The Tides of Time

Let us look to history and see what we can learn about the Catholic Church, its struggles and stumbles, its enemies, and the results.

The Roman Empire opposed Christianity and attempted to suppress it many times, most famously under Nero. Christianity was illegal from the time of Nero until the Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome. In the end, the greatest empire on Earth became Christian, rather than wiping it out.

The Nazi’s and Italian Fascists opposed the Catholic Church. Both regimes fell in just a few short decades.

The Soviet Union and other Communist States all opposed the Church, often strongly and with tactics that may seem oddly – contemporary. Despite these attacks, the Catholic Church prevailed and was a direct participant in the overthrow of the Soviet Union and its client states.

The French Revolution attempted to suppress the Church and even it calendar. Attempts to suppress the Church were common in many new Republics of Europe at that time, some of which continued into the 20^th Century.

As can be seen from this short list, the opponents of the Church include some of the greatest empires that have ever exited; nations with seemingly-unstoppable military might, political power, and the will to annihilate the Catholic Church. In each case the Church triumphed over or outlived their opponent, or both.

There has been some noise for a few decades that the Second Vatican Council marked a huge change for the Catholic Church; that if the Church survives the modern era, Vatican II will forever alter its nature in such a way that it will a completely new entity. You can hear this from the Right and the Left within the Church. Of course, there were a few other ecumenical councils that resulted in turbulence; the Church survived all of these other councils and, after a generation or two, continued on, dogma unchanged. While it is important that Catholic remain faithful to the Magisterium and uphold orthodoxy of worship, the doctrines of the Church, and Tradition, we must remember – we aren’t the first to deal with issues such as these.

From heretics like the Arians and Gnostics, political foes like the Soviet Union, military foes like the Caliphate, ideological foes like Dawkins, and even internal dissent and schism, the Church has already seen it. Seen it, weathered it, and persevered. The tides of time may ebb and flow, but the Rock shall always remain.

McCarthyism, Paranoia, and Things that Really Happened that You Don’t Know About

While reading about the newest Superman movie and how the writers decided to purposefully omit the phrase “the American way” from the movie, I ran into a phrase a few times that intrigued me. So, curious, I did what any geek would do; I googled it. When asked, Google reported that over 700,000 pages contained both the word ‘paranoia’ and the term ‘Cold War’, virtually always in reference to western feelings (especially American feelings) about Communism.

The conventional wisdom is, and has been since at least the ‘80’s, that the American fear of Communism, especially Soviet communism, was completely overblown. When I write “conventional wisdom” I mean it in the same way as the writers for Newsweek, Time, and the New York Times do – what academics, journalists, and Hollywood believe and tell the unwashed masses is true.

This sort of division between the self-appointed ‘intelligentsia’ and the ‘common man’ plays itself out in pop culture all the time. Overtly patriotic songs are automatically considered Country Music; critics pan patriotic films movies like Red Dawn and Invasion, USA while they do great business in the theaters; critics praise anti-American movies like Three Kings and Three Days of the Condor, films that are demonstrably no better than stuff like Rambo and certainly don’t pull in nearly as much money.

Quick Aside: before its release I read time and time again how super realistic Three Kings was supposed to be; heck, in one interview a member of the crew had to deny the use of a cadaver in filming a scene of a bullet entering a body. As a veteran of the Gulf War I was looking forward to seeing this film and went to a matinee on the first day it was open. Everything from uniforms to attitudes to gear to physics was so wrong I left after 35 minutes and demanded my money back.

So now, of course, ‘everybody knows’ that the paranoia of the Cold War was just a Red Scare; an unreasoning terror of Communism artificially created by Conservatives to whip up fervor for foreign wars and pump money into the military-industrial complex whole garnering the votes of the terrified sheep or middle America for the Republican war machine. Just ask Glenn Greenwald, Clint Willis, Jack Huberman, and Noam Chomsky. These best-selling authors, the critics who promote them, the academics who assign their books, and the actors who shill for them all want you to know that what was really going on during the height of the Cold War was a group of rabid Conservatives trying to gain fascist control of the nation by unfairly portraying innocent artists and Liberals of being baby-eaters, charges believed by the easily-deluded inhabitants of flyover country.

As usual with the topics I pick, all is not as we are told in school.

Long before World War II began, the Soviet Union was placing spies throughout the US. By the beginning of the war, the Soviet Union had spies placed very highly within the United States Government. While there had been some early successes for Soviet spymasters, the true breakthrough was the New Deal, when FDR and his cabinet swept hundred of academics into positions of political and economic control – academics who were unelected, untested, and largely uninvestigated. This led to literally hundreds of agents of the Soviet Union being in positions of power within the US on the eve of war.

During WWII a highly-classified program led to the decryption of thousands of classified telegrams from the Soviet Embassy. This project, called Venona, was so secret and its discoveries so profound that some presidents weren’t told of its existence, although they were told of some of the results. What Venona revealed was that Soviet spies were working at literally the highest levels in the US government, including agents within the OSS, the wartime precursor to the CIA, the State Department, Treasury Department, and War Department. Even a top presidential aide was a Soviet agent. Together, these various assets worked to not only hide and protect Soviet spies within the government, but to actually divert funds to allow these spy rings to exist; in effect, the US government was so badly compromised that taxpayer money was being used to fund Soviet spy rings in the US government.

The system was working so well, in fact, that the Soviet Union failed to properly ‘compartmentalize’ its system; members of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) working in espionage routinely interacted with Soviet Intelligence agents doing the same. In the end, the defection of just a few people threw a bright light onto what was occurring in the shadows. These defectors painted a harsh world where a high-ranking member of the US State Department who attended Yalta and helped write the charter of the United Nations was, in fact, a Soviet agent. That the production and allocation of war materials to the Soviet Union was planned and controlled largely by Soviet agents, and that these agents were also stealing nuclear secrets and facilitating the illegal shipment of nuclear materials to the Soviet Union.

In the ‘30’s the Soviet Union had used its intelligence agencies (then called the NKGB or NKVD) to provide military assistance to the Republican government of Spain, to round up tens of thousands of Soviet citizens for the gulags, abduct Spanish anti-communists for torture and execution, to assassinate political leaders all over the world, and to destabilize foreign governments in preparation for Communist takeovers of power. The Soviet Union had begun WWII as an ally of Hitler and wasted no time after the war in seizing control of as many European nations as they could, in direct violation of a number of treaties and agreements. The level of oppression within the Soviet bloc was horrendous, the spectre of deportation to the gulags omnipresent, and the use of torture and murder by the leaders routine.

