How Fragile is America?

The prior post was about a report put together by The Wise in 2019. This was their definition of "fragility" as regards states.

Fragility

According to the Fragility Study Group, fragility can be defined as “the absence or breakdown of a social contract between people and their government.” Fragile states suffer from deficits of institutional capacity and political legitimacy that increase the risk of instability and violent conflict and sap the state of its resilience to disruptive shocks.

Now 2019 was before COVID, the 2020 "irregular" election, and a lot of other things. The US social contract has broken down a great deal. 

Our local pharmacy is in the front of a grocery store, so you end up sitting out in public while getting you flu shot. One of our older firefighters walked in while I was getting mine, and came over to talk to me for a moment. He said that this would be his first year in fifty years of not getting a flu shot, but, "I don't trust 'em anymore." That's a shame, because he's now of an age where the flu shot might actually save his life. You can put that to the whole cycle of saying things that weren't true about the COVID vaccine: it'll stop you from getting it, it'll stop the spread, it's "safe" and "effective" though it causes heart problems especially in young men and it doesn't actually work as promised. The second-order effects of all that lying by the highest levels of the government may never be overcome.

So too the effects of the sudden setting-aside of the social contract and constitutional order from that period. The most lasting effect of those set-asides is the result of the election, which was decided based on unconstitutional alterations of the method of voting by the executive without (as the constitution requires) consultation with the legislatures of the swing states involved. That changed everything, and nobody has forgotten it. Trust may, again, be impossible to restore. 

As for 'deficits of institutional capacity,' witness the Afghanistan withdrawal. That was the most trusted institution in the United States, the military, which has for decades stood right at the top of Gallup's Confidence in Institutions Poll. But also witness the loss of trust in the police, not only among those who sided with the George Floyd protests, but also among those who saw the police stand aside while rioters burned their cities because the police suddenly feared prosecution if they did their jobs.

Now look at just that middle bar from the graph below, on fragile states' relationship with extremisim:

Every part of that is true, right? You can each provide your own examples with only barely adjusted wording in a few cases: it's not that they've "failed to provide schools," but that they've provided schools in which sometimes no students can pass math proficiency exams. It's not only traditional religious authority that they've opposed and weakened -- it's intolerance and hate to oppose gay marriage or gay adoptions even in traditional churches in which there is a Biblical or Koranic definition of marriage, or to oppose provision of abortion even for an order of Nuns or in a Catholic hospital -- but it is certainly also those.

Pay attention to the log in one's eye, we are warned; but they walked right into it. Again, look at that list of Task Force members. They're the elites who had solid gold educations and careers, members of the Council of the Wise every one.

Failing Sun Tzu

The recent attack on Israel by Hamas and Iran gives us an occasion to review the failures of those whose job it was to prevent such things. They fail Sun Tzu's core dictum to "know thyself, and thy enemy." 

Consider, for example, the findings of this blue-ribbon panel called the "Task force on Extremism in Fragile States." It was published in February of 2019, so we can consider it a kind of five-year plan by the very people who got us into this mess (read the list of task force members), on the subject of how to get us out of it. 

It has three top-level recommendations, none of which survived contact with the bureaucracy. The main recommendation is to create an "initiative" to align all the various government authorities and agencies to address the problem. I have seen versions of this suggestion in high-powered 'how do we tackle extremism?' reports since the Defense Science Board report of 2004 that thought military strategic communications should be moved from the Pentagon to the Strategic Command in the hope of aligning various authorities and powers on psychological operations, information operations, public affairs, public diplomacy, etc., etc., in a way that would combat extremism.

Like everything else we've tried, after twenty years it hasn't worked. Reforming the ossified Federal government is beyond the strength of even the most well-respected, elite, tied-in-to-power clique. Neither did Congress undertake any of their priorities. It was, like all these panels, a complete waste of time and attention. The bureaucracy is too old, too stiff, and too unwilling to yield either money or power to allow itself to be reformed, or to accept a higher authority that would "align" it. Even where new bureaucracies are stood up on top of other ones -- Homeland Security, the ODNI -- the old bureaucracies maintain their independence and carry on as before. The top-level just generates paperwork.

As for Congress, it is not really interested in governing. Congressmen are interested in money, but actual governance they like to delegate to the executive branch.

This is failure to know thyself.

As for the enemy, there is also the usual problem of clarity of thought. The definitions of "extremism" and "fragility" are given in part III.

Extremism

As used by this Task Force, “extremism” refers to a wide range of absolutist and totalitarian ideologies. “Extremists” believe in and advocate for replacing existing political institutions with a new political order governed by a doctrine that denies individual liberty and equal rights to citizens of different religious, ethnic, cultural, or economic backgrounds. “Violent extremists” espouse, encourage, and perpetrate violence as they seek to create their extremist political order. Extremism is not unique to any one culture, religion, or geographic region....

Fragility

According to the Fragility Study Group, fragility can be defined as “the absence or breakdown of a social contract between people and their government.” Fragile states suffer from deficits of institutional capacity and political legitimacy that increase the risk of instability and violent conflict and sap the state of its resilience to disruptive shocks. Fragility also enables transnational crime, fuels humanitarian crises, and impedes trade and development.

Now the problem that they're really interested in they also name as "Salafi-jihadist," but they really want that last sentence: "Extremism is not unique to any one culture, religion, or geographic region." So instead of tackling what is already a very big problem, they elect to obscure it into a much larger category, which would require even more resources and moving parts to tackle. 

Along the way, they make a striking concession to relatively hard-right American critics like the Center for Security Policy (which the SPLC considers a hate group, a label they haven't yet followed the DOJ/ATF in wrongly assigning to the Hells Angels). It is only on the hard-right that one sees Islamic politics described as "totalitarian." In fact that description is understandable but incorrect: Islam's political philosophy is medieval, not a modern project like totalitarianism, and it only intends to assign totalizing power to God. Like totalitarian modern politics, Islamists like the Taliban or Iran do intend to encroach on what Westerners consider private matters -- sexuality, the appropriateness of music or art, and so forth. They do not imagine the kind of actual observation and control of all aspects of life that is coming into practice in the Chinese social credit system, or even in our own alliance between social media tech firms and the major government bureaucracies. They also envision a degree of tolerance -- coupled with submission, but tolerance -- for deviations from their ideas for those of certain protected minorities. Christians who pay the tax can worship more-or-less freely, and drink alcohol; Jews as well, at least until the end times. 

Meanwhile, the Task Force ends up excluding some other groups that I would think are more properly considered "extremists" or even "violent extremists." It was a violent anarchist who started World War I, for example, but he wouldn't qualify as an "extremist" under this definition because anarchists do not aspire to totalizing or absolutist control. The mobs that burned American cities the very year after this report came out would not have qualified as 'violent extremists' or, indeed, as extremists at all insofar as they were anarchists instead of Marxists. 

