Site has no Description

The very first command God gives to the first humans is to be fruitful and multiply. If there aren’t people‚ then there are no commandments and no wisdom‚ for who would be there to contemplate or to act? But with ongoing human life‚ everything else follows in time — so long as people continue to invest in those who will follow them. Our generation is doing the opposite — ringing up debt that will saddle those who come after us.  If they come after us. For it has been evident for some time that humankind around the world has decided that it will observe the commandment about being fruitful and multiplying about as much as any of the other commandments — sporadically‚ as it may please us.  Opposing this suicidal trend is the deepest reason for my own political conservatism. We have known for some time that the replacement rate had been dropping. In 2011‚ David Goldman in his How Civilizations Die called our attention to the sharp drop in the birthrate around the globe‚ something he called a path of willed self-extinction. Things have only gotten worse since then. In 1960‚ the American birthrate was 3.65 per couple; by 2000‚ it was 2.06; and by 2020‚ it was 1.64. A small spike during COVID was only a brief respite; the birth rate continues downwards. (READ MORE from Shmuel Klatzkin: The American People Know the Real Hamas) A recent article in the Free Press suggests an underlying cause. In her article this week‚ Rikki Schlott makes the case that as men trend increasingly rightwards and women increasingly towards the left‚ establishing a relationship between them becomes increasingly difficult and rare.  Why should that be so? It wasn’t terribly uncommon in America fifty years ago for husband and wife to have political differences. By and large‚ the structures of our communal life — our schools‚ our houses of worship‚ our service clubs‚ and our bowling league‚ and our bridge clubs embraced people of both parties and a range of political opinions. There was a broad consensus that was the atmosphere of the country. We thrived within a large‚ civil consensus‚ and believed that it was capable of working through life’s challenges successfully together.  Yes‚ it had its limits. But we accepted the need for rebellion‚ even as we tried to temper its rough edges. We knew we needed its enlivening energy and we made places for it. We had stable forms capable of constructively channeling an abundance of life energy. We believed we could grow and thrive‚ changing but always coherent. The greatest success was in being a religious land without religious coercion. Although religions make special claims on people‚ setting boundaries on behavior‚ on beliefs‚ and even on acceptable partners for marriage‚ the experience of the millennia embodied in our religions tempers the fanaticism that into which faith claims have been known to lapse. American religious freedom meant that our religious communities had to renounce the favorite ploy of the fanatic — using the power of the state to force doctrinal conformity. Separating religion and state is not something absolute. We are both religious and political beings‚ for religion means simply our addressing of the deepest issues of life‚ the place from which first principles and axioms spring‚ and politics is how we negotiate together the practical life of the polis‚ our lives together. Political freedom requires our own inner commitment‚ that which religion teaches and reinforces — that we must govern ourselves if we wish to be free of needing a tyrant to enforce order. The religious wars of Europe‚ and in particular‚ the bloody struggles over religion during the English Civil War‚ were a caution to the American Founders. The political differences of Charles I and the Parliament did not rise to out-and-out war until the struggle was successfully framed as religious. And so it was fought —  a war between the supporters of the episcopate on the King’s side‚ and an alliance of Scottish Presbyterians and English Puritans on the other. The man who won the war‚ Oliver Cromwell‚ constantly framed the political and even military issues in fiery religious language. Here he writes in a letter about his triumph at the battle of Marston Moor: Truly England and the Church of God hath had a great favour from the Lord‚ in this great Victory given unto us‚ such as the like never was since this War began. It had all the evidences of an absolute Victory obtained by the Lord’s blessing upon the Godly Party principally. We never charged but we routed the enemy. The Left Wing‚ which I commanded‚ being our own horse‚ saving a few Scots in our rear‚ beat all the Prince’s horse. God made them as stubble to our swords. His “Godly Party” won the war and established what amounted to a military dictatorship for more than a decade. Renouncing tyranny‚ the American Founders rejected the idea that our own politics should settle whose is the Godly Party. Rather‚ we should place religion beyond the reach of politics‚ so that all would give the state their assent as citizens and their practical duty‚ to paraphrase part of Washington’s reassuring reply to the Jewish community of Newport in 1790. (READ MORE: The Story of Oct. 7 Is the Same as the Story of Dec. 7) But in America in the early 21st century‚ politics has again entwined itself in