn from sources discussing the article’s perspective on Trump and Musk’s collaboration and mindset.

Since the article was under a paywall I asked Grok 3.0: What are the main points in the article "Trump and Musk Share the Founder’s Mindset"?

Trump Signs Big, Beautiful Bill at WH July Fourth Picnic

From Newsmax.com (July 4):

President Donald Trump signed his package of tax breaks and spending cuts into law Friday after his cajoling produced almost unanimous Republican support in Congress for the domestic priority that could cement his second-term legacy.

Flanked by Republican legislators and members of his Cabinet, Trump signed the multitrillion-dollar legislation outside the White House and then banged down the gavel that House Speaker Mike Johnson gifted him that was used during the bill's final passage Thursday.

Against odds that at times seemed improbable, Trump achieved his goal of celebrating a historic — and divisive — legislative victory in time for the nation's birthday. Fighter jets and a stealth bomber streaked through the sky over the annual White House Fourth of July picnic as Trump and first lady Melania Trump stepped out onto the White House balcony.

"America's winning, winning, winning like never before," Trump said, noting last month's bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear program, which he said the flyover was meant to honor. "Promises made, promises kept, and we've kept them."

The White House was hung with red, white, and blue bunting for the regular Fourth of July festivities. The United States Marine Band played patriotic marches — and, in a typical Trumpian touch, tunes by 1980s pop icons Chaka Khan and Huey Lewis. The two separate flyovers bookended Trump's appearance and the band playing the national anthem.

Democrats assailed the package as a giveaway to the rich that will rob millions more lower-income people of their health insurance, food assistance, and financial stability.

"I never thought that I'd be on the House floor saying that this is a crime scene," Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said during a record-breaking speech that delayed the bill's passage by eight-plus hours. "It's a crime scene, going after the health, and the safety, and the well-being of the American people."

The legislation extends Trump's 2017 multitrillion-dollar tax cuts and cuts Medicaid and food stamps by $1.2 trillion. It provides for a massive increase in immigration enforcement. Congress' nonpartisan scorekeeper projects that nearly 12 million more people will lose health insurance under the law.

The legislation passed the House on a largely party-line vote Thursday, culminating a months long push by the GOP to cram most of its legislative priorities into a single budget bill that could be enacted without Senate Democrats being able to block it indefinitely by filibustering.

It passed by a single vote in the Senate, where North Carolina Republican Thom Tillis announced he would not run for reelection after incurring Trump's wrath in opposing it. Vice President JD Vance had to cast the tie-breaking vote.

In the House, where two Republicans voted against it, conservative maverick Tom Massie of Kentucky has also become a target of Trump's well-funded political operation.

The legislation amounts to a repudiation of the agendas of the past two Democrat presidents, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, in rolling back Obama's Medicaid expansion under his signature health law and Biden's tax credits for renewable energy.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the package will add $3.3 trillion to the deficit over the decade and 11.8 million more people will go without health coverage.

Trump exulted in his political victory Thursday night in Iowa, where he attended a kickoff of events celebrating the country's 250th birthday next year.

"I want to thank Republican congressmen and -women, because what they did is incredible," he said. The president complained that Democrats voted against the bill because "they hate Trump — but I hate them, too."

The package is certain to be a flashpoint in next year's midterm elections, and Democrats are making ambitious plans for rallies, voter registration drives, attack ads, bus tours, and even a multiday vigil, all intended to highlight the most controversial elements.

Upon his return to Washington early Friday, Trump described the package as "very popular," though polling suggests that public opinion is mixed at best.

For example, a Washington Post/Ipsos poll found that majorities of U.S. adults support increasing the annual child tax credit and eliminating taxes on earnings from tips, and about half support work requirements for some adults who receive Medicaid.

But the poll found majorities oppose reducing federal funding for food assistance to low-income families and spending about $45 billion to build and maintain migrant detention centers. About 60% said it was "unacceptable" that the bill is expected to increase the $36 trillion U.S. debt by more than $3 trillion over the next decade. [source]

Pretty good bill. Here are some provisions from the bill:

• (Sec. 110001) This section makes permanent the individual tax rates of 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35%, and 37%.
• Sec. 70202. No tax on overtime.
• Sec. 70203. No tax on car loan interest.
• (Sec. 60001) This section provides funding to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for construction, installation, or improvement to barriers; access roads; detection technology; invasive plant species eradication; and expenses for facilities and checkpoints along U.S. borders.

It's too bad the no-tax on tips and tax deduction for overtime expires in 2028 unless Congress renews it. Probably, has to something with the CBO or maybe the Senate parliamentarian. I don't know. Doesn't make sense to me. I hope the Republicans aren't playing political games with the bill. I haven't heard any Republican politician (including POTUS) mention that the tips and tax deductions will expire.

