American Redirection

Are we undergoing an American Redirection?
If so, then, to where, exactly?

Vic Biorseth, http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

Tocqueville said that America was a great nation because her people were a good people. It followed from that that when and if we were no longer a good people, we would not longer be a great nation. To carry it a step further, would we still even be a nation when and if we were no longer a distinct people, different in some way from other people in other nations?

Since the birth of the Thinking Catholic Strategic Center website I have challenged movements toward becoming a non-people by attacking what I saw as the prime agents of change in that direction, which is to say, predominantly, Marxists of various spot and stripe, the world-wide advance of the Modernist heresy, and the belligerent advance of the most intolerant and bigoted forms of extreme Secularism.

But, there is another source of anti-American Ideal, pro-Utopian Global-Village-ism, or, non-people-ism if you will, that is more hidden and therefore perhaps more insidious and dangerous than the more open threats enumerated above. It involves how we think, in our majority. If you have been following the NuVo Initiative discussion at Nuvo Initiative Problems Discourse page then you know what I'm talking about. If not, you should go to that link and follow the dialogue all the way to the end, and then return here and continue. It's worth the effort. It was an eye opener for me, and an alarm bell, because the threat not even seen, or not recognized as a threat is the one most likely to bite you.

All treatments of the errors of Modernism, including mine, describe a gross over-emphasis of material science over the search for causes, or, put another way, the study of things over the study of the causes of things. That Modernism has won this argument in the collective minds of men is quite obvious. SANE has pointed out that people have moved into a phase of taking science for granted to the point that material science dominates virtually all human discourse; it is now seen to be the required component of good human reason. This has happened for the simple reason that science - at least at it's most scientific level - works, and can be demonstrated to work. (The most scientific level involves mathematics, physics and chemistry.)

And, on the other side of the intellectual street, where we consider causes, things are more indefinite. Religion, or, religions, cannot be shown to work, in the same way that science can. And so there is this set of reciprocal equations put forth by SANE that theoretically dominate reasoned thought among free men today, and they are:

1. Material Science = Certainty
2. Non-Science = Uncertainty

It doesn't take much thought to see that this foretells the eventual, perhaps even inevitable, death of any guiding ethos and of any sense of the existence of external objective Truths that might be independent of the mind of man, and independent of worldly science.

The other-worldly obviously cannot be "proved" by use of worldly science. Since I cannot scientifically prove my religion, and you cannot scientifically prove yours, they should be given equal value in the collective consciousness. This is the almost automatic and unthinking response once science begins to dominate thought. Only science can quantify things and assign value to them with any certainty; religion is non-scientific, therefore, no religion and no collection of religions can make valid input regarding the value of things. Further, when religion is ignored or removed or censored from the public dialogue, people are reduced to things, to be numbered among other things, and assigned value only as science knows how to assign value. Science has no sense of sacredness; sacredness cannot be scientifically proved.

The position of SANE is that this thread of human thought that is now directing most public and political discourse out in the American public square is what is driving the trend we and others have railed against, which is a movement away from the Constitutional American Republic, and being a nation of laws and not merely of men, and toward becoming a pure Democracy - a nation of men and not of laws - which is to say, mob rule.

Which begins to explain how a man who calls himself a Christian will vote to support abortion, and a man who calls himself a devout Jew will vote to support homosexual marriage. We overwhelmingly call ourselves believers. Are we still Christians and Jews when we no longer act like it? By what authority do so many of us openly disobey the clear teaching of our religion? By the authority of The world?

By the authority of material science, which is overwhelmingly seen as certain. A notion that over-rides non-material objective Truth held by men of faith, because non-material objective Truth cannot be quantified and assigned a value by material science. Therefore, we have the tendency, which has become natural, to compromise with and to tolerate and even encourage other, alien, and even opposing, moral codes and systems. We, in our majority, give them all equal value. This is a movement toward pure majority rule.

Which, applied in any Democratic system of government, will tend to move toward pure Democracy without any hindrance to majority opinion, fad, fashion or even spontaneous impulse. Mob Rule. And if the mood of the mob at the moment causes them to cry out "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" well then, the mood of the mob will be honored.

This tendency is fed and tended by prominent men in the public eye who portray themselves as conservatives. A good example is the radio talk show host Neil Boortz. While I applaud his so called Fair Tax movement, and his attacks on bigger government and on government spending, something happens to his "conservative" credentials, in my eye, when he turns to social issues. He is clearly pro-abortion, even though he vehemently denies it, and cannot even bring himself to say it (He's not pro-abortion, he's pro-choice, he'll have you know.) He's pro-sodomy, although he will use Orwellian Newspeak and wimpy weasel-words to describe his pro-sodomy position. He is almost rabidly anti-Christian, and, again, he will deny it, while still railing against the Constitutional right to open Christian religious exercise anywhere in public or within his view. What is he leading us toward? Nothingness? Non-people-hood? Are we all to eventually become as un-directed, purposeless and pointless as him? Is all of America eventually to become a drifting, random nation with no fixed sense of goodness?

We seem to be cruising into an amorphous human mass in a manner similar to the ever growing one in the new Eurabian Union. Western Europe is already gone, and even the citizens are unwilling to or incapable of distinguishing themselves from any other peoples on Earth. The silly notion seems to be that no matter what we are - cannibals, Marxists, Hezbollah, head-hunters, Hindus, Roman Catholics, Al Queda, Ku Klux Klownsmen, or whatever - we're all really the same, under the skin. Science assigns an equal value to all of us, and to all of our languages, histories, practices, values, religions and belief systems, and so we should ignore our differences, join hands, and sing It's a small world after all, all together.

It's scientific.

While I applaud the efforts of SANE to bring this topic to the forefront, I still question the wisdom of the NuVo (Null Vote) Initiative, because if the best of us are the only ones who withhold their vote, it would seem likely to speed the process along rather than adversely affect it. While it is admirable to take the position of not cooperating with the movement to mob rule, that tactic is still quite impossible for many of us. From Valley Forge to Iraq, good men have put their lives on the line to defend our rights, the right to vote among them. I await with apprehension and hopefulness whatever is coming next from SANE. I feel as though one waiting to hear the other shoe to fall. Indications have been that this is an on-going work and other essays are to come; I pray that there may be some direction toward opposing the non-people-hood trend with something other than withholding our votes.

And I pray that higher government authorities might take note of the fact pointed out by SANE that ISLAM is the enemy, and not just some subset of it, or some Islamic organization by whatever name that may come into being. It seems good to me to pursue the recommendation of declaring Sharia outlawed anywhere within the USA, and declaring ourselves hostile to lands ruled by Sharia, as a good beginning point. We should not support any movements or any nations dedicated to our own destruction.

The term American Redirection implies a change of America's direction, and thus demands a close look at our original national direction. Is the new American redirection directing us to a better place, or to a worse place?

Tocqueville was right. America was a great nation because her people were a good people. Look at the referendums around the country and how we voted on them. Look at who won various races. Look at the trend to get more and more openness in society and in elections and in issues. Are we still a Godly people?

What are we? Do we have a direction and a purpose?

Begin with this: what are you?

As I said in an earlier post, I am very busy right now, but this was on my mind and I had to speak of it. Pray for America, and for President Bush, and for Israel.

May God help us all to return to Him and to His Way.

Reference Material

Return to Web Site Log (Blog) page

Return to HOME PAGE

Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement)

Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.