Decadence, Episode 4: Education

I’m going to post another one of these today, simply because I’m tied up and am not going to get anything written for you. Still, I intend to present the whole series, anyway, so it’s really a question of timing.

This one, on education, I think makes some very excellent points, although as we all know, if I agreed with everything he says, one of us would be superfluous. :)

What English Catholicism will look like in 2115

Distribution of English Recusant Catholics, 17...

Distribution of English Recusant Catholics, 1715-1720. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is pretty interesting, and while it specifically talks about England, it perhaps has wider application.

A century from now Catholics are likely to be the country’s largest Christian body. But the priesthood, the Mass and the laity may look startlingly different to today

An English Catholic in 1615 lived an entirely different life from one in the early 1700s, 1800s, 1900s or 2000s. The changing backdrops of the Elizabethan persecutions, the Jacobite revolutions, the legalisation of Catholicism, the First World War and modern secularisation gave each of them historically distinct experiences. By 2115, the life of an English Catholic will be different again.

Some of the following predictions are guaranteed to be wrong. Casting the runes of the future is an imprecise art. However, the broad themes of the next 100 years are already taking shape.

The first is the de-Christianising of England, where the number of Christians is dropping. This affects the Catholic Church as it does the others, yet not all are falling at the same rate. The most acute crisis is in the Church of England, where recent independent statistics show membership fell from 40 per cent of the population in 1983 to 17 per cent in 2014, a drop of 58 per cent.

Source: CatholicHerald.co.uk » What English Catholicism will look like in 2115

I doubt anything will be as he says, actually. The West is far too dynamic to be predicted a hundred years out, in any detail at all. Could anyone have predicted the world of 1915 in 1815? Or today’s world in 1915? It’s beyond the realm of possibility, I think. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t think about the actions we take in terms of the future, but we shouldn’t think we can see clearly through this very dark glass either. Because there is something out there, today, as radical as the cotton gin, or the telegraph, or the internet, which will again change the world, in ways we cannot predict, and that likely will happen many times in the next century.

May you live in interesting times, indeed.

Decadence, Part 3: Democracy

Decadence_Title_(Screenshot)And so we return to the series. On this one, we’re going to have to turn some filters on since we’re mostly Americans.

He focuses here rather strongly on Australia, which is fine, but Australia is not America, and most of us are Americans. Our problems are not dissimilar, but in ways Australia is the most nanny state of us all, and the amount of government meddling in lives would likely shock us. I also sense a  lessening of the old fear in the English-speaking world (by those opposed to the government, at any given time) of the old fear of “Mobocracy”.

I also notice a decided lack of respect for the base reason we formed states in the first place, to protect ourselves and our property from others, whether gangs, other states, or a flood of refugees who want us to take care of them, and turn themselves into illegal immigrants to be such.

But even if we don’t agree with all he says here, he does an excellent job of limning the issues.

Enjoy, and think.

COCKROACHES: from juwannadoright

Margaret Sanger Deutsch: Margaret Sanger (* 1879)

Margaret Sanger Deutsch: Margaret Sanger (* 1879) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There is very little to add to what my friend says here, so I’ll forbear.

[…]

In addition to his [Mengele’s] job of sorting out those who would live and those who would die, Mengele performed hundreds of experiments on prisoners which were performed without concern either for the pain or safety of his victims.  He was particularly interested in identical twins, dwarves and those with physical anomalies.  Part of the motivation behind Mengele’s research was impelled by Hitler’s belief that the world’sGerminization was the ultimate goal and led him further into exploring the potential that eugenics might bring.

Eugenics – The study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by people having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits.

If Mengele’s view of the world and the importance of eugenics in “purifying” the race is frightening to you, the following quotes will certainly reinforce your beliefs.

“While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit. They are excellent means of meeting a certain phase of the situation, but I believe in regard to these, as in regard to other eugenic means, that they do not go to the bottom of the matter.”

“By all means, there should be no children when either mother or father suffers from such diseases as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, cancer, epilepsy, insanity, drunkenness and mental disorders. In the case of the mother, heart disease, kidney trouble and pelvic deformities are also a serious bar to childbearing No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective.”

“The main objects of the Population Congress would be to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring; to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”

Given Mengele’s dedication to the Third Reich and to eugenics, it is not surprising that he would make these sorts of statements.  But he didn’t.  Those quotes are from the mouth of Margaret Sanger, the American who founded Planned Parenthood.

Given Sanger’s extreme racist views it is not a surprise that Planned Parenthood has placed three quarters of its facilities either in or within walking distance of black and Hispanic neighborhoods.  From her writings Sanger makes it perfectly clear that she thinks of non-whites as inherently inferior.

Source: COCKROACHES | juwannadoright

Now, I’ll add this, at least Margeret Sanger was honest in her beliefs and goals, that is far more than can be said of her followers today.

w704 (3)

The Socialist Dream Will Never Die

w704 (2)Steven Hayward over at Powerline recently wrote something very interesting.