More links on the bill:

• H.R.1 - One Big Beautiful Bill Act
• The One, Big, Beautiful Bill [pdf]
• President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Is Now the Law
• The White House's page on the bill (includes Tax-Free Tips & Overtime Calculator and Savings By State map)
• The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act
• What Works: The Most Popular Provisions in the Budget Bill
• Every Newborn in America to Receive $1,000 Investment Account After President Trump Signs ‘Big Beautiful Bill’
• Ten tax policies that made it into final version of 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Trump signed into law
• How Trump’s Big, Beautiful Bill Will Help Kids Escape Failing Government Schools
• Votes Against the One Big Beautiful Bill Were Votes Against the American People
• All 45 Senate Dems Just Voted For A $4 Trillion Tax Increase
• Millions Reported Dead As 'Big Beautiful Bill' Passes

Trump Signs Order Aiming to Cut Funding to NPR, PBS

From Newmax.com (May 2):

Donald Trump signed an executive order that aims to cut funding to news outlets NPR and PBS, the White House said, marking the U.S. president's latest attempt to use federal funding as leverage against institutions he does not view favorably.

The order instructs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes funding to PBS and NPR stations, to "cease direct funding" to them, according to the order's text released by the White House late on Thursday. It labeled the news outlets as partisan and biased.

"The CPB Board shall cancel existing direct funding to the maximum extent allowed by law and shall decline to provide future funding," the order says.

Both NPR and PBS have previously said that Trump's effort to cut their funding would disrupt essential media service and have a "devastating impact" on Americans who rely on them for credible local and national news, including during emergency situations.

The Trump administration has labeled multiple institutions in academia and the media industry – from Harvard and Columbia universities to NPR and PBS – as being leftist, Marxist, biased and woke, and threatened funding cuts. Human rights advocates have raised concerns over free speech and academic freedom.

Since taking office in January, Trump and his billionaire ally Elon Musk have gone on a cost-cutting drive that has resulted in the gutting and attempted dismantling of various agencies and the layoffs of over 200,000 federal workers.

The Trump administration also sought to shut down Voice of America, Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks, whose news broadcasts are funded by the government. A federal judge ordered the Trump administration in late April to halt those efforts.

Thursday's order by Trump also aims to suspend indirect funding for NPR and PBS by asking the CPB to ensure "that licensees and permittees of public radio and television stations, as well as any other recipients of CPB funds, do not use federal funds for NPR and PBS."

The CPB sued the White House on Monday after Trump sought to fire three of its five board members. The nonprofit corporation was created by Congress in 1967 and provides funding for more than 1,500 locally managed public radio and TV stations.

Several media outlets have reported the White House plans to ask Congress to rescind $1.1 billion in funding for the CPB, with the amount being two years' worth of funding.

NPR has more than 900 employees, according to its website. The exact employee count at PBS was not immediately clear though a media report said it had over 550 staffers at the end of 2022. [source]

Great!  Let rich Leftists like George Soros, Oprah, most of Hollywood, most of professional sports stars, etc. fund it. If they want those media organizations to still exist, no-one is stopping them from supporting them.

Along the same lines...

• PBS Sues Trump, Claims 'Viewpoint Discrimination'
• House Republicans Move to Defund NPR
• NPR CEO Refuses To Negotiate With Trump as Network Sues President Over Defunding
• Trump Defunds NPR And PBS: ‘No Media Outlet Has A Constitutional Right To Taxpayer Subsidies’
• Promoting an Ideology
• NPR and PBS dug their own graves. Taxpayers tired of the bias
• NPR Is Under The Delusion It Has A Constitutional Right To Your Money

The agreement paradox: Reducing political polarization through disagreement

From Lucian Gideon Conway III on Christian Post.com (Apr. 1, 2023):

In case you hadn’t noticed, America is a bit of a mess right now.

The country is as polarized as it has been for a long, long time. In most scientific studies of worldwide increases in polarization, the United States ranks at or near the top. Americans have taken note: Recent polls show that polarization is consistently listed as a main concern among the U.S. populace. Lots of Americans are looking around and wondering “why the heck are all these groups shouting at each other all the time?”

How do we get out of this quagmire? Psychology research suggests a somewhat surprising answer to our dilemma: The way out of our polarized society is to stop caring so much about polarization.

The seduction of forced agreement

To see why that is, let’s start with a psychological fact: Disagreement bothers us. That’s why people love words like “together” and “unity” and hate words like “torn asunder” and “divorce.” Our ideal worlds are generally not populated with separation from others. Thus, it is hardly surprising that psychological research shows we have a fundamental need to belong. We want to fit in, and agreement is one of the main ways we do that.

