Did Trump Betray Us re: Abortion? Women certainly betray themselves...

Amici,

Did Trump Betray Us re: Abortion? As abortion is such a horrific evil, the short answer is Morally, yes. But then the longer answer is politically not quite – or not immediately – when you cold-heartedly consider that "politics is the art of the possible."

Unfortunately, Trump keeps digging his own political grave. He took just the bait and answered an abortion question that will kill him with Pro-Lifers: he said he would not sign a federal abortion ban if it reaches his desk. See Lifesitenews for details. This is an "unforced error" since any federal abortion ban is impossible politically in the foreseeable future. What a fool Trump is. No conservative American politician speaks "unscripted" about abortion. Ever. Such called-out questions are traps.

Abortion should be banned outright, of course, but politically in the United States, that can't be done – not without another Civil War at least – that's the Democrats for you: they build up an evil like slavery or abortion till the only way to fight it is to fight it, literally. But then, that's what they want you to say so their "Deep State" can arrest you for threatening violence.

Consider: the U.S.A. has two parties, although they're basically a UniParty, and more or less alike in a great many ways, and nowadays under the control of U.S. Intelligence Bureaucracies. Regarding abortion, though, one wing of this UniParty is willing to restrict abortion a lot more than the other wing – more or less; recently a lot less. The other wing, the Democrats, unabashedly now want abortion up to birth, and even after. Thus, as a pro-Lifer, I have to vote for the side that is more willing to restrict it; I cannot (and have never) voted for the other side.

• HOWEVER, I am no fool, either. Abortion politically is like slavery. As John Daniel Davidson so eloquently points out here. The American nation cannot exist half abortion and half pro-Life. It will become all one or all the other, just as with slavery. We see that happening in "red state" Ohio and Kansas. Davidson's essay is a fascinating and insightful article well worth the time to read.

The 2024 Election

Well, in terms of "normal" American politics, former President Donald Trump looks to be winning the 2024 presidential campaign, except for the fact that the Democrats will stop at nothing, and I mean nothing, to keep him from swearing in January 20, 2025. Remember: the American election system is completely unstable. Election theft and fraud remain endemic to it. Since Jack Kennedy stole the election in 1960 from the feckless Richard Nixon, we've actually had a number of true coup d'états: Kennedy by the gun (two Kennedys, actually, if you remember RFK), Nixon by lawfare (remember "Watergate"?), Reagan – almost by the gun a few months after his inauguration, and by lawfare rendering him impotent in his second term (remember "Iran-Contra"?) – and so on and so forth, till Trump's first term, where The Powers That Be tried to render him impotent via lawfare (remember "Russian Collusion"?, and then they finally brazenly stole the 2020 election. (And have you never noticed how no one tried to assassinate Carter, Clinton, or Obama? Gee, how curious. The Republicans tried to impeach Clinton over a carnal escapade, but the Democrats impeached Trump what, three times – once for a phone call?) So, with a record like that, and with all the unbridled lawfare against Trump, we can expect disaster this November.

And now maybe Trump himself has shot himself in the foot over abortion. Now multiple times, as noted above. Pro-lifers across the nation groan in true heartache. In the process, though, did Trump really betray all the pro-Lifers who have supported him through all the devilish hell he's been subjected to? Or is he the Machiavellian politician – as was Stephen Douglas, Lincoln's opponent – just trying to win? See Lifesitenews for details of Trump's new abortion position (if you're not already sick of this). Trump has a stubborn streak. Note that he's never admitted the rush to Covid vaccines was a disaster. Despite the growing evidence, he won't budge on that. But now he won't budge on his pro-abortion positions that he is staking out.

First thing to consider and weigh in the scales is that the Democrats, i.e. the party who booed God at their convention years ago, the Left, the Communists and godless hoards galore who have completed their "long march" (the term is Mao's) through our institutions and academies, have won the propaganda war – largely but not entirely – on abortion. 