religion. Cultural Marxism holds sway over a large swath of America‚ and over one of its great political parties. Like all Marxism‚ it is a religion. Its faith is that its politics embody the ultimate truth‚ and whereas all the traditional religions are merely exploitative power-grabbers‚ hiding their motives and manipulating their followers with untrue and outdated narratives. They believe that tolerance and freedom of religion and of expression are negative‚ as there is no need to debate the truth which is theirs entirely. Their revolutionary politics believes our First Amendment freedoms are harmful and should be eliminated. Just as traditional religions in their heydays usually insisted and always preferred that their followers marry only within their community‚ the new religion of the cultural Marxists insists as well on no out-marrying. How could there be any true relationship of any sort between the awakened people of the light and the oppressors‚ i.e.‚ everyone who is not similarly awakened? And if that is true of relationships in general‚ how much the more so of intimate relationships.  The effect of that religious requirement of the cultural Marxism that has a grip on the young’s education fans out widely. The NY Post reports of a recent poll by a Bay Area research firm‚ Change‚ that showed “that 55% of women found it a turnoff for a partner to listen to ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ while 53% said it was offputting for a love interest to refuse to see Greta Gerwig’s summer blockbuster ‘Barbie.’” As political differences increase between the sexes‚ and as politics tries to become religion‚ we can see the power of this driver increasing in our birthrate stats. As a religion‚ Marxism in general is not family friendly. In the largest Communist country‚ the South China Post reports that “China posts record-low birth rate despite government push for babies.” In America‚ the higher the level of education and power‚ the lower the birth rate. Only natural when one feels part of an elite with more wisdom than the traditional institutions and inherited culture of the poor idiots over whom the elite have the right to rule with no accountability and less limitation. (READ MORE: Complicit Media Wants Israel to Spare the Children) In the section of the Torah read this week in Jewish synagogues around the world‚ God tells Moses that the people should “make Me a Sanctuary and I will dwell in them.” The text long ago drew attention — shouldn’t it have said “I will dwell in it‚” in that Sanctuary they are to build. But no. The Sanctuary and all outer structures exist for the purpose of Godliness within each one of us. That enables us to be right with each other. That enables us to build relationships‚ which enable us to build families‚ build societies‚ and build nations and a community of nations. Without it‚ we don’t even get to square one. With no relation to that which transcends us‚ we die with no one to follow us and carry on the shared vision. We perish in our isolation‚ in our chosen extinction on the altar of our own woke perfection. The transforming of politics into religious war is self-immolation. Opposing this suicidal trend is the deepest reason for my own political conservatism. We must conserve the place of religion in society and we must refuse to let politics swallow it up. We dedicate our lives to the Oneness that makes possible the bridging of human differences in loving relationships and gladly bring new life into the world. The post The Transformation of Politics Into Religious Wars appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Germany’s Catholic bishops may be preparing to defy the Vatican‚ despite Pope Francis’s efforts to rein in the heterodox prelates. The German Bishops’ Conference will meet tomorrow for its annual Spring plenary assembly‚ where the bishops may move forward with establishing a Synodal Council. Last year‚ as the German Synodal Way concluded‚ the idea of a Synodal Council was proposed‚ a permanent body of mostly laity who would democratically vote on matters ecclesial and administrative‚ replacing the authority of the bishop. If Germany’s bishops approve those statutes‚ too‚ the Church in Germany will officially be in schism. The Vatican vehemently opposed and outright banned the creation of any such council‚ stating that the German bishops do not have the authority to contradict the ecclesial hierarchy of the universal Catholic Church. However‚ Bishop Georg Bätzing‚ the president of the German Bishops’ Conference‚ rejected the ban and announced that he would try to negotiate with the Vatican instead. Catholic laity in Germany are calling on their bishops to be obedient to Rome. The group Neuer Anfang (New Beginning) published an open letter to “once again express our concern for the course of the Church” in Germany. They wrote: [W]e would like to invite you — in a good biblical way — to take stock and see whether there is still something right about the overall “Synodal Way” project. The Pope and his Roman authorities have rejected almost all of their demands and decisions as incompatible with the teachings of the Church. Neuer Anfang noted that the Synodal Council and the Synodal Way have been “built on sand.” The Synodal Way was originally intended to be a means to address the “power structures” in