Communism had never made secret its disdain for Capitalism, Democracy, or America. The fomentation of war and revolution all over the globe was not only their stated goal, but an active project. Through the 1950’s it became more and more obvious that the brutal, oppressive Communist regime of the Soviet Union, a group that was publicly bent on world domination and the eradication of differing political and economic systems and openly advocated the use of assassination, terror, and violence to achieve their goals, had a large number of spies and agents highly placed within the US government. As time went on there was increasing proof that agents and sympathetic ‘fellow travelers’ in the media and entertainment were working to paint Communism and the Soviet Union in the best possible light as a way of aiding the subversion of existing political and economic systems, and that similar agents were well-placed in academia, as well.

In the face of this, is it any wonder that many people were openly terrified? Soviet tanks were crushing the native governments of Poland, Lithuania, and other Warsaw Pact nations – would that happen here? The KGB routinely assassinated people all over Europe and Asia – would that happen in America, too? The Chinese government had been subverted by Soviet agents and overthrown by violent revolutionaries – was America next? The government not only seemed powerless to stop foreign incursions, but all evidence seemed to point to America’s own government being unable to root out Communist agents inside itself. Many people reacted not with paranoia, but with genuine, justifiable fear.

The reaction of the media? Largely ridicule. Newspapers routinely referred to concerns about Communist agents ‘paranoia’. Arthur Miller wrote The Crucible, comparing the search for Communist agents to a witch hunt. Movies since that day extol the “Hollywood 10” as heroes, unjustly accused of being foreign agents. The movie Good Night, and Good Luck, released recently, again painted the search for Communists as a fool’s errand, or the work of fanatics. Indeed, years later when James Angleton, a counter-intelligence agent with a stunning record of dedication and insight, warned that there must be Soviet agents within US counter-intelligence groups, he was laughed right out of his career.

The term witch hunt is still commonly used today, implying that the House Un-American Activities Committee was chasing after something that never existed. Even at the time the Crucible was written many people pointed out that, while witches are a superstition, Communists were real and busily butchering millions of their own people. A number of people in Hollywood came forward and agreed that yes, there were Communists in Hollywood doing their best to create propaganda, not art. Philip Dunne, who actively opposed the HUAC for potentially trampling American civil rights stated that in Hollywood “the industrious Communist tail wags the lazy Liberal dog”, admitting that Communists existed in Hollywood and often dictated projects and message. Of the Hollywood 10, one had fought with the Soviet-supplied pro-Communist forces in the Spanish Civil War and another had raised funds to supply them with arms, three were members of the Communist Party, some of whom admitted that officers of the CPUSA gave them orders on what to include and exclude in their work to promote Communism, and many of the rest were identified by witnesses as pressuring people to include pro-Communist propaganda in their films and books.

After the fall of the Soviet Union in the ‘90’s western researchers gained access to the Soviet archives and many KGB records. This allowed for definitive proof of a number of allegations; Angleton was right and American counter-intelligence had been deeply compromised for over a decade; the CPUSA was funded by the Soviet Union and was explicitly and espionage and subversion tool; Alger Hiss was a Soviet Agent; the witnesses who testified to the HUAC that they were former Soviet spies were, indeed, ‘turned’ Soviet spies; the ‘loyalty boards’ and ‘loyalty oaths’, investigations, and clearances forced on Truman by Republicans (to cries of outrage from the Left) did force spies out and did make it much, much harder for the Soviets to introduce new spies.

Despite the evidence of the day, the revelation of the Venona transcripts, and the contents of the Soviet archives, many still dismiss the time as period of oppression by America and point to Conservatives as fanatics and fools for believing there was any danger. This view is especially prevalent in the “reality-based community”. No matter what was really going on, despite the fact that history has proven McCarthy and the HUAC correct, regardless of the violence, oppression, and slaughter inherent in every Communist regime, and in defiance of the stated Communist goal of making America just like the Soviet Union, all of the Conservative of the time were in the grips of “paranoia”.

The Communists were probably most effective in their penetration of art and academe. As the New Left spread out in an attempt to find a niche, it took root in academia, often with a vengeance. The basic ideology of the New Left was the use of Marxist theory applied to culture rather than labor in an attempt to transform society and seize control through social engineering, not violent revolution. For example, some openly Marxists historians argued that America was not responding to outside pressures but rather actively building an Empire; this highly revisionist picture, virtually devoid of actual evidence, became accepted as fact for decades before rebuttals were published. The revisionists scholars ignored the rebuttals and continued to paint the Soviet Union (with its purges, gulags, totalitarian policies, and assassinations) as morally equal to America. This attitude was accepted in academia and was the ruling paradigm in the 1960’s and 70’s, continuing on to the present day.

The fall of the Soviet Union was a heavy blow to Leftists everywhere. Over the course of the 20th Century Communism had had every chance to succeed; the sole result was economic collapse, the loss of civil and human rights, and the slaughter of tens of millions of innocent people. Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism – all had proven completely incompatible with their goals (equality, freedom, plenty), but very efficient at oppression and murder. Cultural Marxism flourished in the West within academia, the arts, and the media; what were its adherents to do? Well, the same thing they had been doing. After their success in portraying America as no different than the Soviet Union (despite the lack of secret police, gulags, or work quotas in America), they decided to portray America as the worst nation on Earth. While portraying America’s victories as defeats, triumphs as evil, and ideals as false, they also focused on undermining the core institutions, morals, and concepts of the society. The main tool of this attack is Critical Theory.

By ‘critical theory’ I don’t mean the majority of thought about the nature and structure of literature. I am referring to the philosophy coming out of the Frankfort School. The Frankfort School was a collection of Marxist ideologues in Frankfort, Germany. The academics of the Frankfort School were dedicated Communists of one stripe or another, primarily what would be called in modern America “paleo-Marxists”. They seemed dismayed by the opposition to Communism they saw in Europe and how Fascists were able to tap into this opposition to gain power. Over the course of decades the various members of the Frankfort School (who spent WWII in America to escape the Nazis) developed Critical Theory. Unlike sociology prior to this, critical theory is not conceptualized as a method of observing and understanding society/culture as it is but is rather designed to be a tool to attack culture/society and change it into what the theorist wants it to become.