1. Tens of millions of women seem to regard killing a child as absolutely untouchable. And I mean, they are adamant about baby killing as were the terrible Erinyes, the Furies of Ancient Greece.
   
2. Any politician who wants to ban abortion will be defeated, and most politicians on the Right who even bring limiting it up get lambasted by the mainstream media (a.k.a., the Democrats' lap dogs). Therefore, Republicans are backing off of abortion, as John Zmirak astutely explains in this column. So it is that Trump probably thinks, "Why should I stick my neck out?"
   
3. Yet abortion as a universal carte blanc right, as in France? We've come a very long way from Bill Clinton's infamous call in 1992 for making abortion "safe, legal, and rare", that's for sure. No Democrat today could repeat Clinton's line without being ripped to threads by the pagan furies that seem to possess Leftist women, and many not so leftist women.
   
4. The Left has spent, and will spend, immeasurable oceans of money to promote "Women's Reproductive Rights", and pump money into red states like Ohio and Kansas to garner state constitutional changes mandating unlimited abortion (and also bring on "gay rights" and "sex change" and so on). It is as though the Supreme Court ruling opened Pandora's bag (yep, Panni had a bag, not a box.)  
5. It's obvious that abortion has become the spear point the godless use to pierce the hearts of millions, especially women, regarding the sanctity of life, turning living hearts into stone. "Who among you would give your children a stone if they asked for bread?" Well, today, they stone 'em to death, just kill them, or mutilate their young bodies. 
6. Just as with slavery by 1860, abortion has gone beyond any sort of civil discourse now. Beyond civil discourse, or even rational discourse. It's taken on quasi-religious tones; indeed, it is the worship of Moloch, Ba'al, and Satan in the technological age.
   

Trump the Fool

Against this seeming juggernaut from Hell, Trump plays by its rules. All Trump had to do in terms of callow political expedience was stop soon after he started on his abortion statement. Yes, were he not going to remain 100 percent pro-life, he should have begun as he started out: i.e., abortion is now, thanks to the Supreme Court, a states-right issue. He did start with this. Then he should have stopped and said: "I'm not running for governor of a state, but as president of the nation, and as a nation we have absolute Armageddon hanging over us economically, Armageddon in a fight against Communism within our own Federal government, and obviously Armageddon with our insane foreign wars! We need to focus on those national issues first and foremost."

All of that is desperately true. How hard would that have been?

• That should have been that. But no. Trump brought up Democrat talking points, like the infamous "rape, incest, or health of the mother" smoke and mirror. It's a fraud. Had he had to open his mouth on that, he could have said regarding "rape, incest, health of the mother", that that's for the states to work out in their legislatures. But no, he had to endorse those "exceptions".
  
• That's a grotesque cop out, as well. Donald John Trump should meet and have a long, long talk with Rebecca Kiessling, a woman, a lawyer, a pro-life fighter, who was conceived via a rape. Watch her profound eight-minute presentation here. Donald Trump, you should be ashamed. Political expedience or no.
  
• In terms of IVF, Trump has actually endorsed it! IVF is the artificial fertilization system that creates dozens of fertilized eggs/zygotes in order to produce ONE child, Trump should have been honest and declare, "I don't know much about this and I'll have to research it for myself, in terms of science and religion. When I know what I'm talking about, I'll form an opinion." 

Simple. Again, simple re: political expedience. Morally lame in the extreme.

Abortion is absolute evil, and we are nowhere near getting it banned

Now, obviously, my Machiavellian-inspired suggestions above would be a "cop out". A political dodge. It's what Stephen Douglas tried 150 years ago. Machiavellian maneuvering to get elected. Morally, abortion remains an absolute evil. One stands either appalled by abortion, sickened, horrified, and want it to end, or one can say he's uncaring about it, or one is a worshiper of Moloch (like so many Leftists in the world and Democrats in America) to the loss of one's soul. Those are the three options. No others exist.