the German Church which resulted in the clerical sexual abuse crisis. (READ MORE from S.A. McCarthy: Virginia’s Bishops Speak Out Against Euthanasia) However‚ the program began operating under the misconception that the abuse was facilitated by the specifically and uniquely Catholic organization of the Church. Of course‚ as countless abuse crises and studies have demonstrated‚ abuse is not rooted in the Catholic Church: any organization which has hierarchical “power structures” is susceptible to abuse. Since the Synodal Way began operating on flawed and faulty principles‚ the creation of a Synodal Council‚ Neuer Anfang argued‚ is unnecessary and “cannot be reconciled with the sacramental structure of the Church.” “Why‚ dear bishops‚” the laity asked‚ “do you openly disobey the Pope? … Who gives you‚ dear bishops‚ the right to renounce your apostolic authority based on the Gospel?” The letter notes that the bishops are wasting their time and energy on committees and meetings‚ neglecting their duty to shepherd their flocks. “Do you still notice that you‚ as courageous shepherds and bold leaders‚ are urgently needed somewhere else?” the laity asked in their letter. “There is war outside. The country is facing a demographic‚ economic‚ and social catastrophe. Germany is in danger of slipping into ungovernability. Hundreds of thousands of people are leaving their spiritual home disappointed — a Catholic Church that has lost its spiritual substance‚ its intellectual relevance and its prophetic luminosity.” “Lent is a time of examination of conscience‚ purification and new beginnings‚” the letter concludes. “Nobody has to continue the old patterns. You as bishops don’t have to do that either. With the ‘bold freedom of speech’ that Cardinal Bergoglio called for the Church in 2013‚ we say to you: Bishops‚ be honest!” (READ MORE: Understanding Pope Francis’s Comments on Hell) Currently‚ a “Synodal Committee” is preparing the way for the banned Synodal Council. The powerful Central Committee of German Catholics has already approved the statutes of the Synodal Council. If Germany’s bishops approve those statutes‚ too‚ the Church in Germany will officially be in schism and in direct defiance of the Roman Pontiff. The post Germany’s Bishops Are Approaching Schism appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Despite recent claims that the Academy Awards excluded women from coveted categories — claims made by none other than #Hillary Barbie — the nominations suggest an unprecedented appreciation of films made by or for women.  Sure‚ Barbie’s Greta Gerwig is missing from Best Director‚ but four out of ten Best Picture nominees are female-centric films. The one topping nominations‚ director Yorgos Lanthimos’ Poor Things‚ is a subject of fascination. By nominating Poor Things for 11 awards‚ the Academy has implicitly endorsed the vision of womanhood in a film true to Mary Shelley’s source material. In grafting the Sexual Revolution onto Victorian England‚ Poor Things‚ like Frankenstein‚ creates a frightening amalgam.  If the film industry offers a glimpse into our culture‚ then Poor Things indicates that we’ve ridden this wave of feminism to its peak. Though the characters are hedonistic‚ the film itself is secretly prudish. If Poor Things wins big at the March awards show‚ then the Academy will‚ perhaps unwittingly‚ embrace a return to traditional values.  (READ MORE from Shelby Kearns: Let Kids Drop Out: Why Compulsory Education Harms Even the Most Gifted Students) On its surface‚ Poor Things celebrates women’s sexual freedom through its heroine‚ Bella Baxter (Emma Stone).  Bella is the creation of Dr. Godwin Baxter (Willem Dafoe)‚ or “God‚” and the pair reside in a futuristic Victorian England. She has an infant’s brain in a woman’s body‚ so Godwin charts her progress as her motor skills and cognition rapidly shift from child to woman. To control the experiment’s variables‚ Godwin gives Bella a cloistered existence in his home and lab‚ making her a blank slate unshaped by social convention. Before Bella is even mature enough to consent to marriage‚ Godwin promises her to his sensitive apprentice Max McCandles (Ramy Youssef) — one of her few contacts with the outside world.   The marriage plans are thwarted by Godwin’s lawyer‚ Duncan Wedderburn (Mark Ruffalo)‚ a dandy who takes after Shelley’s friend‚ Lord Byron. With prurient intentions‚ Wedderburn invites Bella on his travels‚ and she eagerly accepts to see what life is like outside the Godwin home.  As Wedderburn and Bella traverse colorful‚ steampunk versions of Lisbon‚ Alexandria‚ and Marseille‚ the result of Godwin’s experiment is revealed. Godwin never poses this question‚ but the film seems to ask the audience‚ “What would women be like if they weren’t controlled by men?”  One reading suggests that the uninhibited woman would have sex like a man.  Bella has such an appetite that it even surprises Wedderburn‚ whose confessions suggest that he doesn’t stay with anyone longer than three months. Wedderburn is so intrigued with Bella that he decides to marry her‚ but to his chagrin‚ she takes on additional partners. What follows is a lengthy second act of sex scene after sex scene.  