This proved to be a very fruitful path for Marxists everywhere. Much of the early work of the members of the Frankfort School was aimed at discrediting reason itself as a tool; the argument that reason leads to totalitarian societies was routinely put forward. Another common argument is that morals and ethics are totally subjective or arbitrary side-effects of language. Oddly, there is also the occasional argument that all morals other than Marxist ones are subjective (perhaps not so odd when you consider the rejection of logic). A common tactic is to change the definitions of words to “subvert” the culture that uses them, or to deny that words have any meaning other than what the reader decides to give them (where the Frankfort School’s critical theory overlaps with literary critical theory).

The concepts of Critical Theory are very seductive to some; if you don’t like a particular aspect of society or believe that you have a superior vision of society, simply redefine the terms, attack what exists, describe a utopic vision of what you want, and stick to the script. Elements of this are strong in feminist theory, regional studies (especially post-colonial conceptualizations and studies of the Middle East), and the entire crop of new “disciplines” such as Women’s Studies, Gender Studies, etc. Indeed, it can be argued that these various “disciplines” were created out of whole cloth via Critical Theory specifically as a praxis of the subversion of culture/society.

Two threads that can be seen running through all these various fields of discourse are a commitment to Marxist theory and a disparagement of Western society, especially American society. Key members of the Frankfort School felt the Enlightenment itself was the key step toward fascism and only by rejecting reason and positivism can Man be free of the tyranny of, well, reason. Government, politics, mass culture, popular music, popular art, norms of speech, selection of words, literature, folktales – all are attacked, all are torn down, each is shown (through new definitions, the rejection of reason, or the imposition of meaning that the critic wishes the thing to have) to be a tool of fear, oppression, slavery, and death.

After 50 years Critical Theory suffuses academia; from [something] studies to sociology to literature to political science, Critical Theory holds sway. It is the cornerstone of people such as Noam Chomsky or Ward Churchill and the basis of feminist theory. The entirety of gender theory boils down to a redefinition of words (or the stripping of meaning from words) in an attempt to change society. Journalists and educators are trained in the halls of Critical Theory and yearn for acceptance by the ideologues (if they do not, in fact, hope to some day join them), motivating them to embrace Critical Theory in the classroom and in the media. Entertainers, so very desperate to appear erudite, clasp Critical Theorists to their bosom and hope that some of the sheen of the self-appointed intelligentsia clings to them like fairy dust.

In the end, the result of the constant attacks, redefinition of terms, and utopic visions of what could be if the nature of Man/the world were different, is that Western culture in general and America in particular is portrayed not as imperfect, or flawed, or even evil – but as the most evil, the worst ever nation/culture/society. All elements of American society must be remade/abolished to erase the stain of being successful and surviving when socialism has failed and died.

And thus we return to the new Superman movie. Of course the Hollywood writers refuse to have an American icon support the American way. After all, what is so great about life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, hard work, sacrifice, democracy, and the certainty that good is its own reward? While foreigners may be dying to come to America and live here, that doesn’t mean they want to hear something as offensive as the concept that America is worth living in, or that the ideals that it is built upon are worthy of respect or emulation.

In a few months the outrage over this most recent attack on America will fade, then become accepted, and then the attack will shift. In 20 more years another Superman movie will come out and they will drop the ‘justice’ (after all, how can an American icon speak of justice? Don’t you know that America is the most unjust nation ever?). And by the time another restart is made in about the year 2050 ‘truth’ will be dropped as an archaic notion, too (since you can’t be sure that anything is true. Well, other than Marxism, of course).