Many pro-Lifers say we have to elect Trump, or the country is lost. I tend to do that myself because it is true, but then, what kind of country would we be saving? An abortion horror? A narcissistic nirvana of stunted "juveniles for life"? Sodom and Gomorrah 2.0?

• Abortion is the only crime where the absolutely innocent one gets the death sentence. Also, fully 97 percent of all abortions, it is said, occur BEFORE 15-weeks. Mainly are now done chemically; i.e. "the morning after pill". This little factoid is crucial to understand because it shows how pointless the Left's manipulation of Conservative politicians is: they don't do it to "keep abortion legal" at all, they fight this fight to manipulate women and win elections. The whole thing is one big fraud.
  

IVF

And finally, Trump highly touts the execrable IVF method with creates extra zygotes then kills them (after freezing them).

That, readers, is not merciful. It's the height of narcissism. Yes, it is. Think about it. I feel very sorry for couples (and yes, I mean a married man and woman!) who cannot have kids. Any healthy person would feel sorry. But what person possessing any sort of moral mind or with a moral soul at all wants to have ten or twelve kids just to "harvest' one of them? That's sick in the extreme. Purely diabolical. That's like killing babies to test drugs, etc. 'For the greater good, many must die." Bovine guano.

And Trump covered himself in it. Was he ever truly pro-life? He was a pro-abortion Democrat for most of his life. Did he have a real conversion? God knows, and God will pass the judgment. 

Clearly, everyone can see that Biden won't last even the summer, let alone to November, and that Kamala Harris is a complete idiot. (That's been proven again and again out of her own mouth. And her uncontrollable laughter is freakish. And unnerving.) The Democrats will replace them when expedient. But whoever they run for the presidency, he or she will be "more of the same" as Biden and Harris. Thus we find ourselves between Scylla and Charybdis. If Trump isn't elected, the country is finished. Yes, but again, what country would be saved, really?

Then there's the women who make abortion possible

Do not mistake me. Women are easily manipulated by men. Worthless, immoral men want cheap carnal "full-body contact with women" and for the past 100 years have worked on women's self image to get it. Abortion exists almost solely because guys want to carnally take advantage of gals, and pay no penalty. Read that sentence again. It's part of the over-all contraceptive culture that is hollowing out our civilization. That's why men scientists developed "the Pill" in the first place. Women test subjects DIED in testing it. But they sold it as a "freeing" of women, a "liberation" of women. But that was all a lie. It enslaves women to endless male predation.

Nowadays, abortion owes a lot of its unshakable, iron-clad position in America (and Europe, etc.) to the support of women. Unmarried women tend to be Leftist anyway, and then again, married "soccer moms" have tended to vote Democrat because that party cynically cries up the poor and downtrodden and supports abortion, as well. American Jews have traditionally voted Democrat for protection from what they saw as an aggressive Christian culture; women vote Democrat because they are taught to feel like a threatened minority, as well.

1. Franklin Delano Roosevelt owed his second to fourth elections largely to women who voted for "that handsome, feline man". 
2. And of course he flooded the country with bureaucrats to "look after" everyone. 
3. Women elected FDR the second time in 1936, when his policies had left the country in a worse state than when he came in. (Women, and the Republicans, who ran utter non-entities against him.)
4. Women elected Jack Kennedy (voted for him enough that he only had to steal the vote in Illinois), and women voted for Bill Clinton and Obama, the "Metrosexual".
   
5. And today, Democrats keep harping on the "Alpha-Male" Donald Trump and what a threat to women he is. (Anyone who knows Trump knows this is not true, except maybe per aborting them.)
   

Women and the State

Also, many women tend to vote for "the state", a paternal state that promises to look after them and their children; see this excellent Ann Barnhardt essay here. There's also this. 

Now, of course, the country has millions of sane women, conservative women, patriotic women. And a Catholic author, Kimgerly Begg, writes about them and why they tend to "give in" to peer pressure here: Survey: Most Young Women Hold Conservative Beliefs But Hide Them. I recommend this very thoughtful article; it is fascinating.