Poor Thing’s supposed celebration of Bella’s sexual freedom has polarized critics. One review in Slate sees “a kinky delight‚” while Vulture’s Angelica Jade Bastién considers the sex scenes part of a male fantasy — albeit one with admirable craft — that gazes upon Bella’s body with no interest in her interior life.  Though the takes in Slate and Vulture diverge‚ they share an assumption: Poor Things conflates sexual experience and enlightenment. Bastien says as much when she notes the transition from black and white to full color‚ perhaps a stylistic choice showing that Bella is in the dark until shrugging off sexual restraint.  What the critics miss‚ however‚ is a searing indictment of the Sexual Revolution. The look and feel of Poor Things imply that not all Bella’s choices are good‚ and they’re not all her own. Like other Lanthimos films‚ Poor Things evokes the uncanny‚ disgust‚ and what young people call “cringe” through wide-angle lenses‚ a dissonant score‚ and shots exposing the body’s every nook and cranny. In other words‚ sexual freedom can be ugly.  Those encouraging Bella’s appetite reveal their self-interest‚ including the brothel owner who temporarily employs Bella and tells her that “[a] woman planting her own course to freedom” is “delightful.” It reminds one‚ for example‚ of how late Playboy founder Hugh Hefner supported birth control and abortion‚ as Louise Perry astutely observed in The Case Against the Sexual Revolution. People who support casual sex without consequences often have something to gain‚ including‚ in Hefner’s case‚ a steady supply of girlfriends 60 years his junior. (READ MORE: These Policies Could Help Vulnerable Women Who Are Turning to OnlyFans) Poor Things‚ then‚ is arguably more evocative of Mary Wollstonecraft than Mary Shelley. Wollstonecraft‚ Shelley’s mother‚ has reentered the feminist imagination thanks to legal scholar Erika Bachiochi’s The Rights of Women: Reclaiming a Lost Vision (2021).  Bachiochi argues for a return to the first wave of feminism ushered in by Wollstonecraft with her 1792 treatise A Vindication of the Rights of Women. Wollstonecraft’s feminism‚ Bachiochi writes‚ held men and women as equally rational and thus equally dignified. Contrary to the Sexual Revolution in the 1960s and the accompanying ideology of second-wave feminism‚ the equal rights of men and women didn’t exist so that women could act like the most vicious men. No‚ Wollstonecraft thought that equal rights enabled men and women to exercise equal virtue‚ helping both sexes fulfill familial obligations. In prioritizing the family‚ Wollenstonecraft hoped to forestall fatherlessness‚ a phenomenon that has risen to epidemic proportions.  With its pro-family undercurrent‚ Poor Things makes a journey of its own from the third (fourth?) wave of feminism to the first. The film begins as a sex-positive Frankenstein but has an ending that would please Wollstonecraft. Yes‚ Bella makes unconventional choices‚ and the final scene shows her lounging on the lawn‚ clinking martini glasses with Toinette (Suzy Bemba)‚ the friend and lover who she met at the brothel. However‚ Bella also makes a decision that’s radical in  today’s anti-marriage culture: she retreats behind the walls of the Godwin home with her betrothed‚ Max. To paraphrase a Victorian concept‚ Bella is the angel with a crooked halo in the house.  For all its raunch‚ Poor Things is most at ease with Bella’s quiet and relatively chaste domestic life. By the end‚ Lanthimos has dropped the warping camera lenses and replaced the grating score with a triumphant chorus. At last‚ Bella’s enlightenment has arrived.  Poor Things’ critical acclaim could mean that the Academy is similarly awakened to the problem with the Sexual Revolution: its false promises undermine marriage and family‚ the ultimate sources of happiness. If the film industry offers a glimpse into our culture‚ then Poor Things indicates that we’ve ridden this wave of feminism to its peak‚ and it’s about to come crashing down. The post The Oscars Unwittingly Celebrate Sexual Morality With <;i>;Poor Things<;/i>; appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

As Vladimir Putin talked to Tucker Carlson about the “Russian soul” last week‚ his troops were breaking through Ukrainian defenses in a key sector of the besieged city of Avdiivka‚ which has become the latest pivotal battle of the war.  When Putin agreed to give the interview seen by millions around the world‚ he may have known that his intelligence services were dusting off Soviet era maps  showing  a pipeline close to  Russian positions‚ through which “Spetnaz” could crawl into the city center. A specially selected “storm” unit composed of Wagner group veterans‚ now incorporated into the regular Russian army‚ managed to sneak up behind some Ukrainian positions and catch them by surprise. Their collapse allowed an advance into  the destroyed city neighborhood by Russian troops whose siege has lasted four months‚ at a cost of over 20‚000 casualties‚ 300 main battle tanks‚ and thousands more combat vehicles and artillery pieces. Ukraine’s highly pressured position in Avdiivka was causing simmering disagreements between president Volodymir Zelensky and elements of his military high command arguing for a tactical withdrawal to more defensible fortified lines 16 miles west of the city. The Russian breakthrough brought matters to a head and Zelensky  replaced the chief of his armed forces‚ General Valery