Thanks to the Miami Art Exchange

And hello to The Blorg

Civic Virtue, Civilization, and Society

There is a concept that I don’t hear much about anymore; civic virtue. Heck, virtue in general is seen as a quaint, obsolete idea. But these two closely linked but distinct ideas, virtue and civic virtue, are as critical today as ever.
The simple definition of "virtue" is ‘ a character trait that is inherently good’, so that developing and holding these traits is something that makes a person better than they would otherwise be. The Four Cardinal Virtues are Prudence, Temperance, Courage, and Justice. While I grew up hearing of these traits (for all his faults, my father is of the Greatest Generation, after all), they are so outrÈ today that many don’t know what they mean.
‘Prudence’ is not caution (although that is the usual modern meaning) or timidity – it means ‘sound judgment’, the ability to distinguish between acting with courage and acting recklessly, for example. Prudence is seen not as action, but the knowledge and wisdom that guides actions.
‘Temperance’ is usually seen as another word for ‘moderation’, but it is more. It really means ‘moderation through control of the self’. The ability to control oneself is a key element of acting virtuously. After all, a person with the prudence to know which actions are proper and which are immoral but without the self-control to avoid the immoral in favor of the good cannot act in a proper manner. Temperance is seen as guiding not just eating, drinking, and sex, but also the choice of words and courses of action.
‘Justice’ is the impartial treatment of all individuals, regardless of race, creed, or origin, and thereby according them what they actually deserve. This is not some blanket ‘everyone is OK’ PC tolerance concept. Justice encompasses punishment as well as reward, rejection as well as acceptance. A stranger is judged by his actions, not the color of his skin – but if his actions merit punishment, then the color of his skin is no shield against justice. This is also true of gender, religion; you name it.
The fourth cardinal virtue is Courage. ‘Courage’ means the trait of acting in a moral manner in the face of fear. Regardless of shame, pain, loss, or death, the courageous man acts properly.
These virtues are Cardinal because they are each necessary; without prudence, you cannot know when or how to act; without courage, you will not act when it is risky (and moral behavior is almost always risky); etc. In short, you either have them all, or you effectively have none of them.
The ancient Greeks, especially Socrates, identified these virtues and their central, critical role is moral life and it was soon assumed by his intellectual heirs to be proven that these virtues were key to living a proper, moral life. Thus, these virtues form the foundation of the concepts ‘good’ behavior.
This brings us to the Civic Virtues. Where the Cardinal Virtues are seen as the elements that make a person’s own life worthwhile, the Civic Virtues are the elements that make a person a good citizen and the building blocks of a good society. In other words, just as the Cardinal Virtues make you an objectively good person, Civic Virtues build an objectively good society.
There is some debate on exactly what is meant by ‘civic virtue’, with some arguing that it means simply to be involved in the community, or even to send our children to public school. In the end, however, the definition of ‘Civic Virtue’ boils down to the core concepts that each individual has a duty to society as a whole and that this duty is to act in a moral, selfless manner. In The Discourses, Machiavelli sets out to use history to prove that a classical republican government founded upon the concepts of liberty and civic virtue as co-dependent ideas is the most just form of government possible. Political leaders and philosophers from Hannah Arendt to Thomas Jefferson agree with Machiavelli both in regards to republican government and the concept that liberty is only achievable in conjunction with the classical view of civic virtue as ‘selflessly moral actions by citizens for the society’. Machiavelli’s conclusion that when citizens reject civic virtue in favor of self-interest the inevitable result is subjugation (either to a despotic ruler or a despotic foreign invader) is also widely accepted.
The fascinating thing about civic virtue is that it is a virtue of individuals, not the group; it is not about the government helping the people or forcing certain activities with laws, but about individuals placing the common good above their own narrow interests of their own free will. Especially in the initial conceptualization of America by the founders, government was seen as a tool to prevent citizens from being denied freedom, thus allowing citizens to act as they should. It was assumed that proper citizens (i.e., those practicing the Cardinal Virtues) would be driven by their very character to embrace Civic Virtue. An untrammeled version of this drove the Anti-Federalists to aim for a very limited government. A fear that some day the majority would discard the Cardinal Virtues drove the Federalists to do such things as insist on the Bill of Rights being added as amendments to the Constitution.
As the Anti-Federalists saw it, the benefits of living a virtuous life were so overwhelmingly positive and so readily apparent that there was little need to do more than make sure people knew what they were and were afforded an opportunity to see the results; the rest was inevitable. At first it seemed hard to argue with them; a life lived virtuously is one that leads to peaceful prosperity, after all. Prudent people married with as much attention to the future as to their impulses, thought issues and events through, and were courteous. Temperant people saved their money, invested carefully, and avoided excess. Just people were open-minded, but not to the point of being gullible. Courageous people did what needed doing. Combined, these traits were the character traits that formed the core of the American Dream [while Hollywood may tell you that the American Dream is to ‘get rich or die trying’, the real American dream is to live free beholden to no one]. Rich or poor, virtuous people live the best life they can, strive to better themselves, and also strive to help fellow citizens.
The Federalists were quick to point out that even in the face of evidence plenty of people weren’t virtuous. Furthermore, vicious people (people of virtue are virtuous; people of vice are vicious) were capable of taking advantage of the virtuous society around them to simultaneously ‘artificially’ improve their own life, avoid contributing to society, and make that same society worse. This threat, they argued, was serious enough to warrant safeguards.
In the end, I fear the Federalists were correct. More and more people "realized" that if they lived within a virtuous society and acted in a selfish manner, they could reap the benefits of both society as a whole and of the hard work of others without developing virtues of their own. This is attractive in the short term because being virtuous is hard work; you must live by the most onerous of all limitations – self-imposed limitations. Why deny yourself anything if most of the tab is going to be picked up by someone else?
Indeed, the ethos of the Baby Boomer generation is just that; discarded virtue. ‘Turn on, tune in, and drop out’ is a pretty thorough rejection of virtue, after all – ‘turn on’ is ‘forget temperance and indulge in whatever you want’; ‘tune in’ is ‘ignore prudence and do what’s popular; and ‘drop out’ is ‘justice and courage are for saps who enjoy hard work, man’. The problem is, so many people of that generation rejected personal and civic virtue that the remaining virtuous couldn’t maintain stability as it had been.
Thus we have the fruits of the embrace of vice. The horrifying escalation in violent crime of the ‘70’s, the siphoning of billions of dollars to murderous drug lords in the ‘80’s, the financial malfeasance of the ‘90’s, the devil-may-care explosion and collapse of businesses in the early ‘00’s. Police are the most visible personification of authority and order, so they were hated and reviled (and under-funded and demoralized) – resulting in robbery, rape, and murder. ‘I’m just getting high, man, I’m not hurting anyone’ led to murderous billionaire criminals that effectively control the governments and armies of a handful of nations. ‘greed is good’ led to junk bond fiascos and the dot.com bust as people focused not on building, but looting.
The personal toll is worse. Addiction, fatherless children, alcoholism are endemic, especially in the young (who are told that temperance is a bad thing). The phenomena of ‘helicopter parents’ is a symptom, showing how a broad section of people reject prudence and justice in favor of their own child getting special treatment. Even the sharp declines in fertility are symptomatic; our primary social responsibility, the social group we are to sacrifice for first and most, is our family. More and more people are refusing to have children, and most openly admit that it is because they are ‘too selfish’ to endure the hard work, expense, and emotional investment children demand. In the end, when these childless people are elderly, society as a whole will be forced to care for them when they can no longer care for themselves. Of course, if enough of their fellow travelers join them in having one or none, then there won’t be enough young people to pay for and care for them as they age. Their abandonment of family duties and rejection of the future will not be deferred until after they are dead, but only until they face death.
While many in the blogosphere and MSM speak of a ‘clash of civilizations’, I think this lack of virtue is more critical. Indeed, the rejection of virtue and civic duty is a clash f civilization itself with barbarism.
The Greek writers who coined the term ‘barbarian’ originally used it to refer to ‘someone who doesn’t speak Greek’. It was expanded, however, until it meant ‘cowardly hedonists unable to control their own appetites’. The rejection of reason and culture was assumed to be inescapable from these self-same traits. Interesting, isn’t it, that the same Greeks who formalized logic, prized reason, invented geometry, etc. dismissed those who ‘turn on, tune in, and drop out’ as being incapable of reason?
Today, the barbarians aren’t at the gates, they are in the university faculty lounge. From Hollywood to New York they fill printed pages, the airwaves, and theatres with glorification of a life without virtue while painting the virtuous as stupid, foolish, or actively evil. Attempts to teach virtuous behavior (abstinence education, for example) provoke howls from the tribes of hedonists who shriek that teaching temperance is fruitless, even evil.
So immorality and selfishness are described by the self-styled intellectuals of the West as good, while morality and selflessness are derided as traps for the foolish. Like the grasshopper and the ant, the barbarians mock those who built the city they are burning, not noticing how very close Winter has become. When the snows do arrive never doubt that the barbarians will insist, nay demand! that the builders put them up and feed them until Spring comes.