Look at this chart from page 20 for an example of lack of clarity:

Marxist totalitarians do not "cast secular governments as illegitimate," but in fact insist on secular government. They do not "use mosques" to "proselytize." They do not "propagate fundamentalist religious ideologies." By refusing to be clear about what they are even talking about, they end up lost in a fog of their own making.

Hamas is its own problem, not wisely roped in even to a discussion of "radical Islam" per se. It's unique, linked to the problem of Iran and Twelver radicalism but obviously distinct from it. It's unlike even the other radical Islamic groups opposing Israel. Trying to treat all of these as if they were symptoms of a bigger problem that's easier to name leads to ongoing lack of success at actually addressing the problem. 

This is failure to know thy enemy.

What Sun Tzu says about those who fail on both of those scores is that they will not know victory in a thousand battles. We've won a lot of gunfights, and even some things you might call "battles," like Second Fallujah or Third Mosul. We haven't won any part of the war.

I hope that Israel wins its war, but the honest truth is that they'll have a better chance if we don't try to help.

Surly Joe

I nearly always like cowboy songs, trucker songs, and biker songs. Here’s one of the former. 

Fall Color in the Mountains

It's just getting started here, still mostly green. If any of you are thinking of heading up to my mountains to see the show, here's a map that will help you plan the right dates for where you wanted to go.

Hardening the Society against Attacks

One step being taken in Israel is very wise and proper: arm the citizen militia.

“Any citizen who meets the detailed tests for carrying a private firearm due to self-defense and serving the security forces and is without a criminal or medical record will be required to undergo a telephone interview instead of a physical interview and will be able to receive permission to carry a firearm within a week,” Ben-Gvir said, according to a Google translation of the post. “(Self-defense tests: residence in an eligible settlement, rifle veterans 07 and above, officers in the rank of lieutenant and above and combatants in the rank of major and above in the IDF and the security forces, service in special units, firefighters, policemen, and workers and volunteers in the rescue forces).”

Eligible citizens who meet the criteria can now undergo a telephone interview instead of a physical one, and they can obtain permission to carry a firearm within a week. Any citizen who received a conditional permit to purchase a firearm in 2023 but did not purchase one can now buy a firearm without reapplying. Citizens who turned in their firearms over the previous six months, because they didn’t complete renewal training, can get their weapons back. The number of bullets that can be purchased by those with conditional permits has also been doubled. Gun-carry requirements will also be loosened.

The Second Amendment is already stronger than all of that put together, but it underlines and demonstrates the worth of a citizen militia in hardening a society against even coordinated violence.  

$100MM to fix EV Chargers in "Disadvantaged" Communities

Just out of curiosity, how many EVs can a 'disadvantaged' community afford? 

Furthermore, aren't these EV chargers nearly new just by nature of the technology? How quickly do they break? 

Happy Leif Erikson Day

The 9th of October celebrates the fearless explorer. 

Ready to Burn

All cleaned up.

It’s going to be 35 here tonight, heralding cold weather down the line. I took a wire brush to all the rust on the furnace. I reblacked it after I cleaned the iron. 

I also cleaned the inside with a shovel and a shop vac. I put a new gasket on the inside of the door. Then I went outside and opened and cleaned the chimney pipe, which is double-walled steel. 

No fire tonight, but we’re ready when the time comes. 

Israel at War

Some of my left-wing acquaintances have explained that the apparently unprovoked attack on Israel today was surely a false flag actually carried out by their own government. It’s a kind of backhanded compliment: the reputation of Mossad and the IDF is such that, though they despise the current government of Israel, they cannot accept that Israel would be caught by surprise. 

I have some friends in the IDF, to whom I wish victory. 

Another Hobbit Recipe

Pork pie.

I’ll probably make the honey cakes later this week. This afternoon, I made Bombur’s request from Bilbo’s kitchen. I rendered almost the same amount of lard pre-cooking the pork as I used to make the rye short crust. 

 

Lending Library

A neighbor enrolled my community in the Little Free Library program. Her husband built the kiosk, which she asked me to paint with local Rockport flora and fauna. The Big Tree was a requirement, of course, but I also found room for a whooping crane and a ruby-throated hummingbird.

Road Dog

That's the Barnyard Stompers at the nearby (well, two hours each way, but it's on a motorcycle) Bobarossa Saloon. 

Goodbye to the Tape

The USMC doesn't use tape, never has as far as I know. The Army does that, as a way of trying to ensure that soldiers whose BMI was out of line weren't "fatbodies." The new problem is that the kids just don't have any muscle at all under the fat. 

This whole thing has been a mistake, if you ask me. Back in the '80s and early '90s, before Clinton got in, Marines looked like the professional wrestlers they took as their inspiration. I remember a Gunnery Sergeant Zieck who could have given Hulk Hogan or Macho Man Randy Savage a run for their money. 

At some point they decided to adopt BMI-based metrics in order to help Marines look good standing guard when the new President walked by. How much Clinton himself had to do with that I don't know, but by the time I was in Iraq from 2007-9 the Marines were the tiniest people there except for the Filipino laundry women contractors (who were wonderful people and good workers, but not ideal combateers). The Marines now have an eating disorder problem in order to make weight.

Recently the USMC has adopted a policy of selection, training, and policy exemptions in order to build bigger, stronger Marines -- but only to carry the bodies of fallen Marines to their graves. They have also started creating waivers for Marines who excel in the physical fitness tests to be bigger than is otherwise allowed.

It takes mass to move mass. Even for the strongest will, F=ma. 

Imaginary Time

This is another popular explanation of just what the “imaginary” numbers are doing in the wave equation: they’re accounting for the difference, in spacetime, between the three spatial dimensions and the ‘fourth’ dimension of time. You really can treat it as a graphable dimension — we used to draw the graphs as an exercise in understanding special relativity— but the fourth dimension has different qualities than the first three. It turns out that the nature of the imaginary number aligns with these. 

I realize James doesn’t really like the connotations of “imaginary,” but it’s what they’re called. I didn’t make that up. You can call them something else.

Spotted-Tail Quoll

If you have not heard of this animal, that’s because it’s been considered extinct for well over a century. Until this Australian farmer caught one, that is. 

Around here they say the panthers that gave Panthertown its name and the red wolves that Wolf Mountain was named after are extinct. People keep reporting sitings, though. 

Appalachian Woman

Hate Crimes and HAMC

Likely most of you, not being from California, didn't hear about this incident. Fortunately, no one was killed; but the ATF jumped in on what was clearly a local matter and turned it into a Federal "hate crime." The intent seems to be to paint the motorcycle club as a version of the Klan, a ‘hate group’ in need of destruction. 