Zalushny‚ with the more aggressive general Oleksandr Syrsky‚ signaling his continued refusal to concede territory to Russia — even as Putin was telling Tucker that he would negotiate peace once “Russian objectives are met.” Europe’s military shortcomings and the currently fractured leadership in Washington make a negotiated solution to the war in Ukraine seem inevitable. With the capture of Avdiivka‚ Russia can solidify its central front and  move towards the industrial heartland of the Donbass‚ Kromatorsk‚ an engineering hub with a population of  over 100‚000‚ steel plants‚ iron mines‚ and gas fields. It would be Russia’s biggest strategic prize since launching its invasion two years ago and may be central in any future peace discussions. (READ MORE from Martin Arostegui: Putin’s March to the Red Sea) Upon taking his new command‚ Syrsky  committed  key  reserves to reinforce positions in Avdiivka including the crack 3rd Brigade freshly trained in American M1A1 Abrams tanks which started arriving  last October. Any relief effort would involve sharp armored thrusts to counter Russia’s pincer movement to surround the city from the north and south‚ in order to secure its western supply route that Russian forces have almost cut off in recent days. It was  Syrsky’s strategy when he directed the defense of Bahamut last winter and Russia will probably fall back  on the attritional tactics its so far used to  capture cities with its numerically superior army;  flooding in troops from all directions to overwhelm the defenders. Ukraine has  advantages it lacked last year. It’s much enhanced armored capabilities — including the Abrams‚ British Challenger tanks‚ German Leopards‚ as well as hundreds of U.S. Bradley fighting vehicles and German Marders that keep arriving in steady numbers — more than match refurbished vintage T-55 and T62s with which Russia is largely replacing  modern T-72s‚ T-80s‚ and T-90s being destroyed in great numbers. Ukraine has  vastly increased its drone capabilities with domestic mass production of copies of Iranian Shahed 136 and Russian Lancet FPVs‚ that they use with lethal effect against artillery positions. Defense contractors are even working on  jet powered loitering munitions to throw against strategic targets inside of Russia‚ such as  oil and gas refineries  hit in the most recent attacks. Ukraine has also greatly expanded its electronic warfare capabilities‚ significantly catching up to Russia in this critical area. According to Ukrainian defense spokesmen‚ EW equipment is now being distributed to field units down to company level to disrupt swarms of enemy drones by interfering with the signals from their operators. Zelensky and his newly appointed high command may be hoping to hold off the Russians long enough for the 40 to 60 American F-16s‚ committed by European NATO allies‚ to get in theatre and give Ukraine some tactical air superiority to push the Russians back from Avdiivka and possibly rout their 50‚000 strong force concentrated there. Gen. Syrsky  routed the Russian invasion force of 100‚000 trying to take Kyiv two years ago. (READ MORE: Zelensky Responds to Putin’s Missile War) Russia may even be planning for such a worst case scenario. It’s erected a barrier of over 2000 freight wagons along a 30 mile stretch of railroad east of the Avdiivka called “ Tsar Train” which analysts believe is intended as a barricade against Ukrainian forces that may pursue a retreating army into occupied lands. Pictures of F-16s with Ukranian markings are already circulating on social media but the planes are probably still  in Romania or other countries where pilots are undergoing training. Their highly complex  instruction has a way to go yet‚ according to experts like retired British air vice marshal Sean Bell who told Times Radio that it will be “several months to a year” before the pilots are combat ready. Zelensky is taking a huge gamble in Avdiivka. Success much depends on whether a previously rejected $62 billion military aid package that was finally approved by the US Senate this week makes it past the House of Representatives where Republican Speaker Mike Johnson says it’s “dead on arrival.” Despite pledging to defend Ukraine at any cost‚ the Biden administration refuses to adopt measures to shut the U.S. border with Mexico proposed by Republicans who condition new aid for Zelensky on stemming the migrant “invasion” that’s a far bigger security concern for most Americans than Ukraine‚ according to  polls. The European Union is trying to fill the void created by the cut throat power struggles between globalist democrats and isolationist republicans. After approving $55 billion in Ukraine aid last week‚ top EU officials have announced plans to step up supplies of 155 mm artillery shells of which Ukraine is critically short. Over 500‚000 are being delivered  next month ‚ according to EU Commission president Ursula Von Der Leyen. This falls way short of the one million artillery rounds sent to Russia by North Korea‚ but Europe’s chief commissioner says that EU countries will “coordinate efforts to draw from existing stocks and increase ammunition production” for further deliveries. Norway is also replenishing missiles for Ukraine’s NASAM medium range air defense systems which could run out by next month‚ according to the Pentagon. This