The Peaceful Left

There was recently an article talking about the angry Left. There has been a lot of pushback from the Left blogosphere, but the blog featured in the WaPo article, My Left Wing, actually claims that they (although Maryscott runs it, it is a joint blog in some ways) are not angry, but wrathful; they claim that wrath, a ‘just’ emotion, motivates the Left while anger (seemingly an ‘unjust’ emotion) motivates the Right. The author of the piece draws parallels with the Grapes of Wrath and mentions that the anger of the Right led to the Know-Nothings, the Moral Majority, Huey Long, and other ‘repressive, jingoistic’ movements. The wrath of the Left, the author contends, led to Populist and Progressive movements and the protests against the Vietnam War (with the implication that these things are righteous).

The author explicitly admits that ‘out of context’ the vitriol of the Left (as exemplified by Maryscott), seen as anger, can be “jagged and shockingly hateful”. Well, I must agree that many see it that way. But, the author continues, when seen ‘in context’ it is a passionate force that ‘unites readers’ by having them share her wrath and this shared wrath creates a sense of ‘empowered community’. So, what context is it that transforms the expletive-laden foamed ranting of this self-described ‘insanely angry’ woman into an exercise in community building? What type of context could forge a reality where the Ann Coulters of the world seethe with the impotent rage of the powerless while Maryscott and fellow wrathful Leftists roar with the empowered rage of those abandoned by their government?

Why, nothing less than the “call-to-action of a people’s revolution”, of course.

Oh, that context.

Let’s be honest, here – this guy is actually a pretty good example of the typical Modern American Leftist. These sorts, seemingly immune to self-reflection, point to Ann Coulter and attempt to savage her as angry but look to Howard Dean as a man driven to anger by the injustices of this dusty Earth. Or the scores of leftwing bloggers who rant on and on about how much they hate ‘ignorant, mouth-breathing, close-minded, inbred, racist, xenophobic, theocratic, greedy, homophobic, wingnut, fundie rightwingers’ who are inherently evil because they are so… bigoted. That is why the author of this piece can sneer down his nose at Huey Long and the Moral Majority while holding up Populism, Progressivism, and the Vietnam Protests as paragons of ‘righteous action’.

Maryscott O’Connor, the boss of My Left Wing, describes herself as a “leftist Liberal Socialist commie” with obvious pride. The author refers to the ‘context’ of a ‘call-to-action of a people’s revolution’ transforming ‘shockingly hateful’ words and actions into a righteous cause – all part and parcel of the Communist agitators of 3-4 decades ago. It is all part of the whole; the Left in America still embraces Socialism and Communism very closely, often very publicly. The Nation calls for the Left to openly admit that they are, indeed, Socialists. In that article for the Nation the author, Ronald Aronson, argues that the Democrats lack a vision because they have abandoned Socialism (at least publicly) and he calls on them, much like the Daily Kos and many other leftwing bloggers, to move further to the Left and embrace Socialism proudly and publicly.

How many times must Socialism and Communism fail before the Left admits that they are failures? No Communist government has survived the 20th century with anything resembling actual Communism fully in place without massive pain. Communist China is a capitalist’s paradise, only lacking civil rights. Vietnam is quickly joining China as a “we’re run by dictators called Communists, but we want time and a half for overtime so little Suzy can get a new cell phone” style state. The Soviet Union slaughtered tens of millions of its own people with purges, pogroms, and purposeful starvation campaigns. The repressions of Communist dictatorships in South America were terrible. The repression in Cambodia under Communism were horrific. The concept of Communism permitting civil rights is a joke, let alone the sometimes-heard argument that Communist nations were “more free’.

Communism is primarily an economic system. The Soviet Union collapsed because of a total failure of its economy. Cuba went from being the envy of Latin America, a nation so wealthy that it had positive migration to Cuba from all over the world, to being one of the poorest nations on Earth. The only reason Cuba survived was the more than $100 billion dollars in aid poured in by the Soviet Union prior to its collapse. Since then Cuba has subsisted on aid, tourism, and similar means. The devastation of the Communist economic system looks like it will last two to three generations after Communism ends. Even Germany, which had half of its economy remain non-Communist, will take decades more to recover. Mentioned earlier, the only reason China and Vietnam are doing well economically is – they no longer have Communist economies. Venezuela’s quasi-Communist president’s attempts to create a Communist-style economy have already damaged the Venezuelan GDP (which is shrinking per capita), even with its large oil wealth.

So Communism is a complete failure as a economic system (its primary purpose) and all Communist nations have been marked with repression, terror, and injustice. Every. Single. One. It seems obvious that, in this day and age, Communists are one of three sorts of people: the first sort are totally ignorant of history. They don’t know about the routine repression, murder, torture, and other repressions of all past Communist regimes, nor the economic stagnation, mismanagement, and waste. This allows them to believe the propaganda that Communism will ‘make things better’. Most “four year Communists” (i.e., college students majoring in Peace and Justice Studies) are of this sort. The second sort of people want a world where the few people who are left are simple, largely-ignorant peasants who till the soil for subsistence and have no access to industry or technology. Surprisingly, there are a fair number of modern Communists like this.

The third sort are the ones that believe that they will be the apparatchiks, the Party Members, the movers and shakers. You know, the dictators. No scratching in the earth for wheat for them; no bone-crushing quota at the smelter to achieve the newest Five Year Plan in their Communist Utopias. No, sir, they will be giving speeches at the Party Congress, addressing the UN, and setting those Five Year Plan quotas! I personally believe that there are more of these types leading marches, writing columns, and updating their blogs than most suspect.

“But Deep,” you say, “That Aronson fella’ was talking about Socialism, not Communism.”

Six of one, half a dozen of the other, I say.

Way back when Marx was talking about such things originally, he envisioned an ‘intermediate stage’ between the chains of Capitalism and the liberation that would be the new era of the Communist Man. Marx and later theorist theorists termed this halfway house of the soul ‘Socialism’. Before that difference became effectively formalized by the Bolshevik Revolution, Socialism and Communism were completely interchangeable terms. After the foundation of the Soviet Union the Socialists of Europe began to drift away from what became Stalinist Communism. But Socialism retained the essentially Communist ideas of the exploitation of labor, the class struggle, and that the means of production need to be controlled and centrally planned.