These motives to agree with others are often healthy. There is nothing wrong with wanting to get along. There is nothing wrong with wanting to belong to a group. We were made for fellowship.

However, ironically, this desire for agreement — when given a too-exalted place — can undermine the very thing it is trying to create. Often, we feel so strongly that we want agreement that we put top-down pressures to force agreement. We want everyone to agree with us about vaccines, so we force everyone to say the same thing. We want everyone to agree with us about religion, so we force people to say only one point of view.

But this kind of forced agreement, even when done with good motives, is a disaster for society. Research sheds some light on why this is the case. As Stanley Milgram’s and Solomon Asch’s classic research taught us, to a surprising degree, people comply with social pressure. If you try and force people to agree, it generally works. But while pressure creates superficial agreement, it also causes two other things to happen simultaneously.

First, even if people comply, they are really upset at being told what to do. This is what psychologists call reactance. People don’t like their freedom being taken away, and pressure to agree does exactly that. Second, people who observe the forced agreement believe it is artificial, something our lab calls informational contamination. If I believe you said you agreed with vaccine mandates only because you were forced to, I don’t trust your stated belief. And this interferes with our ability to come to anything like real common ground. Ironically, in forcing agreement, we cut off the actual potential for genuine and meaningful agreement to grow. In the place of potentially solid ground, the forced agreement provides a psychologically contaminated, shifting sand upon which it is hard to build anything lasting.

That’s partially where we are now. We’ve increasingly responded to our divisions by trying to bludgeon the other side into some kind of forced agreement. The results have been disastrous. Divisive figures like Donald Trump weren’t the cause of our disagreements; they were the symptoms of forced agreement. Even people who agree with the side being pushed upon the populace lose faith in their own side when they feel the agreement is forced. This isn’t sustainable long-term. If we keep trying to bludgeon the other side into an agreement then we’ll find there really is no “there” at the end of that road — for either side.

The better road: Love does not equal agreement

Fortunately, this paradoxical psychological analysis implies a very straightforward solution to our problem: Let’s stop caring so much that we all disagree. If we stop obsessing over the fact that we are polarized, we will become less polarized. A desire for agreement partially got us into this mess, and a tolerance for disagreement can get us out of it. Rather than trying to agree, we should vigorously disagree without fear.

Of course, I don’t mean that we should disagree hatefully. The very fact that many readers will assume I’m suggesting an all-out, rage-filled, free-for-all illustrates part of our problem. That’s because somewhere along the way, we got it into our heads that love and agreement are inseparable. It is often hard for us to imagine loving someone that we disagree with. Because of this implicit psychological overlap between agreement and love, it is natural to assume that when I say we need more disagreement, I mean we need more hate. To us, love equals agreement. And in fact, psychological research suggests that’s exactly how we behave, an effect so strong that it has been given its own name: The Similarity-Attraction Effect (SAE).

But a moment’s reflection shows that “love = agreement” is a lie. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Love doesn’t end where agreement ends. Love begins where agreement ends. It is easy to “love” someone who agrees with you, who validates yourself and your place in the world. True love involves fully disagreeing with someone and loving them anyway.

That’s probably why Jesus Christ spends a striking amount of time talking about loving people from whom we get no benefit. You see, we are prone to falling into the SAE trap. Jesus says in Luke 6:32, “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you?” Applied to our present case, this suggests we need to separate out the benefits we get from agreement from the duty we have to love others. What we really need is to separate loving our neighbor from agreeing with our neighbor.

But note both sides of this separation. You should be kind to your enemies, but it is fine to disagree with your enemies. Jesus didn’t say “pretend your enemies agree with you.” One doesn’t have to read very far into the New Testament to realize that a large percentage of the Bible heroes disagreed vigorously with their enemies.

Realizing this is freeing. We need to resist the subtle psychological lie that a stable relationship, a stable family, or a stable society means that we have to agree on everything. In fact, that is dishonest and unproductive. Our society was originally formed on a better principle: The acknowledgment that disagreements are inevitable and often healthy. The founding fathers weren’t so much trying to create a world where everyone agreed as they were trying to provide a stable mechanism where people could disagree as much as they liked, but where we could vigorously work out our disagreements in the public sphere. That’s what separates America from almost everywhere else. And what the country really needs is to get back to that, to release the valve that says, “we must all agree” and instead foster more and more respectful disagreement.

So, I say, disagree more. Disagree vigorously. Disagree passionately and with conviction. But, as Jesus admonishes, love those who are your enemies. Disagree respectfully. Disagree fairly. You do not have to pretend your enemies are your friends. That’s the opposite of what it takes to create a healthy society. Rather, embracing the fact that you’re disagreeing with them is okay — and their disagreement with you is okay, too.