other critical shortage could give Russia the window it needs to unleash its hypersonic missiles such as the X-22 also known as Kh-22‚ with speeds of up to 4‚000 kph for a blitz that could dwarf anything suffered by Ukraine so far. (READ MORE: Russia Mounts Its Comeback) “It’s impossible for Russia not to win” Putin told Tucker in their two hour interview and he could be proved right in Avdiivka. A growing sense of urgency is palpable in Europe where the prospect of a Russian victory  is finally forcing governments to step up military preparedness as Donald Trump pushed them to do when he was president over scathing criticism from the liberal media and bureaucratic pundits. Europe’s military shortcomings and the currently fractured leadership in Washington make a negotiated solution to the war in Ukraine seem inevitable at this point. The battle for Avdiivka may well decide whether Putin deals from a position of strength or from behind his “Tsar Train.” The post Ukraine and Russia Battle for Avdiivka appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The highly regarded Pew Research Center has released its latest analysis of the religious beliefs of Americans and consequently acquired its usual major media headlines. The Washington Post version led: “nones — nonreligious Americans — increasing in U.S.” National Public Radio announced: “nones are now the largest group in the U.S.‚” ahead of “Catholics and Evangelicals.” As usual‚ the facts were somewhat more complex than the media reported. The Pew report itself shows that most nones are not necessarily nonreligious. But as its own more detailed chapter data demonstrate‚ the nones concept has been pushed too far. And Pew’s reported percent of nones had actually declined marginally since 2019‚ (although it has increased substantially over 50 years). At 28 percent‚ nones were marginally larger than the 26 percent of Evangelicals or 25 percent of Catholics. But this is well below the 40 percent of all Protestants‚ much less the 60 percent of Christians‚ or 70 percent of all with a formal religion. (READ MORE from Donald Devine: Does Economic Recession Loom in Our Future?) Pew actually created its “nones” category by combining three separate groups even to arrive at the 28 percent total: 17 percent of this group actually defined themselves as atheists‚ 20 percent as agnostics‚ and 63 percent (or only 18 percent of the grand total) as “Nothing in Particular;” that is‚ as not affiliated with any specific religion.   But the first two groups are quite different‚ having very specific belief histories opposing religion‚ while Pew concedes that the “nothings” have extremely complex‚ not especially nonreligious ideas about it. For example‚ while atheists and agnostics mostly reject the idea of God or a higher power‚ only a third of the “nothing in particulars” do so.   In its main summary section‚ Pew reports its results for all the “nones” groups together against those “affiliated” with all traditional religions‚ which naturally became the focus for the mass media reports on it.  Actually‚ the full Pew report included eight other separate chapters with more detailed breakdowns of the separate nones groups‚ which will be discussed below. But Pew’s main summary report itself is sufficient to refute the progressive decline-of-religion theme emphasized by the mainstream media. Right at the beginning of its main report‚ Pew’s summary of results reads:  Most “nones” believe in God or another higher power. But very few go to religious services regularly.  Most say religion does some harm‚ but many also think it does some good. They are not uniformly anti-religious.   Most “nones” reject the idea that science can explain everything. But they express more positive views of science than religiously affiliated Americans do. This summary alone shows that the mainstream media substantially erred by simply headlining the nones as nonreligious. Pew did also say that “many [nones] are critical of religious institutions and are less participant in organizations generally‚” and that‚ “Most say religion causes a variety of problems in society — like intolerance or superstition.”  But many “nones” also say that religion helps give people meaning and purpose‚ and that it can encourage people to treat each other well. Overall‚ 43% of “nones” say religion does more harm than good in society‚ while 14% say it does more good than harm; 41% say religion does equal amounts of good and harm. The summary report added‚ 63% of “nones” say “there is something spiritual beyond the natural world‚ even if we cannot see it.” And 56% of “nones” say there are some things that science just can’t explain … About half of nones say spirituality is very important in their lives or say they think of themselves as spiritual.  