Sose the Ghost, as this fellow is called, is himself Latino and doesn't buy a word of that "hate crimes" talk. He spoke to one of the involved parties, as he details in this clip. 

Now, many of you probably won't like the aesthetics of this clip. Nevertheless, he makes some excellent points here -- including that the basic facts being alleged are demonstrably false. Many of his best points, I note, are aimed at understanding across cultural and racial divides. Some of them would be very surprising (perhaps even inconceivable, in The Princess Bride's terms) to many: that militias aren't per se hate groups, but are tied to a traditional Constitutional right; that the Confederate flag might be a symbol of heritage and home not only for white Southerners, but for black ones he has met and spoken to about it. 

Other times he's talking about human universals, such as how all peoples are likely to stand up and defend their women against strangers who are harassing them. This sort of talk is the opposite of the racial division that we are told we are supposed to expect.

Now we were talking recently about the misuse of RICO by the Feds, famously also against this particular motorcycle club; here we're seeing the misuse of 'hate crimes' legislation (if indeed there is any correct use of what is essentially a criminalization of thoughts allegedly thunk). As Sose points out towards the beginning in talking about the Proud Boys, the effect is to define whole parts of American politics out of bounds. Criminalizing them is a short step afterwards. 

Is this a reasonable way to think about our Federal law enforcement? Funny you should ask. 

“Sociopolitical developments — such as narratives of fraud in the recent general election, the emboldening impact of the violent breach of the U.S. Capitol, conditions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and conspiracy theories promoting violence — will almost certainly spur some domestic terrorists to try to engage in violence,” the [FBI] report [establishing a new category of 'domestic terrorism'] stated.

Newsweek noted that each of the threats listed by federal authorities is closely associated with the MAGA Republicans who support Trump.

It's a short jump from painted-with-disapproval to criminal prosecution these days, whether for "hate crimes" or "domestic terror." One might reasonably defend those facing less than credible accusations in the hope of winning space for others disfavored by the powerful; perhaps even anyone who gains such disfavor. 

UPDATE: I remembered that the Hells Angels had a documentary made about them that released in 1983. There's a section where the filmmakers asked them directly about race relations. Language and general content warning for this entire film, but it's directly relevant.

       

Now that was forty years ago, and it leads with Sandy -- the New York City Charter President of the Hells Angels -- stating that while some members were prejudiced, he "believes deeply that you judge a man by his behavior, not his color." That's not a hate group, not when four decades ago they were choosing themselves leaders who were rejecting racial prejudice even among the often racially-charged violence of 70s/80s NYC. 

After some back and forth -- there's one of their lawyers, who says his initial impression was that they were a bunch of fascists 'but it's not true!' -- you actually see one of them wearing a t-shirt with a swastika and the words, "WHITE POWER." They ask him about why he's wearing it, and he says one of his brothers gave it to him, so he's going to wear it. Then they all have a big debate about what it actually means, and whether it should be "German power," but it's clear they're all drunk and probably high as well. Nobody has a speech prepared about white power or supremacy; even the worst guy they found is making excuses for it and laughing along with everybody else about having the guts to wear it in defiance of normal mores.

It's a pretty remarkable documentary, and this is the worst part of it. Most people would try to put forward the good and hide the bad about themselves; that's human nature. They seem to be willing to put it all out there, so you can judge for yourself how bad (and how good) they are. That part, at least, is praiseworthy.

That also happens to be the subject of my favorite line in the documentary, which comes from no less than Grateful Dead lead singer Jerry Garcia, who was performing at one of their events. Asked if he's scared of them, he affirms that he is. Asked why, he answers, "Because they're scary, man!" But then the goes on to explain how much he respects how honest they are about who and what they are, which includes being unwilling to put up with people acting like fools. 

Life Expectancy by American Class

If you use college as a rough proxy for social class in America -- which is indeed very rough, given how big the deltas are for those who went to Ivy League schools, ordinary public colleges, versus small regional state schools, versus community colleges that issue mostly near-vocational degrees in nursing or radiology and the like -- you get a picture in which those below the college class are really suffering.

It is this grim trend of shortening life expectancy among Americans without college degrees that explains why the U.S.'s mortality rate is a stark outlier among rich nations, far lower than countries such as Japan and Switzerland.... "It is the experience of those without college degrees that accounts for America’s failure."...

Case and Deaton note that they've found no precedent for this college divide in modern history except "in the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union." 

There's a graph about two-thirds of the way through the piece that shows how big an outlier this is, the second of two graphs. 

What Evidence of Race?

As an aside, a co-blogger  at Instapundit made the following statement:

The American Anthropological Association now wants to pretend that there are not two biological sexes, which is even more appalling than the group’s earlier decision to pretend that there is no such thing as race (never mind the genomic evidence revealing five distinguishable races).

Is there such evidence? My understanding of the science is in accord with this National Academy paper. As far as I know, all attempts to define race or account for it scientifically have failed for all the hundreds of years it’s been attempted. 

This isn’t a matter of fashion, and therefore unlikely to be the result of cognitive bias, either. At one time all the Wise believed in race, and couldn’t account for it; now none of them do, and still can’t. In the early 20th Century the same people who advocated for Darwin also were committed to race theory; generations before aristocracy used it to explain their commitment to slavery as a sort of humanitarianism. Now scientists are mostly on the Left (social science up to 44-1 Dem/Rep), and they want to use race too, for “anti-racist” action. It’s still not definable. 

Is that understanding challenged by new evidence? I’m genuinely not aware of whatever this co-blogger is so confident in referencing. 

A(nother) Secret Police

Just yesterday I was complaining to a friend that the NC legislature passes so many laws that even as an attentive and involved citizen I can’t keep up with the changes. Today I learned that one of those changes is that the legislature voted itself a secret police. 

Right now the Republicans have supermajorities in both houses, but that kind of thing doesn’t last forever. It sounds as if they can search and seize documents and enter both public buildings and private homes at will. Worse, you’re required to keep their activities secret even if you are the victim. 

This is unacceptable, and my legislators definitely did not seek my consent, or even try to make me aware that this was being proposed. 

Pride on Display

So this weekend was the Mountain Heritage Festival at the local university, which I've blogged about several times. This one was an enjoyable day as always. The Shape Note singers were back, and there was good bluegrass and Cherokee stickball. 

On the walk back to my motorcycle, I passed these dorm windows:

That sort of thing would never have been allowed when I was a college student, though something like it might have featured in the wilder sort of 'college life is crazy' movies. In those long-ago days, there was a notion that outright expressions of sexuality were disruptive and needed to be suppressed. 