Conclusion

But this is our situation. Because worthless miserable Leftist godless men, ruthless ideologues and narcissistic hedonists, have been manipulating women ceaselessly for generations so that women tend to vote against their own self-interests. Again, it is much like Jews who reflexively vote for Democrats. Now, the flood of "tranny" men who insist on pushing women out of sports and gyms and toilets and even redefine the female sex entirely may finally drive home to women how wretched their conditioning has been. Maybe. Maybe not. The incredibly blatant antisemitism that's everywhere now might get Jews' attention, too. Maybe. Maybe not.

Truly, everything is such a mess that only a full return to God can save what's left of our civilization. But where is the Roman Catholic Church? Read that John Zmirak article linked to above for that. It ain't pretty. And our situation is dire.

AnP

 

Further reflections on St. Patrick, the real Sanctus Patricius

Amici, a Chairde,

A friend has been doing some research on the century Sanctus Patricius lived in, the 380s to 480s. An amazing century, altogether. A sort of highly significant nexus point in the history of the Church.

Just some "Patrician" thoughts:

Were Patricius born about 385, as some think and as was traditionally believed, that major player in the Western Church, St. Augustine, was in his 30s and St. Ambrose, who would be St. Augustine's spiritual master, served as bishop of Milan, and so forth and so on. For instance, had Patricius been born about 385, Saint John Chrysostom would have died when the future saint Patricius was in his early 20s, i.e., languishing in slavery in Ireland.

• The only certain things we know about Patricius is from what he, himself, wrote.

But speculation on his story has been vexed by a certain Palladius, a Roman who served as a bishop (apparently) sent by the pope of that day (Celestine, pope from 422 to 432 and concurrent to the General Council of Ephesus, held 431) to "go to the believers in Christ in Ireland." These would have been slaves and a few converts the slaves or free traders had made.

• This mysterious Palladius arrived in 431 A.D. Apparently. And what did he achieve?
  
• We're not certain. Modern scholars generally seem to think he predated Patricius.
• And a good few of them vexedly insist that Patricius' story was crossed with, or even woven out of entirely, the Palladius story. 
• Vague memories and a few churches in southeastern Ireland founded by Palladius, in other words, were mixed up by propagandists for Armagh (in the north) to embellish the Patricius legend.
• Because why? Because we have an actual historical document referencing (kinda, sorta) Palladius and his mission.
  

I do not hesitate to write that this is pure surmise. We've no clue whether this mixing occurred. Palladius, remember, was active in southeastern Ireland. Patricius has always been associated – since the beginning of the legend-making about him – with northeastern Ireland, the ancient areas associated with Ulster, famous for Conchobar mac Nessa (his mother was Nessa, married to Ulster's king, Fergus MacRoigh), who lived in the days of and the fantastic Queen Mebd (Maeve) and Cú Chulainn himself, of the immortal Red Branch Knights of Ireland's immortal national Iliad, the Táin Bó Cuailnge. All these heroes probably flourished from just before Our Lord's time to the second century A.D., but we really don't know; archaeology strongly indicates Armagh itself and nearby Emain Macha were ancient Iron Age ceremonial sites of great import, as was Tara of the Kings, down in east-central Ireland.

• In my youth, I wandered around and over Emain Macha, having walked out to the cattle pastures from Armagh town: it was impressive then, impossibly romantic, quietly dreaming under the grazing bovines, a sort of Irish Troy or Mycenae. One's imagination could run as wild as the wind. From its summit, you could see grass-covered mounds suggesting vast defensive rings and ditches, and you could easily imagine Cú Chulainn playing hurling outside the battlements. Alas, the last time I went, it was a quasi-Disneyland like fiasco. A "heritage center". Ugh!
  
• So it is no wonder the legends associate Patricius with these places, but nowhere much further south or west.

A bit of historical reflection

• Now, clearly, had Patricius indeed been born about 385ish, his traditional date of birth, that was 43 years before Palladius showed up. (Palladius's dates are more or less certain.)
  