In other words, Socialism is still Communism Lite. There is still great debate over how close to Communism Socialism is, should be, could be, ever was, etc. In the end, however, the European Socialist nations share certain characteristics – they accept as true the central arguments behind Communism (as I mentioned, the class struggle, the labor theory of value, the historical inevitability of the advance of Socialism, that all profit is theft, and the belief that at least the main elements of production need to be controlled by the state. Many toss in a distrust or hate of any personal property); they have a mixed economy (either because their nation is not fully Socialist and Capitalist elements resist the transition, or they have modified their view of Socialism to face reality); and they are all in decline.

Of course they are in decline; after all, many if not all of the core ideas they base their economic theories on are simply wrong. Its like trying to research genetics by studying DNA while thinking that Lamarck fellow certainly had it right. The two ideas are in conflict.

As I have written before, the economic decline of Europe may be irreversible. Their per capita GDP and median income are lower than in America, their tax base is shrinking rapidly, and they are facing the vastly increased cost of pensions and healthcare for a population of elderly that will increase 50% in the next 20 years. As the recent riots in France have proven, the Socialist elements of Europe will certainly continue to resist any attempts to change the status quo – effectively dooming themselves to a squalid future.

So while Communism promises poverty immediately, Socialism defers it for a generation or two down the road. I’m sure that you’ll agree with me that one is not really an improvement over the other.

But what about the examples the author uses? Populism, Progressivism, and the Vietnam Protests? These were surely noble!

Maybe. But I don’t think so. To begin, the first time I read the author praise Populism as “visionary” and then hold up Huey Long for contempt in the same sentence I burst into a long, loud laugh. After all, Huey Long was a Democrat and master populist whose tremendous local political power was based upon his plan to soak the rich, provide a minimum income to all people, and create a universal pension system fueled by a steeply progressive income tax. The man was a Socialist populist if their ever was one in this country. I suspect he is rejected by the modern Left for the crime of being a Southerner. While the most recent Populist Party in America was a vehicle for a former Klansman, the original was a far-left party of union members and poor farmers. Let’s just say that populism has had a checkered history that the author seems largely ignorant of and move on.

Progressivism is largely a synonym for Socialism, although many self-identified Progressives of my acquaintance seem to be more focused on social issues rather than economic theory. This doesn’t mean that they don’t support ideas like a living wage, steeply progressive taxes, universal health care, etc. It just means that they don’t understand economics. Progressives traditional oppose Capitalism and embrace Socialist ideas of labor, markets, and wages. This means, of course, that they are ignoring the reality of Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa that show that these economic concepts are flawed. As Socialism is Communism Lite, Progressivism is Socialism Lite. “All of the faulty premises, none of the history of failure!”

The protests against the war in Vietnam sometimes had a noble aim. While I always have (and always will) suspect that a great deal of the reluctance to fight by many of the protestors was born of fear of battle (or even just fear of the regimentation of army life), there were many who seemed willing to face prison for their opposition. So I give at least some of them the benefit of my own doubts. However, many involved were involved for selfish reasons, and some were involved out of (wait for it) Communist ideals.

The Vietnam Veterans Against the War were eventually found to be collaborating with North Vietnam to cause mass rebellion in the US Army and, eventually, to stage a POW release as political capital for VVAW. The VVAW also promoted the view that the legitimate government of Vietnam was the Communist party of the North. The protests led to the formation and activities of groups like the Symbionese Liberation Army (a Communist group dedicated to the violent overthrow not just of the American government, but American society as a whole), the Weather Underground (a similar group), and other groups (the Black Panthers, the White Panthers, etc.) were all avowedly Communist and most either embraced/advocated/performed violence or condoned it – if that violence was aimed at Capitalism. Indeed, the Yippies (Abbie Hoffman’s group) were anti-Capitalism first, anti-American culture second, anti-war third or fourth.

Again and again when we look at the Left we see Communist errors about the nature of people, society, and economics at the core of their beliefs. No matter how many times Communism is tried and failed, the Left returns to it. The more wounded and ineffectual Socialist governments become, the more the Left in America wants to emulate them. While Cuban refugees become millionaires in Miami, the Left claims that Cuba is a poor nation because America exploits them. While Venezuela’s GDP shrinks and the country morphs from a coffee exporter to a country where coffee is scarce, the American Left praises its quasi-Communist president for his sound economic ideas. At the same time that scholars are still struggling to quantify the perhaps 120 million dead as a result of Communism, the Left points to its ideals as the best way of life.

How is it possible for people who speak intelligently, can document an education, and claim to be motivated by compassion be so blind to the horrors that Communism has inflicted on the world? How is it possible that they watch the once-great material wealth and rich culture of Europe drain away like water poured onto sand and decide that they want to emulate them and their ideas?

The short answer is, one thing motivates their embrace of Communism/Socialism: fear.

Democracy is an inherently messy process. Sometimes the things that you support don’t rise to the top. Sometimes the things you want don’t get into the law. Sometimes the things you hate prevail. Leftists don’t like this. Thus we witness their push to use the courts to avoid the democratic process, or to reverse democratic decisions. Don’t like the actual will of the people (as expressed through their elected representatives)? Just use a sympathetic judge to force through the changes you want and claim the moral high ground as “the real majority” or “the voice of the people” or as representatives of the “historical inevitability of Progressive thought”.

Capitalism is also an inherently risky venture. Two people with equal backgrounds, equal education, equal money can start out at the same time with the same goals. Twenty years later, one could be the richest man in the world, the other could be an assistant manager at a Quickie Mart. Another twenty years and the first man could be slinging hash in a greasy spoon and the second could be buying a private island in the Pacific. Hard work and determination can take you far, but there are no guarantees; luck and uncertainty are always part of the equation (although they can be planned for). While some people embrace this as a chance to achieve, others are terrified of the potential to fail.

I’ve always suspected that this fear underlies at least some of the many young people born into the middle and middle-upper class who turn to Communism; they are terrified of both the possibility of failing and, perhaps even more, the spectre of being mediocre. After all, if success is largely a result of hard work and determination, who and what do you blame if you aren’t the richest man in the world? So they turn to a system that wants to make everyone the same – no losers. No winners, but no losers.

In the end, Communism and Socialism are just more utopian schemes. They both promise perfection on Earth if you just believe and follow the rituals, people will change into perfect people, society will be transformed into a perfect society, and hunger and want will vanish forever. Because of this vision of Heaven on Earth, it will probably continue to lure the immature, the frightened, the confused, and the ignorant for decades to come.

[For the record, this utopic vision is why the Catholic Church has always distrusted Communism and Socialism. Despite all of the rhetoric from the Left, the Church understands that the people and things of this world will never be perfect.]