What college dean could object to it now, though? After all, what is this but an honest expression of pride in one's sexuality? "Love wins," as they say, and this here is an expression of love. A proud expression. It's just another sort of pride display, isn't it? 

We fly that Pride flag at our embassies now, and put it centermost at the White House in a display paired with our national flag. Given such an official endorsement, how could a mere state university object to such openly and honestly displayed sexual pride? 

Further Research on Honey Cakes

I spent part of last evening reading the relevant chapter of The Hobbit, just to focus a bit more on what the target is. The cuisine that Beorn serves is not described in great detail except for two things: the drink is mead, and there is a form of cake he makes with honey that is twice-baked for long-lasting storage. These are probably intended for winter rations rather than for journeys, as we know that he can travel quite rapidly in the form of a bear (for whom the whole world, more or less, is food). 

That suggests to me that there is a normal, everyday honey cake that is not twice-baked, but that a certain number of the cakes gets twice-baked to further preserve them for winter storage. Honey is mentioned as an ingredient of these cakes, and honey also has strong preservative qualities. 

Now if you look at this list of twice-baked foods, you'll note that there is very substantial variety: everything from biscotti to Detroit-style pizza and New York-style cheesecake. The most interesting one on the list to me is the first one, Bappir, an ancient Sumerian way of preserving grains and gruit for beer-making.

An historical Sumerian twice-baked barley bread that was primarily used in ancient Mesopotamian beer brewing. Historical research done at Anchor Brewing Co. in 1989 (documented in Charlie Papazian's Home Brewer's Companion, ISBN 0-380-77287-6) reconstructed a bread made from malted barley and barley flour with honey and water and baked until hard enough to store for long periods of time; the finished product was probably crumbled and mixed with water, malt and either dates or honey and allowed to ferment, producing a somewhat sweet brew. It seems to have been drunk with a straw in the manner that yerba mate is drunk now.

Probably closer to Beorn's product is the medieval biscuit, however. Given Tolkien’s work in philology, he would have known this root. 

The Middle French word bescuit is derived from the Latin words bis (twice) and coquere, coctus (to cook, cooked), and, hence, means "twice-cooked". This is because biscuits were originally cooked in a twofold process: first baked, and then dried out in a slow oven. This term was then adapted into English in the 14th century during the Middle Ages, in the Middle English word bisquite, to represent a hard, twice-baked product.

This gives rise, as they point out, to the English usage of the word "biscuit" as a kind of cookie, drier and crumbly compared to the soft American biscuits. Given further Tolkien’s love of English traditions, I think this is likely the concept he was thinking of when describing a twice baked cake. 

So I think the final product should be much like a biscuit, capable of being twice-baked in a slow oven to produce the preserved form that will store well, but also of being enjoyed once-baked when long-storage is not a concern. 

Twelfth Night Cake

In honor of Bilbo and Frodo's birthday.

The second experiment towards Beorning Honey Cakes is a recipe called "Twelfth Night Cake," which comes from the King Arthur Flour 200th Anniversary Cookbook. This is without question or near comparison the best baking cookbook I know. Coincidentally, the 200th anniversary was apparently in 1992, just before the woke wave began, so the cookbook still has the traditional Arthurian logo on the cover. 

Chancellor Gates on America

Robert M. Gates is a former Secretary of Defense, controversial CIA officer -- including its Director just after the Iran-Contra period -- and currently a university chancellor. He has served in both Republican and Democratic administrations at the highest levels. He has penned a piece for Foreign Affairs that shows how such a figure views the current moment.

One thing he says that I found surprising is that he views the US economy as strong.

For now, the United States would seem to be in a strong position vis-à-vis both China and Russia. Above all, the U.S. economy is doing well. Business investment in new manufacturing facilities, some of it subsidized by new government infrastructure and technology programs, is booming. New investments by both government and business in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, robotics, and bioengineering promise to widen the technological and economic gap between the United States and every other country for years to come.

Since this is mostly a piece about competition with China and Russia, I suppose it's fair to view the US economy as strong-by-comparison. Both of those states are having substantial economic troubles at the moment. The US economy is not "doing well" from the perspective of ordinary people: but he's not talking to ordinary people, or with them, he's talking to other elites for whom all that may matter is relative strength.

His list of problems that we face embraces the establishment Republican criticisms of our politics: he lists "political dysfunction," "runaway spending," failure to reform Social Security and Medicare, President Trump's tenure, the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, diplomatic failures, a bad military appropriations process from Congress, and several more. 

Likewise, his list of solutions will be unsurprising: more military spending, more international trade agreements, and "a constant drumbeat" of persuasion to convince the American people that this foreign policy stuff is more important than their own concerns at home. Americans should sacrifice to maintain "leadership," meaning of course his leadership: his and those like him, his class, his kind. 

At no point do I see an appreciation for the problems Americans themselves face, or any sense that their concerns should be addressed except by "doing a better job of explaining" the importance of doing things his way. This is of course why the establishment is faring so badly in the current moment: their elites are interested in being elites first, Democrats or Republicans second, and Americans third at most. 

How Long Ago was the Dawn of 'Everything'?

AVI has had a series of posts on a revisionist history by an anarchist activist and a professor of archaeology. His latest quotes a review that is quite negative, and that opens with an analogy whose force is meant to suggest that only an American could believe such things (although the anarchist here was from London, presumably that analogy is meant to extend to Westerners in general).

I haven't read the book and therefore can't review it, but I do note that there is a grave difficulty in the project. Archaeology is indeed an obvious way to proceed, because our written records don't go far back into a matter that began somewhere between 12,000 and 300,000 years ago. 

What the historical record does suggest on the question, as far back ago as we can really go, is that there were a lot of different things in play. Chesterton remarked that the dawn of history (from his perspective) shows it dawning on the bulk of cities, perhaps civilizations already old, but also on nomads and tribes with no real government beyond family ties. That is contra Aristotle, who argued that politics arose naturally whenever family ties weren't enough: in fact, we see that throughout history there were places where family ties sufficed, and families were just melded in marriage as necessary. 

Plato, meanwhile, included this discussion (which you may remember from the Laws, Book III).

Ath. Why, do you think that you can reckon the time which has elapsed since cities first existed and men were citizens of them?

Cle. Hardly.

Ath. But are sure that it must be vast and incalculable?

Cle. Certainly.

Ath. And have not thousands and thousands of cities come into being during this period and as many perished? And has not each of them had every form of government many times over, now growing larger, now smaller, and again improving or declining?

Cle. To be sure.

"Every form of government" does not necessarily include anarchy, though it does include forms of democracy, constitutional governments, oligarchies, aristocracies, kings and tyrants: we know that because those forms are all named in Aristotle's Politics. Anarchy, too, is a word we have from ancient Greece: αναρχία, 'without a ruler.'