• Palladius apparently had some role (maybe, possibly) in urging Germanus of Auxerre to go to Britain to combat Pelagianism about 429. 
• (The Celtic Briton Pelagius, who was certainly from cloudy Britannia, endured ceaseless use and abuse by the African sun-baked passionate Berber urbanite St. Augustine; you see, Pelagius had taught a self-help Christian grace because obviously, the times were desperate in his home island and people had to physically defend their hearths and homes from diabolical Barbarians; they needed a theology to match!)
  
• St. Germanus, who is perhaps a little bit associated with Palladius, visited Britain post the provinces final exist from Roman in order to fight against Pelagianism. St. G was born about 378. So he would have been an exact contemporary of the traditional Patricius. In his tour of post-Roman Britain, he composed a travelogue, and his description of ruined Britannia is haunting. (And sort of like descriptions of current-day Chicago or Seattle.)

But apparently most modern scholars, despite the traditional birth date for Patricius, insist Patricius came to Ireland AFTER Palladius. The idea is that Palladius set the stage, starting churches in southeast Ireland (Leinster, Cúige Laighin) before returning to the empire. For example, this author is discussing minutiae arguments by famous scholars arguing Patrician issues. He writes, as a given fact:

The central episode in Patrician legend is his confrontation with king Loegaire and his wizards at Tara, where, while Loegaire was celebrating a great pagan festival, Patrick lit Ireland's first Easter-fire in defiance of the king's sacred fire, from which all the hearths in the island were supposed to be re-lit.  Loegaire, High King of Tara, son and successor of the great Niall, belongs to the four-fifties and four-sixties; and everyone accepts that the "great festival" challenged by Patrick's Paschal fire was in fact the Feis Temro - that is, not, as Muirchu says, an annual spring festival, but a once-in-a-lifetime ritual of royal consecration.

Wait a minute. This is absurd. The famous meeting of Patricius and the Ard-Rí Loegaire at Tara of the Kings is indeed legend, precisely so, meaning it was created (perhaps from some truth, but how can we possibly know?) later in the 5th or 6th centuries. I repeat what I think responsible scholars assert, that the ONLY sure and certain Patrician material we have remains purely what the saint himself wrote. Everything else is suspect. He himself writes nothing of this confrontation stuff. He had a rough time, he wrote, and was re-enslaved, but nothing like the legends.

• Significantly, Patricius claims NO MIRACLES of any sort. Remember that. And his description of things happening in Ireland stands far, far too vague for any inner-Hibernian dating at all, and only his mention of his father and grandfather's political-ecclesiastical standing in Britain (or Gaul?) indicates that Britannia's imperial diocesan (political, not ecclesiastical) organization stood still intact, as clearly did the villa culture of late Roman Britain that Patricius had been raised in.
  
• Remember, his family had a "small villa" nearby the vicius (smallish town) his father was associated with, but did that mean that they only had this one small villa, or was it a small villa belonging to a larger group?
  
• (BTW, the fact his grandfather was a Christian priest might suggest something significant: it might hint that the grandfather had been something of a grandee, at least a decurion (senator class of Roman town senates: ordo), so perhaps Grandpa was a true "man of status and position". But these grandees, you see, in order to escape their onerous public responsibilities (and financial fees), often took holy orders as a way to "retire" from public duties!)

All these sorts of things we can (kinda-sorta) infer directly from what he wrote. But otherwise, we don't know that any of the legendary material has any truth at all. Probably some of it does, but how can we know now?

Other than that, I can only point out that in the year 367 A.D., the British Romano-Celts saw an overwhelming – and coordinated – assault by assorted Barbarians: Saxons on the east coast, and remember the Germanic mercenaries in the Roman Army, Picts from the north, Scoti (Irish) from the west, and Attacotti (no one knows who these guys were). Roman Britain never really recovered. But archaeological evidence of Mediterranean trade in Cornwall indicates trade routes remained functioning for another century or so, into King Arthur's era. (470ish; see this article for more on Arthur.)