Not long ago I was listening to one of Russ Roberts’s archived “EconTalk” podcasts with the great Thomas Sowell (and if you don’t listen to EconTalk you’re missing one of the top podcast artists of our time—subscribe for free here), and was completely stunned by something Sowell said. When he was assigned Friedrich Hayek’s seminal essay “The Use of Knowledge in Society” as a graduate student, he didn’t get it. Sowell found it too abstract and dense. Russ Roberts, another fine Chicago-school economist, said he had the same reaction to it the first time he read it, and, moreover, that Vernon Smith (a Nobel Prize winner) also found the essay opaque at first reading.

Source: The Socialist Dream Will Never Die | Power Line

Like Steven, I’ver never found this anything but clear as a plate glass window, so I’m a bit dumbfounded. Still the examples he gives worked through it, extraordinarily well, and as sometimes happens, maybe they understand it better for not seeing immediately the point.

He then proceeds to comment on an article in The New Republic, entitled “What If Stalin Had Computers?” What his point is that it is simply the old socialist saw that communism merely needed more time, as if a few more generations of misery would have made it work, violates another thing. Name one thing that Stalin’s Soviet union invented or developed from scratch. Can’t think of one myself, everything they had, somebody in the west, mostly Britain or America developed. So, Stalin having computers is simply a fantasy, that would have never happened in a millennium without the west. But, in truth, communism, or socialism, can never work, because people will always act in their own rational self-interest. And if you attempt to force it, they will simply pretend to work, and lie.

And the real reason it makes no difference is this. Sometime, long ago, I read a quote from Sir Winston Churchill, which I can no longer find, that said roughly, “We gather all the statistics in the world, and analyze and plan things on them, and reorder national priorities and all that. But it all come down to that grubby little man, with a clipboard and a pencil, who wrote down whatever he felt like.” And that is what always kills command economies–they lie to themselves, whether they are the Soviet Union, Venezuela, or increasingly, the United States. The real reason that we didn’t forsee the downfall of the USSR was that we believed the BS given to the Politburo.

Let’s finish with Steve and how he finished his article:

I recall reading one of the last interviews Hayek ever gave shortly before his death in 1992 in Forbes (sadly I can’t seem to find it now), where he was asked whether the information revolution and supercomputing didn’t change things, and make possible more effective centralized economic planning. Hayek said no—no matter how big and fast computers get, and how complete the data gathering, no centralized process can ever hope to match the uncoordinated actions of the constantly changing marketplace. Go re-read “The Use of Knowledge in Society” slowly and repeatedly until you get it.

At the end of the day, of course, the socialist impulse is not really rooted in reason or epistemology, but in envy and the desire for authoritarian control. That’s why we’ll never be rid of these people, no matter how many Venezeulas and Cubas you pile up.

 

They Hate Your Guts | The Weekly Standard

GARY LOCKE

GARY LOCKE

If you’ve been here  long, you’ll know that I love P.J. O’Rourke likely more than any humorist writer since mark twain, although Will Rogers is pretty good as well. In this, a letter to the Democratic voters, P.J. again nails many, many it’s.

There is simply no point to me wasting time, commenting on this, it is simply wonderful, and so close to true that it is eerie. So enjoy:

 

I would like to address myself to the poor, the huddled masses, the wretched refugees teeming to America’s shore, the homeless, the economically, socially, and mentally tempest-tossed. Also, I’d like to address the young, the hip, the progressive, the compassionate, and the caring. I’d like a word with everyone who votes for Democrats.

Democrats hate your guts.

Democrats need your vote and they’ll do anything—no matter how low and degrading—to get it. They hate you the way a whore hates a john.

All politicians hate people. Politics is a way to gain power over people without justification for having that power. Nothing in the 11,000-year history of politics—going back to the governing elites of Mesopotamia—indicates that politicians are wiser, smarter, kinder, more moral, or better skilled at any craft (aside from politics) than we are.

But political rulers need the acquiescence of the ruled to slake the craving for power. Politicians hate you the way a junkie hates junk.

Politicians gain power by means of empty promises or threats, or both when they’re on their game. Should you vote for people who are good at politics? No. You should vote for Republicans. We’re lousy.

Believe me, I know why you don’t vote for Republicans. You see the Republican candidates and they look so .  .  . Bush-League, Dog Walker, Rubio Rube, Get-Outta-the-Carson, Hucka-Upchuck, Ap-Paul-ling, Cruz Control, Fat-Fried Christie Crispy, Son-of-a-Kasich, Dingleberry Perry, Flee the Fiorina, Sancta-Santorum, Graham Cracker, and Nervous 7/11 Night Shift Manager Jindal.

And never mind the busted flush Trump Card who should be spray-painted with Rust-Oleum primer, have a squirt gun super-glued to his hand, and kicked through the front door of the Ferguson, Mo., police station.

You think, “I don’t want to vote for these people.”

Just between you and me, we Republicans think the same thing.

Source: They Hate Your Guts | The Weekly Standard