As for the analogy, I don't think it's very impressive. Asking someone from a warzone if they prefer that to a state at peace is a highly biased way of framing the question of whether egalitarian societies are preferable to ones with a hierarchy based on dominion: it is a frame that is almost guaranteed to produce the Hobbesian response that it does. Ask someone who lives in a peaceful agrarian society whose members come together voluntarily to do things like raise each others' houses and barns, have dances and celebrations, attend church services together, drink together at their local feasts and festivals, and so forth -- and then compare that to the response of someone who has lived in a stable but oppressive state. Even mildly oppressive states are quite unpleasant, and some societies become sufficiently unpleasant that a warzone really is preferable to them. 

The review goes on to suggest that the author finds it implausible that, if life in such societies were really so much better, they wouldn't have out-competed hierarchies and become the norm. Sadly, that is probably not true: the great challenge isn't whether it would be better without oppressive force, but whether it is possible to resist the introduction of oppressive force from abroad without adopting governments, armies, and police at home. My sense is in many places that possibility awaited the introduction of the rifle, a technological change that empowers the individual sufficiently that a large enough number of individuals voluntarily choosing to cooperate can keep themselves free. 

Packing Mounts

A couple of months ago I sold my Jeep; a couple of weeks ago, my Ford decided it needed a new transmission valve body. This is an ideal time of year for living on the back of your motorcycle, which I mostly do anyway, but there are a few chores that it’s helpful to have a truck to do. I have been working around the issue using modified pack animal techniques.

For groceries, I lashed a Duffel bag across the back. That plus the saddle bags allowed me to carry everything I needed. 

The trash situation after two weeks was approaching Alice’s Restaurant territory. So, today:

Zero points for guessing what I used to create the lashing points on the bag. You can see one of them here. 

"Corporate Death Penalty"

A New York judge has just ordered the Trump Organization destroyed.

A Manhattan judge on Tuesday found Donald Trump and his real-estate company liable for fraud.

The judge ordered the Trump Organization's New York corporate charters revoked immediately.

A receiver will be appointed to "dissolve" the company — but years of appeals may play out first.

Note that this is only the second time this penalty has been assigned. The first time, the same prosecutor sought it, and look who the target was: 

...the penalty is so rare that the only previous time it's been attempted on such a grand scale — when James sought the corporate death penalty in her three-year-old, ongoing fraud lawsuit against the NRA — has failed.

"It's a staggering judgment," said John Moscow, a former financial-crimes prosecutor for the Manhattan district attorney's office.

"It means you are no longer a company, and the judge is appointing someone to take over the assets and distribute them as the court sees fit."

So the only two corporations in the history of Manhattan, home of Wall Street, that have merited this penalty in the eyes of the state are the NRA and the Trump Organization?  That strongly suggests that corporate malfeasance isn't the real issue behind these prosecutions and the seeking of this penalty. 

The Birthday of Bilbo Baggins

Frodo as well, as I recall, was born on the 22nd of September in Middle Earth. However, there is a slight difference in the calendars of Middle Earth and contemporary Earth, so it's not clear exactly when that falls on our calendar. An exact match may not be possible, but within a few days it'll certainly have happened if any of you are inclined to cake. I may try my next, more cake-like Beorning experiment to go along with the occasion.

A Remarkable Poll

Only Rasmussen would even ask this question.

A police state is a tyrannical government that engages in mass surveillance, censorship, ideological indoctrination, and targeting of political opponents. How concerned are you that America is becoming a police state?"

I'm Concerned-

DEM: 67%

IND: 72%

GOP: 76%

All Voters: 72%

So 2/3rds of Democrats, and nearly 3/4ths of all voters? That's not a fringe position, then. 

A Remarkable Indictment

If you, like me, were absolutely astonished by the manner in which the withdrawal from Afghanistan violated all the established principles of military science on how to conduct a retreat/withdrawal/retrogade movement/"advance to the rear," here is an explanation of how that happened.

A misguided attempt to reform professional military education (JPME) in the 1980s led by the late Ike Skelton and other military reformers in Congress mandated that masters-level degrees be granted at all command and staff colleges, as well as a required study in "jointness." This forced all the military midlevel colleges to make room in their courses of study to accommodate the requirements of civilian academia to grant an advanced degree.... 

Command and staff colleges had traditionally been the places where aspiring senior commanders really learned their trade as majors or lieutenant commanders. This used to include a serious study of military theory, history and staff planning. That is not currently the case.

Today, seminar groups are led by two instructors -- one a uniformed officer and the other an academic. There is generally no requirement that either be an expert in combined-arms combat on land, in the air, or on the sea. In some cases, they're simply not knowledgeable about the study of war.

Well-meaning reforms sometimes go astray. "Jointness" definitely has its uses: the story of the Gulf War victory is a study in the military branches interoperating in a form of maneuver warfare that let Army and Marine land forces draw smoothly on Air Force and Naval air support. 

Yet why should a military college be "forced" to issue Masters of Military Science degrees, say, on the terms of a civilian school? Presumably that was a choice; there's no reason that the School of Advanced Military Science should have to ask any civilian school what its requirements are for a Masters degree. As for accreditation, who is going to tell the US military that its Masters of Military Science isn't valid? 

China, maybe, if this keeps up. 

The GWOT and You

The Washington Post published an op-ed today with a title that I found surprising: "A memorial to the war on terror is coming. Here is why you should care."

Why you should care, according to the author, is that those who fought in the Global War on Terror (GWOT) feel alienated from their society and are committing suicide at high rates.

“I can’t imagine what you went through over there …”

Most veterans of the Global War on Terrorism have heard this line at some point....  Before we left for war, the experience of most veterans was completely recognizable. We might not have attended your high school, but we went to a high school. We might not have rooted for your sports team, but we rooted for a sports team. The rhythms of our lives matched your rhythms. Then, we went to war. And, yes, war changed us.

But it did not make us so different from you.... If you still believe we had truly unimaginable experiences at war, then it follows that we — America’s veterans — were forever altered in ways that make us unknowable. And, if that is true, it means we never really get to come home.

"You can never go home again" is a truism for everyone, though. For some people it's more strongly true than for others. Some people's homes were bulldozed and replaced by suburbs, or their communities uprooted and destroyed by rising or falling property values. The TVA flooded quite a few people's homes and communities back in the day. Yet even if your house is still where it was and your parents still live there, when you go back it's not the same. As you get older, more things have changed; more people have died. 

A memorial only gives you a place in the world consecrated to the memory. The memory can live there, and you can go and visit it, and while the memorial last -- probably longer than you -- it will offer a stable home for your memories. It can't bring anything back.

Nevertheless, the Vietnam Memorial -- discussed at length in the piece -- has been important in the ways the author describes. The Rolling Thunder motorcycle rally for decades rode past it, in honor of those who had served in Vietnam. 