Where and When?

Patricius would have been born – probably most likely – in coastal areas of Britain south of what is now Scotland; i.e. Cumberland on the west coast or inland, or maybe on southward around what is now Wales, to Cornwall. We're that uncertain. But when, exactly? Late 300s? Early 400s? If he was born in 385, that lay just 18 years after the Great Assault on Prydain of 367. Let me present a shocking thought. He may have been born earlier, too, just as well, earlier enough to have been carried off in the Great Assault. We can't be certain of much regarding Patricius, as I keep saying, yet from what he does write, he seems to say he personally saw thousands of captives awaiting transportation to Ireland and slavery. That would match the Great Assault, An tIonsaí Mór of 367. Perhaps it matched a later raid, as well, or perhaps the stricken, horrified youth counted too many fellow victims of the raid. But it certainly does seem to describe what one would have seen as the Great Assault developed.

General timeline of late Roman Britain:

305 The Picts and 'Scots' (i.e. the Irish) begin attacks Roman Britannia on the northern border and along the western coasts.

306 The legions of Constantine the Great, an officer who came to Britannia to defeat the Barbarians (think of the initial battle scene in the movie Gladiator) declared their general Emperor at York; Constantine goes on to win entire empire, East as well as West; issues the Edict of Milan in 313, which gives legal recognition to Christians (something we Christians need more and more today!)

314 British Catholic bishops from London and York attend the Council of Arles.

359 Several British Catholic bishops attend the Council of Rimini.

367 The Picts and 'Scots' raids culminate in the 367 Great Assault catastrophe.

401-410 The Romans "withdraw" from Britain. This is complicated, actually: Roman armies kept leaving Britain throughout the 300s to support one or another contestant for Western Emperor auditions). By 410, few remained, except Germanic mercenaries in military forts in east Britain. After that first decade of the Fifth Century, Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, possibly Swedes and certainly Germans of every description unload their Mark III Tigers onto the beaches and roll over the Celtic Britons to begin extensive settlement and repopulation (sort of like the U.S. border with Mexico, come to think of it!). Believe me, if they weren't shouting "Seig Heil!" as they conquered, they were thinking it.)

500s-600s Any self-respecting Welsh historian can name the years when the Barbarians took famous cities, for example, Aquae Sulis (Bath) fell to the West Saxons in 577. Eventually, advance Panzer units reached the Severn Estuary, cutting what remained of Roman Britain in half. (Cumbria, to the north of Wales, and one of the perhaps more likely candidates for Patricius' birth, remained an independent Celtic kingdom Cumbria (or Rheged) until the 620s, when the Northumbrian English king Edwin took the Isle of Man, and by the later 600s, all of Cumbria was gone. How long the Welsh language survived there is anyone's guess.  

Population replacement is population extinction. Something we need to relearn today.

Bottom line, St. Patrick, the Historical Patricius, remains ever elusive. In his two quasi-autobiographical documents, he actually, truly, speaks for himself. He mirrors St. Augustine in that, except that Patricius wrote little (that has survived) and Augustine wrote enough to fill an entire Alexandrian Library annex! Also, of course, St. Augustine was probably the finest prose stylist who ever wrote in Latin, whereas Patricius struggled to express himself even halfway clearly.

In any event, no one else can speak for him. Isn't that intriguing? And significant. Astounding, actually? It is fitting, too, I think. So unlike the schmaltzy later legends, utterly unlike the modern-day "St. Patrick's Day" drunk fest. Reaching out from the darkest century of the Dark Ages, Sanctus Patricius is a lone voice, and a vibrant, intense voice, for the Christian Faith. "A beacon all alone in the dark" as was said of Babylon 5. That is his significance. Certainly, trying to "date" anything about him from the hagiographies and "histories" of the later 5th, 6th, and 7th centuries is an exercise for an academic crowd adrift on a slow-running tide with far too much time on their hands.