(note: I am unsure of the author Nonpartisan’s gender and use male pronouns throughout. If I am wrong, too bad.)

More on Birth, Life, Death, Ruling the World, and the Media

One of my longer entries is on birthrates and population. In that article I discussed historical Total Fertility Rates (TFRs), population trending and predictions, and possible impacts of population decline.

Its been almost 18 months since I did the research for that initial work, and I would like to revisit the subject. I am again going to the CIA World Factbook (this time the 2005 edition, not the 2003 edition) for big numbers with some additional information from the U.S. Census Bureau, the UN for population predictions, and some other groups.

Ready for the numbers? The global TFR estimates vary, but were about 2.7 in 2002 (the year that I used for the statistics in my previous article). In 2005 global TFR was at 2.62. The European TFR is an aggregate 1.4, the ‘developed world’ (in other words, Europe plus America, Canada, Japan, and Australia) is 1.6. South America is at a TFR of 2.5, as is Asia as a whole. Central America is at 2.8, the Middle East at 3.6, and Africa is at 5.

TFRs for a number of countries have had minor adjustments, typically reflecting lower TFRs than just 2 years ago. Interest in the so-called ‘birth dearth’ has led to more research in the last 2-5 years giving us more accurate numbers in 2006. China’s TFR dropped from 1.7 to 1.6 between 2002 and 2005, while the American TFR dropped from 2.1 in 2002 t 2.0 in 2004. The South Korean TFR dropped from 1.26 in 2000 to 1.15 in 2005. The Philippines TFR of 3.5 in 2002 has dropped to an estimated 2.7 in 2005. Again, many of these adjustments in TFR rates reflect new research, but there does seem to be an ongoing decrease in TFRs that is more rapid than was previously believed.

The most alarming downward revision may be in Japan. Japan’s TFR in 2002 was 1.32. Researchers revised the 2003 estimate to 1.29 and the new estimate for 2005 is 1.22. This is a rapid drop in TFRs and has led to the question seen in the Japan Times; “When will the last Japanese child be born?”.

Better direct access to the Middle East revised many of those numbers upwards, especially in Afghanistan. There also seems to be an increase in childbearing after American occupation. This largely kept the global TFR flat (or close to it) between 2002 and 2005.

There has been more research on replacement TFR, as well. Due to immigration, the American replacement TFR is now set at 1.8. At the same time, AIDS, war, and other factors have increased the replacement TFR for the developing world to 2.5. Taken together, the ‘flat’ global TFR combined with the increases in replacement TFRs mean that population projections are lower now than they were 16 months ago.

The UN now has the 2004 revision for its population growth estimates, including TFR estimates. There are two interesting things about the UN estimates. First, they are being continually revised down across the board. Second, the UN ‘low’ estimate is usually closest to reality, although it tends to be too high. When I had previously listed the predicted global TFR for 2025 at about 2.3 I was using the 1998 revision of the UN’s data. Looking at the 2004 revision, I will adjust my estimate to a global TFR of 1.9 in 2025.

That is a pretty serious change. It means that the population peak will come sooner and be lower still.

The UN report mentions that they predict that population decline will be relatively small and temporary, resulting in a ‘leveled off’ population of about 9 billion in 2300. Of course, one of these assumptions is that human life expectancy will continue to increase linearly with no limit (i.e., humans in 2300 will have a life expectancy of about 106) and that TFRs will rebound to replacement. They admit that an average (over time) global TFR of 2.4 will result in a year 2300 world population of about 36 billion while an average (over time) global TFR of 1.9 results in a projected year 2300 world population of possibly less than 1.9 billion, even with all other assumptions intact. Any change in death rates up, birth rates down, life expectancies that do not trend up linearly, etc., etc. and the total population is lower.

There are some interesting things coming out of the most recent demographics research. One commonly accepted ‘truth’ is called the ‘demographic transition theory’. This is the ‘elevator pitch’ for demographic transition: rather than a single theory, it is a number of theories based upon the idea that fertility rates (TFR) drop after death rates drop because it is not necessary to have “excess” children to result in the family size you want. Closely related is the idea that as economic opportunities increase there is less need for children to add to family income. Seems pretty simple, really; as fewer children die in their youth and you need fewer hands in the fields, people have fewer kids.

Well, its wrong. More and more research shows that decreases in TFR do not show any real correlation to decreases in infant mortality, the death rate, or economic progress in the developing world. The discrepancies between death rate and TFR are especially strong outside Europe. The demographic transition theories assumed that a higher percentage of children would reach adulthood and that they would live longer, creating ‘positive population pressure’ to offset the decreases in TFRs. In reality, this is certainly not reliable, causing population projections to be consistently too high.

Another accepted truth that ‘the more education a woman has, the fewer children she has’. In my first post on population I mentioned an Israeli study that showed that this was not true for women who self-identified as ‘devout’ who were Jews or Catholics; instead, devout Jewish and Catholic women tended to have more children as their education increased. More and more research is showing that any correlation between education and a decline in fertility is local, not global.

The TFR for ‘Ultra-Orthodox’ Jews in Israel is 7.0 compared to the national 2.44. In the United States the TFR of Catholics after 1965 was largely seen as no different than any other group. Indeed, some reports claimed that White Catholics had the lowest TFR in America in the mid-‘70’s. Now, however, the American Catholic TFR is highest (about 2.4), especially among Hispanic women (perhaps as high as 2.8).

In short, my earlier predictions were a bit too positive. The population maximum will probably be about 7.3 billion, the maximum will probably be reached in about 2030, and the post-peak population decline will be faster – mainly because of the recently increased death rate.

Don’t get me wrong, I am certain Humanity won’t erase itself. But there will be major changes in geopolitics and economics, changes that will be painful.

One thing that I have never understood is the general assumption by demographers that the stunning decreases in TFR were a natural adjustment to overpopulation. This general assumption is that the spike in births after WWII caused a reaction where women all over the world reduced their fertility to adjust back to a ‘better’ world-wide population. In my opinion, this makes no sense. After all, the key indicators tied in to decreasing TFR are improvements in quality of life; more income, more education, better economic factors within the surrounding society, etc. Why is it that all of those factors caused increases in local fertility until about 1960 and then, overnight, they lead to lower fertility – fertility low enough to endanger entire ethnic groups with extinction?

The Deep Thought Analysis Team has a theory that explains the precipitous decline in global TFR. The first component of this theory is the media.