The piece includes a call for participation in the design of the memorial. That's an interesting challenge. The war was fought in the Philippines, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, across Africa, and in less violent ways in the West itself. Its proximate cause was the fall of the Twin Towers, which is a ready symbol that could be employed, but also the strike on the Pentagon on the same day. Thinking about what the right symbol is for this is going to take some imagination. 

If you have ideas, starting tomorrow you can submit them at this link.

Swedish Torch

Grilling over a Swedish Torch

I cut one tree this year that proved unreasonably difficult to split, so instead I cut it into Swedish Torches with my chainsaw. This turns out to be great for outdoor cooking as it provides a stable flat surface. 

Ætena Hlaf: An Experiment towards Beorning Honey Cakes

I have not forgotten that I promised to develop a more authentic recipe for Beorn's Honey Cakes. To that end, I am experimenting with a set of medieval recipes for similar items. The first one I decided to bake was Ætena Hlaf,  "hlaf" being an obvious Anglo-Saxon/Norse cognate for "loaf" (like "hval" for "whale"). “Ætena” is less obvious: the cognate is ‘eating.’

Autumnal Equinox

A mountain home.

Today is the first day of Autumn, at the end of a long summer. To celebrate, my wife and I rode over to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park for the Mountain Life Festival. 

Apples in the Apple House.

The Apple House.

The festival celebrates and showcases mountain folkways. They were cooking apple butter, and had a horse turning a milk to grind sorghum, which they were then boiling to make molasses. There were lectures on the importance of pork both for meat and lard — which they claimed is healthier than butter — for cooking and food preservation.

Gotta have chickens for eggs, too: hens live in this coop.

Read the sign to learn how to make lye soap!

Pretty neat stuff. There are large parts of this that we have incorporated into our lives — my wife has gotten into chickens this year. We garden and preserve food with canning and drying, and while I don’t own pigs I do render lard and use it in baking. Some other parts for now we’ve let go, but it’s good to know how it was done just in case. 

There was also an Appalachian folk music demonstration. This is quite different from bluegrass, more Celtic and often like traditional ballads. 

Romans on the mind

Conspiracy Under Color of Law, Part II

In line with yesterday's announcement, the Department of Justice has just announced a "rule change" that would enact a very significant gun control law without the bother of consulting Congress.

Senator Roger Marshall (R., Kan.) and six other Republican senators submitted a letter to U.S. attorney general Merrick Garland on Thursday, voicing their “strong opposition” to a new gun-control rule proposed by the Department of Justice.

Under the recently proposed “Definition of ‘Engaged in the Business’ as a Dealer in Firearms,” any person who sells a gun for profit to anyone else, including family members, would be considered “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms. As a result, a person would be required under federal law to obtain a federal permit, conduct a background check, and complete gun registration paperwork.

Such a license costs between $30 and $3,000, depending on whether they'd let you register as a "collector" or in fact (as the article says) a "dealer" ($200 minimum). That's not the real issue, although raising our costs and thereby making firearms more expensive is surely a partial motive. A real dealer divides that $200 over many transactions, but a person who just wants to sell one gun to a friend or family member is adding $200 to the purchase price of the gun.

The real issue is that this would require all firearms transactions to be reported to the Federal Government, which would then be able to build a registration/confiscation database. The FBI would also be required to approve or reject anyone who wanted to purchase or trade for a firearm. 

This is the so-called "gun-show loophole" that the gun control people have been railing at Congress about for years. It's really about all private transfers of firearms, not only or even mostly 'gun shows,' and bringing them under Federal control. 

Congress has refused the request to pass such a law for decades. So, instead, DOJ is attempting to wrest legislative authority away from the legislative branch in order to do by executive fiat what the democratic system has long refused to do. This is, of course, unconstitutional.

It is also illegal: see prior post. DOJ is clearly timing this in line with the Biden administration's push for an executive agency that aims at depriving Americans of as much of their Second Amendment rights as it can arrange. That brings the DOJ's leadership into a conspiracy to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights under color of law. 

18 U.S. Code § 242

The newly-announced "Office of Gun Violence Prevention," which will be led by several big names in Gun Control organizations, is manifestly a conspiracy to deprive Americans of Second Amendment rights under color of law. That is a violation of Federal law. 

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

So if any act by this new office subjects anyone in America of a deprivation of their Second Amendment rights, it's a minor felony. If police are used and it results in injury, a major felony. If anyone dies as a result of the police action to deprive them of their rights under color of law, a capital crime. The Supreme Court has clarified recently that the Second Amendment is "not a second-class right," so it is entitled to these protections just as much as voting rights, civil rights, or any other rights. 

The next President inclined to supporting the Second Amendment should immediately impound all their records, and send everyone who was involved in any such activity to prison. Candidates for that office ought to make clear that they intend to do so, as a prophylactic against misbehavior by those assuming these positions. 

Only Shows One Tattoo at a Time

Another fun little tune that came up this week. Reminds me of some people I know. 

Missing: One F-35

As Col. Kurt points out, a private who lost his night-vision goggles in the field is treated by the military as a major failure that can result in the whole unit being punished. Jimbo suggests we had better hope the Chinese economy collapses before they want to fight a war. 

The only thing I would point out is that this was a Marine Corps F-35. You can't put this one down to "Oh, the Air Force has a corporate rather than a military culture" or "Oh, the Navy...." The Marine Corps is famous for holding itself to a higher standard than any other branch: only the special operations units impose higher standards of discipline and performance than the USMC. Training is dangerous and accidents happen, but if this can happen here it can happen to any part of our military at this time. 

On the other hand, it's not like this is the worst thing that the military has lost in its air operations.

Right Angles to a Unicorn

This video, which I don't think I can embed, is an demonstration of why mathematicians like to describe imaginary numbers as "orthogonal" to reals. It also makes the case that complex numbers -- defined as numbers that include both imaginary and real numbers -- are essential to our description of reality (as does this article).

Indeed they may be! However, that presents us with two very different possibilities: that imaginary numbers may be essential to our description of reality, or to reality itself. Epicycles were at one point essential to our description of reality; no longer.

It's neat how it produces wave functions that are familiar and useful. However, it strikes me that saying that the "are" orthogonal because it makes sense to graph them as such really is akin to saying that you can draw a picture of me (or you) and a unicorn at right angles. Then the picture of me/you and the picture of the unicorn are indeed at right angles, and they are equally real (as pictures). The difference is that one of them has a referent in the physical world, and the other doesn't; and the referents are not, therefore, equal. One of them is real -- indeed it is actual -- and the other is imaginary.