On the claim that nones substitute rational science for religion‚ Pew reported‚  Most “nones” say science does more good than harm in American society‚ and on average “nones” are much more positive about science than are religiously affiliated people. At the same time‚ most “nones” believe there are limits to what science can do. For example‚ 44% of “nones” say there is a scientific explanation for everything‚ while 56% say there are some things science can’t possibly explain. Clearly‚ the mainstream media’s pro nones-bias led it astray. But the Pew report itself confused things by burdening the “nothings” (as we call the “nothing in particulars” by themselves) to carry the burden of the atheists and agnostics within the broader “nones” category. By adding them to the nones‚ Pew makes the “nothings” appear substantially more anti-religious and progressive-liberal than they actually are. For‚ with atheists at 17 percent of the nones category and agnostics at 20 percent‚ this represents almost 40 percent of the “nones” reported beliefs‚ which are often quite different than what the “nothings in particular” alone believe. (READ MORE: Thank Media’s Toxic Culture Wars for Today’s Universal Unhappiness) It is reported‚ for example‚ that 70 percent of nones believe in God or a higher power. But 77 percent of atheists do not believe in either‚ suppressing the fact that 83 percent of nothings by themselves do believe‚ putting nothings right at the U.S. national average. Or‚ when asked if there is “something spiritual beyond the natural world even if we cannot see it‚” or‚ instead‚  whether “the natural world is all there is‚” 75 percent of atheists say there is only this world. But 75 percent of nothings say there is a world beyond. When asked if humans have a soul or spirit beyond their bodily existence‚ the nones total is misleadingly increased by the fact 69 percent of atheists say humans do not have such a spirit — while 78 percent of nothings say they do. Only 4 percent of atheists and 18 percent of agnostics believe in Heaven compared to 51 percent of nothings who do.  Even 41 percent of nothings believe in a Hell‚ compared to merely 13 percent of agnostics and 3 percent of atheists. In evaluating the overall effect of religion‚ 73 percent of atheists say religion does more harm than good‚ as do 51 percent of agnostics. But only 33 percent of nothings choose religion “does more harm than good.” Nones views on science replacing religion are similarly distorted. When asked to choose between the belief that “there is a scientific explanation for everything even if we do not understand how everything works‚” and the statement that “there are some things science cannot possibly explain” — 78 percent of atheists and 54 percent of agnostics but only 31 percent of nothings choose the science explanation for everything. Actually‚ 68 percent of nothings chose the more religious‚ limited-science ability to explain everything. The Pew Center and its impressive surveys represent an invaluable resource for understanding world and U.S. public opinion. Its reports have been essential for my own understanding as a longtime political scientist writing on policy and public opinion. Pew’s “nones” concept has been incredibly successful in attracting popular media to its resources and conclusions. But as its own more detailed chapter data demonstrate‚ the nones concept has been pushed too far. The term “nothings” is probably not the answer either but the conceptual separation of atheists and agnostics from whatever might replace it is essential. As an old survey data analyst‚ I understand the desire to increase the size of public opinion subset categories; but Pew’s own chapter data make the case that they should be separate categories. Earlier Pew analysis had shown that “nothings” may even switch back and forth to religion over time‚ suggesting some dynamic between them‚ while atheism and agnosticism clearly deserve their own separate designations.  (READ MORE: The FBI’s Own History Exposes the Often-Rogue Agency) In the meantime‚ thank you Pew Center for providing sufficient data to understand how the three separate groups responded and how they differ more than they agree on religion. Donald Devine is a Senior Scholar at the Fund for American Studies in Washington‚ D.C. He served as President Ronald Reagan’s civil service director during the president’s first term in office. A former professor‚ he is the author of 11 books‚ including his most recent‚ The Enduring Tension: Capitalism and the Moral Order‚ and Ronald Reagan’s Enduring Principles — and is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator. The post Apples and Oranges: Atheists‚ Agnostics‚ and Nothings appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Coca-Cola Company‚ the quintessential American multinational that is the world’s largest non-alcoholic beverages enterprise‚ is in the process of addressing the most consequential force majeure political risk it faces for the remainder of this century: China—U.S. geostrategic tension that very likely will lead to economic warfare and possibly military confrontation.  Coca-Cola was blindsided by the U.S. government’s overwhelming response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022: comprehensive economic warfare against Russia and extensive military support for Ukraine. The U.S. and India … have converging vital geostrategic interests in seeking to counterbalance China. The Company was forced to completely exit from the Russian market and recognize a loss of $96 million‚ which fortunately was not significant.  If the adage‚ “once bitten‚ twice shy” is a truism‚ then it is reasonable to assume that Coca-Cola has a strategy to immunize itself against China political risk.  Surprisingly‚ investment analysts have not exhibited any curiosity as to what such a strategy might be and‚ not surprisingly‚ the company has refrained from discussing it.  