The UN has been predicting a long-term reduction in population since at least 1972 while at the same time adjusting the peak population downward since 1970. The reports on population have been freely and widely available. However, the media’s attention between 1970 and about 2001 was always on the implication of the highest projected population. From the sensationalistic news coverage in the early 1970’s to the mass coverage of the ‘year 6 billion’, the news is generally very committed to warning of overpopulation as an issue.

‘Entertainment’ has also been pounding the overpopulation drum during that time. From Soylent Green to Population movies have been almost as negative as fiction novels, which range from Make Room! Make Room! (the basis for Soylent Green) and Stand on Zanzibar to dozens of others. The number of non-fiction books to speak of overpopulation is immense, beginning with The Population Bomb in 1968. Paul Ehrlich became a celebrity for The Population Bomb, a celebrity that has faded little over time, despite the failure of any of his predictions to come true.

This outpouring of fiction, non-fiction, news, and activism warning the world of overpopulation has convinced a large number of people that the greatest danger to the Earth is too many people. This doomsaying and outreach continued while the UN and demographers were predicting lower and lower peak populations each year. During the intervening four decades there have been fewer deaths from starvation than ever before in history (despite the widely-publicized political starvation of people in Ethiopia and Somalia), the caloric intake of the developing world is up 28%, India (supposedly a nation that would be ‘erased’ by famine) is an exporter of food, and the largest health threat in America may be obesity. Indeed, food is so plentiful that current food commodity prices are less than 50% of their 1970 level (adjusted for inflation); a reduction so sharp, the prices are still lower without adjusting for inflation.

The second component of our theory for plunging TFRs is the unique changes in reproduction in the last 40 years.

Until 1930 the use of artificial contraception was condemned by all Christian denominations and was generally illegal in the West. After the authorized the use of artificial contraception in 1930, however, all major Christian organizations but the Catholic Church followed suit within a few years. However, most forms of contraception remained illegal or difficult to obtain until the repeal of certain state laws began in the late 1950’s, resulting in the broad availability of prophylactics about 1960. The first effective oral contraceptive (‘the Pill’) was also made available in 1960 (although not generally available until about 1965). Finally, throught the 1960’s and 1970’s abortion was being legalized, first in the West, then worldwide.

Thus the 1960’s were the first time in human history that contraceptives were both readily available and actually effective. Their introduction at the same time as the media and cultural belief in and promotion of the idea of apocalyptic overpopulation resulted in a massive push to promote radical population control in the form of dispensing birth control world-wide, especially to the developing world. Planned Parenthood, the UN, and dozens of organizations and governments have spent up to tens of billions of dollars per year providing contraceptives and abortion services throughout the globe. Massive education campaigns are conducted advocating the use of contraceptives and fighting for access to and the subsidizing of abortion. Indeed, the promotion of birth control and abortion is so forceful that have been cases where ‘family planning’ equipment bumps medicines and even food off of relief supply trips; the birth control is seen as more ‘essential’.

The third component of the theory has to do with attitudes.

In the 1860’s Sir Francis Galton (a cousin of Charles Darwin) came to the conclusion that civilization was thwarting natural selection in humans. In 1865 he wrote ‘Hereditary Talent and Character’, a key element in the creation of Social Darwinism, or the belief that the poor, ignorant, unsuccessful, less intelligent, etc. were genetically undesirable. Galton, however, also went on in later works to advocate the artificial selection of humans for genius. Along with a number of other writers and thinkers, this developed into the concepts of eugenics.

By the beginnings of the 20th Century eugenics was considered a social science and major universities around the world (except in Catholic nations) taught courses on eugenics as a mainstream science. Largely seen as a ‘progressive’ science, it was focused on bettering mankind. Proponents of Eugenics included Alexander Graham Bell, W.E.B. DuBois, and William Shockley.

Another prominent eugenicist was Margaret Sanger (who was the primary source of funds for the development of the Pill). Margaret Sanger worked with Harry Laughlin (a prominent eugenicist inspired Nazi sterilization laws) and actively promoted birth control chiefly as a method of ensuring “more children from the fit, less from the unfit”. Sanger also campaigned hard for both compulsory sterilization laws (she was largely successful in this) and a requirement that a married couple demonstrate ‘fitness’ before being licensed to have a child (something she failed at). This attitude, that the right to have children should be restricted by the government, was echoed in The Tragedy of the Commons, a book released at the same time as The Population Bomb.

The eugenics concept popularized the idea of children as a commodity; ‘fit’ children were seen as a positive, ‘unfit’ children as a negative. Combined with the economic arguments of Planned Parenthood, society came to see children as a burden that must be justified. When added to the overpopulation hysteria, the result is the conclusion by many that having children is inherently evil.

The fourth component of the theory is more subtle than many of the others and a bit harder to quantify.

As mentioned above, the conventional wisdom about fertility has been that; well informed women have fewer children; Highly-educated women also have fewer children; wealthy women have fewer children than poor women; women with a successful career have fewer children, too. Whether these statements are true or false, they are repeated in the media, the classroom, and by advocates of birth control.

The result is not that women with few or no children are lauded, but that women with ‘too many’ children are seen as ignorant, poorly educated, poor, and as failures. This may be especially true in the developing world where women are trying to emulate their ideal of success, or what they are told will result in wealth and freedom.

The entire theory posits that the prevalence and acceptance of birth control and abortion combined with the concepts that children are a burden that must be justified, that overpopulation is a dire and imminent threat, and the social pressures that stigmatize mothers of large families, are acting to drive down fertility rates around the world.

The implications of this are pretty serious; if true, there is no inherent counter to the trend. As long as the various pressures to lower TFRs exist, they should continue to go down. At some point we must assume that the general population will recognize that overpopulation is not an issue, let alone a threat, and TFRs will begin rebounding. Unfortunately, this may not happen until after the die-off of entire cultures, even entire races.

In the absence of such a realization, we must depend upon the actions of religion. Certain religions, primarily Judeo-Christian religions, advocate an expanding population as inherently positive. At current rates, this means that Orthodox Jews and conservative Catholics will increase as a percentage of the global population, and this increase will only accelerate over the next 100 years.

I dislike making predictions about something as variable as population growth, but it is conceivable that the Earth of 2300 will have a population of 5 billion people; 1 billion Jews, 3 billion Catholics, and 1 billion ‘everyone else’.