But the physicists and mathematicians are really saying something stronger than that, which is that 'the sense that it makes' to graph them this way implies that there is a rational relationship between the real and the impossible; and then, applying this equation to reality, that this relationship between the real and the impossible ends up giving rise to the actual. That's an extraordinary claim, which at least some of them really seem to believe.

What is the Constitutional Ground for the DOJ?

The question is rhetorical; I assume you all know the answer. It is not a Constitutional organ, but rather an old executive office, an outgrowth of the office of the Attorney General that was set up by a 1789 law passed by Congress and signed by a President -- George Washington, no less. 

And there shall also be appointed a meet person, learned in the law, to act as attorney-general for the United States, who shall be sworn or affirmed to a faithful execution of his office; whose duty it shall be to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments, touching any matters that may concern their departments, and shall receive such compensation for his services as shall by law be provided.

Neither the Attorney General nor the DOJ is meant to be independent of either Congress or the President, from whom all their authority is derived. Insofar as the Attorney General is misusing his power, those branches are responsible for him. That means that, like it or not, he answers to them. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland struck a defiant tone Wednesday in defending the Justice Department as independent of the White House and Congress, but Republicans attacked him repeatedly for the handling of high-profile investigations of Hunter Biden and Donald Trump.

"Our job is to uphold the rule of law," Garland told the House Judiciary Committee in an uncharacteristically emotional statement....

Garland reminded lawmakers, according to the prepared remarks, that he represents the American people rather than the president or Congress.

“Our job is not to take orders from the President, from Congress, or from anyone else, about who or what to criminally investigate,” Garland said.  

That is simply not true. Practically, he acts as if he knows it: he is clearly being guided by political imperatives in his handling of cases both high and low profile. The independence he pretends to is unconstitutional and improper. 

Here as elsewhere, I am not suggesting a program of reform but just trying to speak the truth about it. Congress is toothless against the bureaucracy and does not want their power back; the President is a nonentity, and none of his proposed replacements have the necessary virtues either. The DOJ is doing what its leaders please to do, politically: they are indeed functionally independent, exactly as they should never be. The system is broken, and is not capable of fixing itself. 

Power Over Nature

One of the co-bloggers at Insty linked to an article on anorexia. The Instapundit crew was mostly interested in the contemporary commentary on social media and mental health, but I thought this argument was of greater import:

Women in the early to late Middle Ages who starved themselves were later worshipped as saints, such as Wilgefortis (meaning strong virgin), Rose of Lima, Orsola Giuliani (known as Saint Veronica Giuliani), and probably most famously, Catherine of Siena. Almost all of these young women stopped eating when their parents were arranging their marriages. Catherine of Siena’s parents were hoping she might marry the widower of Catherine’s adored older sister, who died in childbirth. Catherine was less than thrilled at this idea and starved herself until any thoughts of marriage were moot....

The self-denial of Catherine—and the others—was seen as akin to holiness. While it’s tricky to compare eighth- to fifteenth-century women with twenty-first-century ones, the phenomenon of girls and women starving themselves has existed for millennia. And even if Catherine of Siena and Zhanna Samsonova were not classified as suffering from the same syndrome, they both learned that a woman not eating is an effective way for her to seize control when she feels otherwise powerless. All the saints listed above stopped eating at the time their parents were urging them to get married. I paused time by starving and arresting my puberty.

Anorexia gave me nothing. All it did was take away my teens and twenties. But for the medieval girls, it gave them enormous power.

Arresting puberty as a means of self-empowerment has obvious parallels with the puberty-blocking drugs sought for teenagers today -- and with the more-permanent surgical options. Also, in the case of women, with birth control and abortion. 

All of them are alike in finding power, as they describe it, in being able to deny their nature. This is an odd locution when you think about it. Both "power" and "energy" are usually described as the ability to do work. "Horsepower," for example, is the mechanical ability to lift 550 pounds one foot in one second. Here "power" is being sought by preventing function rather than enabling it. 

What sort of power is this? The power of the will over the physical, but what is being willed? It is not to be what one is, not to change, not to have one's body develop and flourish according to its nature; not to marry, not to conceive, not to move from girlhood to womanhood, from womanhood to motherhood. 

It is a will to stillness and the absence of change, which is to say that it is a death-wish. It is therefore not surprising to find that it ends in death. 

So does life, of course. 

Why are the Flags at Half-Mast?

I don’t know if I have just been noticing more these last few years, but it seems like the flag is at half-mast a tremendous amount of time. A nation cannot be perpetually in mourning, but it seems like I see the flag displayed in the attitude of mourning much of the time. Often, I have no idea what tragic event occasions the display. 

If you’re wondering about it as well, here’s a free resource that explains why the flag is at half-staff today.  In our case, it’s a statewide declaration from our governor to honor a deputy sheriff who died recently. 

Self-Imposed Limits

Ironically, the same day that AVI is talking about the lack of self-discipline in humanity, my friend Andy at the Norse Mentality is talking about how to break self-imposed limits. [This is a Strongman training video, so expect profane language and gestures. Also, however, frank talk from big burly men about their feelings, their experience with meditation, and how they strive to do their best for their families as well as themselves.]

In a way it underlines AVI's point, really: human beings frequently do not set appropriate limits on themselves where it would be helpful, but likewise do set self-imposed limits on themselves where it causes them problems. Both approaches are irrational, but so are people. 

In the comments, there is a Tolkien quote that helpfully addresses yesterday's essay on Just War Theory. [Given the provenance, I will take the unusual step of assuming the quote is accurate without checking.]

"Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained ‘righteous’, but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for ‘good’, and the benefit of his subjects according to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great). Thus while Sauron multiplied [illegible word] evil, he left ‘good’ clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil."

-- J. R. R. Tolkien

If Just Wars are to be fought over justice, and not interest, we are in the same peril as Gandalf with the Ring. Interest, of course,  has its own perils: and sometimes the weak and suffering might really benefit from a hand. Yet the peril is very terrible, and that should be remembered. When I was young I was very inclined to what seemed to me to be Just Wars; looking back now, I wonder how wise they were. 

99 Bottles

I realize it's very early in the workweek for this sort of thing, but I heard it today and it struck me how obvious it was to make this song -- yet no one had ever done it. We all know the old campfire / road-trip classic, and there are plenty of beers out there to sing about, so why not make an elaboration? Someone finally thought to do it, and it's kind of fun.

Two on Philosophy of War

What follows the jump is a brief commentary on a pair of essays on the philosophy of war.

Happy Birthday, Hank

In the same spirit as the congratulatory post about Junior below, the senior Hank Williams turns a hundred today. Sadly he only spent not quite thirty of those years alive. Spotify put together a tribute, linked above. 