Consequently‚ one must connect the dots of publicly available information to decode Coca-Cola’s strategy to address its China challenge.  The picture that emerges is quite reassuring. The China Challenge in Context Simply put‚ China matters.  Although Russia may be characterized as a 1 percent problem‚ China is a 10 percent plus problem.  After all‚ according to the World Bank‚ China is the world’s largest economy with a 2022 GDP (in terms of purchasing power parity or PPP) of $30 trillion‚ which completely dwarf’s Russia’s GDP of $5 trillion and is ahead of America’s GDP of $25 trillion.  From the perspective of Coca-Cola‚ addressing its China political risk challenge has three facets: (1) purchase of investments of Chinese-controlled entities in U.S. bottlers of Coca-Cola‚ (2) sale of the Company’s investments in Coca-Cola bottlers in China and surrounding countries within China’s sphere of influence‚ and (3) developing alternatives to Coca-Cola sales of concentrates to bottlers in China and to Chinese-controlled bottlers outside China. Bottom line: Coca-Cola has yet to address the first facet but may be preparing to make a move‚ while it has made considerable progress on the other two fronts. So‚ let’s connect the dots. Acquisition of Chinese Investments in US Bottlers of Coca-Cola The Swire Group‚ which has extensive business interests and deep roots in China since the 1860s‚ is among the top five Coca-Cola bottlers world-wide. Swire Coca-Cola‚ wholly owned by the Swire Group‚ is a key Coca-Cola bottler in the western United States‚ with a franchise area covering 13 states.  The Swire Group is also a major Coca-Cola bottler in Greater China‚ including 11 provinces‚ plus Shanghai‚ Hong Kong‚ and Taiwan. From a China political risk perspective‚ the Swire Group as a practical matter is a Chinese entity.  Ultimately‚ the only way Coca-Cola can eliminate Chinese political risk within its U.S. bottling system is to acquire the Swire Group’s U.S. bottling franchises and‚ at an appropriate time‚ refranchise them to a suitable non-Chinese partner.  In September 2023‚ in an intragroup restructuring involving the cash sale of Swire Coca-Cola’s U.S. operations by Swire Pacific (Hong Kong) to its controlling shareholder‚ John Swire &; Sons Ltd (UK)‚ the U.S. bottling business was valued at about $4 billion.  There is now a clear path‚ including a valuation benchmark‚ for a possible Coca-Cola transaction to acquire the U.S. bottling operations of the Swire Group that helps address a key facet of the company’s China political risk challenge.  The critical importance of such a potential transaction is manifest‚ so the company is likely to make a decisive move sometime in 2024. Coca-Cola Divestments in China‚ Cambodia‚ and Vietnam In 2022‚ Coca-Cola divested its minority interest in the Coca-Cola bottling operations in China to the majority owner‚ COFCO (a Chinese state-owned enterprise)‚ and sold its wholly owned Coca-Cola bottling operations in Vietnam and Cambodia for an aggregate amount of about $1.3 billion cash to Swire Pacific (HK)‚ part of the Swire Group.  As a consequence‚ Coca-Cola has successfully eliminated its exposure as a shareholder in the manufacturing‚ bottling‚ and distribution operations of its local franchisees in China and the two major countries within China’s sphere of influence.  Coca-Cola can now focus on selling its concentrates to local franchisees in these countries‚ and reducing its China political risk exposure by diversifying away from China and expanding in other markets such as India.  India: Coca-Cola’s Future Crown Jewel? If mushrooming political risk is eclipsing the future growth potential of the Greater China market for Coca-Cola‚ what is the alternative?   India is the obvious answer.  The U.S. and India (which has an unresolved border dispute with China that has been festering for 65 years) have converging vital geostrategic interests in seeking to counterbalance China‚ so from a political risk perspective‚ ultimately India is a lower risk than China. Per the World Bank‚ India has the world’s third largest economy‚ with a 2022 GDP (PPP basis) of $12 trillion‚ and the largest population of 1.42 billion. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is bullish on India and expects India’s economy to grow at about 6.3 percent annually in 2023 and 2024.  (READ MORE from Samir Tata: Cold War With China Requires Mercantilism 2.0) The U.S. government projects that India’s economy will be larger than that of the U.S. within a generation — by 2043. In terms of annual per capita consumption of nonalcoholic beverages (as measured by the number of 8-ounce servings) India has one of the lowest at 95 compared to China at 337 and the U.S. at 1‚447 — clearly there is huge upside growth potential for Coca-Cola.  There is every indication that the company is determined to seize the opportunity to make India its crown jewel. If the India pivot succeeds‚ and the next five years will be crucial in this regard‚ Coca-Cola will have knocked out its threat of China political risk. READ MORE: The US Learns China’s Lessons on Elitism China Is One Giant Corporation … And It Cheats  The post Coca-Cola Faces a Challenge in Its China Market appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.