You may not change the entire world by doing so. You may not change your country or even your city. But it is certain that you can make an impact in the small circles you travel in by engaging in principled, respectful, and fair disagreement — and by not freaking out when others disagree with you. And who knows? If enough of us do that, maybe we will move the country onto a better road, a road that doesn’t end with the kind of polarization that truly is past the point of no return. [source]

Instead of coercion, maybe try persuasion too? But that takes time and energy which the Ruling Class doesn’t want to deal with. Using fear and lying is much quicker. Forced agreement is also a sign of insecurity.

Dulce et Decorum Est: In Defense of Healthy Patriotism

From The Public Discourse.com (May 22):

None of us is an independent agent surfing a private island in time. Each of us belongs to a much larger continent of human experiences stretching backward over centuries, experiences that situate us within a network of home, family, clan, tribe, friends, country, religion.

These things tug on our emotions. They demand our fidelity, and rightly so. In large measure, they make us who we are. They give us the context for our lives. When the poet Horace wrote his famous line Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, “It is sweet and fitting to die for one’s homeland,” he put into words what the Roman people yearned to believe: that their struggle to survive and thrive in the ancient world had meaning.

…………..

Consider: In A.D. 778, rear elements of the army of Charlemagne were ambushed by Basque warriors and their Muslim masters. The engagement took place at Roncevaux Pass in the Pyrenees, near the border of what are now Spain and France. Over time, it passed into legend. In the mid-eleventh century, one thousand years ago, traveling minstrels began telling the story of a great Frankish warrior from the Roncevaux Pass battle. His name was Roland. The poem that bears his name, La Chanson de Roland (the Song of Roland), has many scenes. But the most famous recounts his heroic stand against a fierce and much larger enemy.

In the poem, Roland is revered by his king and loved by his men, for both his warrior prowess and his noble character. Thus he’s trusted with the crucial task of covering the rear of Charlemagne’s army of Franks. The army is retiring to rest in France after fighting in Spain against its Muslim conquerors. A resentful nobleman betrays him. The Muslim force learns that Roland’s men are vulnerable. They set a trap and attack. But Roland and his men, united in a brotherhood of arms, fight courageously. They ensure the safety of Charlemagne’s main body of men.

As the battle wears on, the size of the enemy force weighs against the valor of Roland and his men. In the end, enemy warriors overrun them. Only in the final moments does Roland blow his great horn Oliphant. The mountainsides echo with the sound. Charlemagne, alerted, returns to crush the enemy. But he arrives too late to save Roland and his men. They’ve given their lives, faithful to their duty.

…………

The Song of Roland captures an enduring truth about the human condition: The things we’re willing to die for are tied to what we hold as sacred. In fact, the willingness to die for something also consecrates it as sacred.

Many students who’ve gone through U.S. higher education in recent years have been taught to be skeptical of patriotism. A critical, and often poisonously cynical spirit has undermined a great deal of modern life, including the nation. At the same time, a naïve kind of globalist utopianism has grown. It promises a new solidarity transcending national borders. But it’s a “solidarity” as shallow as it is wide. A peculiar free-market ideology is married to this globalist dreaming. It asks us to see ourselves almost solely in economic terms. It reduces us to stateless, homeless consumers, not citizens.

We do need to be wary of excessive national pride. It has caused great harm in the modern era. A nation can become so corrupt and Babylon-like that it’s not worth defending, and America is no exception. We also need to remember that the nation-state, however happily we conceive it, is distinct from, and finally less important than, the purpose of our life in this world. Man’s purpose is to know and love God. We should never imagine our citizenship in any nation as sufficient. Our true and lasting commonwealth is in heaven, and therein lies our real citizenship (Phil 3:20)

Thus, in civic affairs, zealotry for one’s country can be a vice. But there’s also a vice called indifference. And today, in America, we suffer from a media-driven culture that feeds this indifference while simultaneously aggravating divisions. A distorted emphasis on diversity and multiculturalism at the expense of communion and unity discourages any particular loyalty to the nations that constitute the West.

…………

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori may be too sweeping a claim for many in the twenty-first century to accept, or even to understand. But we need a healthy patriotism. We need to entertain the possibility that love for our country might lead us to sacrifice greatly, even radically, in order to preserve the best that remains in it. That love is not an evil. It’s a source of liberation. It breaks the bonds of our addiction to lesser things. It leads us to stand as brothers, sisters, and friends with others. Fidelity to the good in our nation is not our final end. It doesn’t deliver us from sin and death. It doesn’t have an absolute claim on our souls. It doesn’t replace our hunger for heaven. [read more]