An Préachán

How the Left is "Pharonic"

Amici,

A thought for today's crazy times:

All Socialists are "Pharonic". They want to be "the great house" (what the word "Pharaoh" meant) and the rest of us to be peasants, Egyptian agricultural workers (fellahin) wearing a traditional djellaba and laboring ceaselessly, ant-like, while they build pyramids to their egos.

Looking at it in this way, one can recognize the unvarying trajectory of the Demoratic Party historically. They were the slave owners and supporters of slavery in the U.S. before the Civil War. They fought the Civil War to maintain "the peculiar institution". They created the "Jim Crow South" after the war, and today they keep African Americans down on the "Asphalt Plantations" (or "Concrete Plantations") of the Inner Cities. 

And now they want to extend that status to those of us not of African descent. They're going to make us fellain. They are, in short, nothing if not consistent. 

An P

China Africa, nasty Westerners, and Reparation: an answer to a Leftist

Someone of the Left wrote recently about some comments of mine a relatively standard Leftist response. I took some time to reply. Here it is, first, the Leftist. For the most part, I left the spelling as it was written.

{T]he biggest issues are missing  from [An Préachán]s analysis. they are: slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism and imperialism. trillions spent on arms race, and now trum [Trump] wants to colonize the space. terrorism has cost europe 200 billion euros in ten years, fine. how much is the worth of all the human and material resources stolen from Africa? a thousand times as much? ten thousand times as much? and now these poor africans are trying to cross the med. just for the opportunity to make a small living for themselves and their families that they left behind. the truth is the only way to save white man's honor a small bit is a massive marshall plan type of program in africa to stop the desperate migration. the ultimate truth is that we have created a barbarian civilisation based on money and power run  by ignorant and selfish people like trump. it cannot last, it is sooner or later doomed. this utter nationalism and global capitalism is a disaster: the inequality is unbearable, the rich are getting richer, some are getting crumbs, and the poor are getting poorer.

[name]

My rejoinder: 

In response, I'd express a couple of basic ideas. First, in general, one has to deal with the world as it is, not as one wishes it to be. Second, an individual may well feel responsible for their ancestors' wretched behavior, and try to do something about it, sure, but depriving your own children in order to repay strangers for some ancestral sin won't sit well with your children.

This is just human nature.

Then, as for past colonialism justifying current invasions, consider:

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/30/china-targets-africa-with-debt-trap-diplomacy-and-military-expansion/

According to a recent report, Chinese investment in Africa could create national economies entirely dependent on China.

Although infrastructure projects can create jobs, provide an opportunity for skills development and the transfer of new technologies, Chinese loans  amounting to more than $86 billion bring dangerously high levels of debt that can prove unsustainable for vulnerable African nations.

The lure of short-term benefits for developing or troubled economies while masking long-term burdens is exactly the scenario now playing out in Pakistan, which is becoming progressively subjugated by Chinese loan-based investment

Africa faces immediate, dire, chilling "recolonization" by China. This is extremely important to know about and to call everyone's attention to.

Besides this, Africa has myriad problems we can't solve. One small example: South Africa is driving out its Whites. Someone might say, "Good! They deserve it!" but only a certain type of mind will agree with you. Everyone else sees such a development as both unjust and "racist". Also, as noted above, Africa is being exploited today -- and the Chinese are big into that. They're investing heavily in Africa, and have a military base somewhere in the Horn of Africa now. The point: Does anyone think the Chinese give a damn about "past wrongs" or "colonialism". (Try going to their embassy and protesting their actions.) True, they too were taken advantage of in that way in the past, just look up the Opium War for an example of Western perfidy. But the Opium War doesn't mean modern Britain should be invaded by the Red Chinese People's Liberation Army.

Of course, perhaps you'd still rather live as a subject of the Red Dragon than as a British colonial. Fine. But that's your decision. Others don't have to take it, and it is unjust to force it on them.