Doing things right

Whatever opinion you may have about Texas AG Paxton's lawsuits against the Biden administration, or Paxton as a man, I maintain that it's important to solve political problems at the ballot box and legal problems with due process in court. These are two recent articles, both written before the acquittal vote in his impeachment trial, that ably explain the insufficiency of the evidence against Mr. Paxton.

The Texas AG has enemies, and I can't be sure that some of them don't have a point. If their main problem is his politics, however, they're off base in their chosen tactics. His politics clearly enjoy the support of Texas voters, and the complaints against him clearly have never been sufficient to convince voters. After years of a whisper campaign implying that they had their enemy on some kind of legal infractions, the best they could come up with to impeach him with was a lot of surmises that fell apart as soon as someone bothered to cross-examine the witnesses. As for the argument that we should trust the FBI about any part of the investigation, I can only laugh. That ship has sailed.

Silly Stuff on a Saturday Night

How often do you think about the Roman empire?

I first saw this internet trend in the Babylon Bee, and was confused:

Man Who Hasn't Thought About The Roman Empire In Over A Week Worried He Might Be Trans

What?

Then, I thought I'd listen to some music on YouTube and there was Brett Cooper, talking about this:

Well, now I (we) know.

So, how often do you think about the Roman empire?

Edward Gibbon comes up in my research from time to time, so once a week or so for me, I guess?

Why Should You Care?

An article at First Things has a stunning opening, then leads to a deep question.

There’s a very short and very brutal poem by the Scottish poet Hollie McNish, written in 2019 and titled “Conversation with an archaeologist”:

he said they’d found a brothel

on the dig he did last night

I asked him how they know

he sighed:

a pit of babies’ bones

a pit of newborn babies’ bones was how to spot a brothel

“It’s true, you know,” said the writer and lawyer Helen Dale when we had lunch in London last year and I mentioned this poem, which I chose as one of the epigraphs to my book The Case Against the Sexual Revolution. Helen was a classicist before she was a lawyer, and as a younger woman she had taken part in archaeological excavations of ancient Roman sites. “First you find the erotic statuary,” she went on, “and then you dig a bit more and you find the male infant skeletons.” Male, of course, because the males were of no use to the keepers of Roman brothels, whereas the female infants born to prostituted women were raised into prostitution themselves.

She of course ties this to our own addiction to abortion, a move she herself describes as "a provocation." I think there's a real division between those to whom the connection is obvious and those to whom it is a provocation. But she is not fully opposed to abortion; as she notes, she might want one herself someday. 

What she's really worried about is the end of Christianity's heritage in our moral understanding, including her own:

I’m emotionally and intellectually drawn to Christianity, and—like everyone else—I was raised in a culture suffused with fading Christian morality and symbolism. But I don’t believe, not really. 

So if you don't believe, why do you care? I mean the question sincerely: it's worthy of exploration. 

One possibility is that it's just a kind of hangover, a product of having grown up in a society that believed certain things, having rubbed up against those things until they were somewhat internalized, and now having the residue of that even though you aren't convicted. If that’s all that’s driving your moral feelings, you might as well abandon them; they were only ever an accident anyway. Nothing hangs on their passage, well, but for some lives of children.

Another possibility is that at least some of the claims of the faith are true: that there is a thing in us that longs for justice, and finds justice outraged by the killing of the innocent to serve the interests of those stronger and bigger than they are. (Even if this is not, as she suggests, 'murder,' noting that both infanticide and abortion almost could not be convicted in court in England or Scotland even while juries were all male and the society much more Christian than presently.) 

If there is something true to which you are responding, perhaps others will continue to respond. Even if you don't believe in the whole, you must at least believe some part of that to think it even matters if the morality of the public changes. 

She closes with another striking passage, which deserves mention. 

What if... we understand the Christian era as a clearing in a forest? The forest is paganism: dark, wild, vigorous, and menacing, but also magical in its way. For two thousand years, Christians pushed the forest back, with burning and hacking, but also with pruning and cultivating, creating a garden in the clearing with a view upward to heaven.

But watch as roots outstretch themselves and new shoots spring up from the ground. The patch of sky recedes. “Paganism has not needed to be reinvented,” writes Steven Smith: It never went away. “In a certain sense, the Western world has arguably always remained more pagan than Christian. In some ways Christianity has been more of a veneer than a substantial reality.””

With no one left to tend the garden, the forest is reclaiming its ground.

Paganism is also a clearing in the forest, though: we know that from the Venerable Bede, who recorded a conversation with a converting pagan on just this point. He likened the passage through life to that of a bird appearing in a fire-lit hall of an evening and flying to the other side. While it was in the hall and visible to others, it was bright and beautiful; but before it came in the hall, and after it left, nothing could be said about it at all. We knew nothing about the bird, as the pagan knows nothing about where the soul is before death or what happens after; the man is only visible for a short space. A clearing in the forest would do exactly as well in this metaphor as the fire-lit hall. 

Chesterton transformed that story into a few lines of his famous ballad, in which he characterizes the pagan's worldview even more despairingly than that.

‘For this is a heavy matter,
And the truth is cold to tell;
Do we not know, have we not heard,
The soul is like a lost bird,
The body a broken shell.

‘And a man hopes, being ignorant,
Till in white woods apart
He finds at last the lost bird dead;
And a man may still lift up his head
But never more his heart.

Chesterton wasn't quite right about that. The pagan thought of death as a return, of sorts; to the ancestors, or the land of the dead where souls wait to be reborn (perhaps, as in Valhalla, after a destructive turning that causes the whole world to be reborn). Still, a return to paganism doesn't create an escape from the problem; and the question of what, if anything, is owed to the weak and the helpless will remain. The reasons why we care about that are important. 

A More Successful Approach

As an addendum to the last, here's another young female singer whose work I have heard and do like. She has a similar problem -- her situation, in the song, is the sort of thing that might provoke rage. Yet this is not a song of rage; it's a song of joy and friendship in spite of legitimately bad conditions.

What strikes me here is that she has adopted as her frame not sex but class. Suddenly, instead of looking at the men around her as oppressors, she is able to see them as friends and allies against the way in which they are all being kept down by economic and social class features. They're all suffering, but they're suffering together, and recognizing that they can build relationships that can help them both endure the suffering and find ways to live a life you can be happy to live. 

This is one of the genuine insights the Marxists had, I think: that American institutions in some sense strive to divide us by things like race and sex because those differences can distract us from oppression by class. The institutions serve the actually privileged, who benefit from keeping those they are oppressing (and from whom they are extracting wealth and power to support their position) squabbling over things that can't be fixed.

In any case, this approach leads her to friendship across the sex divide, a comradery made up of a recognition of shared problems and shared situations. Whiskey and rum may not lead them out of the situation they are in, but at least they're not stewing in rage and misery.