More generally about "nations" and "nationalism": People are born into nations that have languages and culture, both language and culture being traditional and rooted in the soil and also in their ancestors' past lives and in the lives and experience of the current generation. It's a holistic experience to be Irish, or German, or Magyar, or whatever. You can't just tell them to forget it, pack up, move aside, go away as their nations now belong to X, or is it Y? Maybe Z. Whoever, someone who able to make a claim that their ancestors were taken advantage of in the past. But beware: people will react very negatively to that.

That's a great way, in short, to start a revolution. And get yourself in serious trouble with everyone around you.

Also, there's no argument in: "My grandfather owned your grandfather, so I have to give you my house." You, yourself, if you want, can do that, but then the obvious question is, (again, as noted above) where do your wife and kids live? You usurp their rights to an identity. Not to mention a home. And what would your brothers and sisters say? And as noted, try to do that to your neighbors and they might attack you.

Bottom line: One generation can't owe its contemporaries for previous generations' sins. First of all, it is simply unjust. But practically, who could possibly determine how much would be owed, and then who would have the power force the redistribution? And then, thirdly, to whom would such redistribution go? Fourthly, who could handle the social upheaval and civil war that would result?

Yet it is the inherent injustice of the idea that prohibits it. An individual is owed the respect every human owes another, and that includes respect for their person and their private property; without respect for private property, we have nothing, because all we have can be taken away. Also, it is theft to take from someone who has done nothing wrong, even if one's ancestors manifestly did not show the natural respect one human owes another.

Example: How could I, being Irish, demand of the English (many of whom are of Irish descent) that they give me a bunch of money because they starved my ancestral family to death, all except for the two who escaped, one to American and the other to Australia?

Then there's slavery today. Sex slavery (usually). We need to stop that before we pontificate on reparation for our ancestors acts. In England, now, today, literally thousands of young English girls have been treated as "sex slaves" by Muslim immigrants and/or their English-born children. That's not something from the past, but all too very much in the present. Or would you dare to consider such repeated rape a good atonement for England's rule of India (and Pakistan)? A just comeuppance?

Related to all this is the perennial and unstoppable problem with Socialism. Socialism is an utopian idea; people simply won't work for free. Elizabeth once told me she thought being a doctor was like being a priest, one did it for conviction, not pay. Well, treat doctors like that and you won't have too many of them.

Far more to the point, [the author] brings ups slavery and colonialism. Islam was essentially -- aside from its famous handful of philosophers who managed to exist for a time after the Asherite takeover -- was a slave-trading empire. From the very beginning, it was all about slaves. Entire peoples were moved about the Middle East by Muslim rulers of various dynasties, and the great city of Alexandria, a wonder of the ancient world and the only purely intellectual and commerce-founded city in the ancient Mediterranean world, in one generation was turned into a fishing village. The Arab conquerors didn't know how to govern it, or even what it was for. So, when the populace rebelled (they were famously hard to rule) the emirs killed off a third of them, sold another third directly into slavery, and moved the rest to their new Egyptian capital city of Cairo.

Problem of what to do with Alexandria solved.

Also, something most of you don't know about: the Viking Age was funded by Arab silver. Arab slave markets on the Black Sea and the Caspian paid Swedes to run newly acquired slaves down the Russian rivers from the Baltic. The Norwegians and Danes captured the slaves in Western Europe and ran then over to the Swedes in the Baltic. So on and so forth.

In other words, why bemoan "the West's" "slavery, neo-colonialism, and imperialism" when it has always been a central element to Islam, and even humanity in general. They've always done so. They still do so. Act today to stop it today.

Finally, as for Trump being, as the Leftist puts it: "ignorant and selfish", well, guess what? Black Americans are doing much better financially under Trump than they ever did under Obama, and indeed, all Americans (legal ones) are doing much better financially under Trump. Jobs, money, companies, all are "coming home" to America, and Trump's popularity keep rising. It's not super high, of course. But it keeps rising slowly. National feeling is strong. And that's just natural, too.

Pretty good for a guy both ignorant and selfish.

An Préachán