Holi Saturday? CUW Employee Doubles Down

At Prabupadha's Palace of Gold, Moundsville, WV, 1991

Concordia University Wisconsin’s Facebook Page continues to honor the Hindu festival Holi - which fell in Christian Holy Week this year. One of their employees (at Ann Arbor), an Academic Support Specialist, has lashed back against criticism of CUW by scolding those of us who don’t approve. Her Facebook profile makes no mention of her religious beliefs, nor do I have any mutual online friends with her - which suggests that she probably isn’t a Lutheran. But she is belittling Lutheran laity and clergy who have expressed a theological objection to something that our university is doing. And during Holy Week.

I guess she knows better how Lutheran Christians should treat this matter than we do. This is one of those times when the name of our university system is ironic. Indeed, in terms of the vaunted goal of fostering “Lutheran Identity,” Discordia Wisconsin has a lot of "Lutheran Indentitying" to do.

In response to my pointing out that Hinduism is not a culture but a religion, and that there are indeed Indian Christians - including Lutherans - and that “there are a lot of ways to celebrate Indian culture without endorsing rituals to Hindu gods,” her reply was to educate me as follows:

Hinduism is a big part of the culture in India!  There's nothing wrong with learning other religion [sic] and cultures [sic] holidays and traditions!  It's surprising to me that others spend this much time being angry.  Bring love into the world not anger.  I'm not directing this at just you but everyone who is ridiculously upset in these comments.

Understanding, respecting, and observing with the people who celebrate different religious holidays than us [sic] is not the same as idol worship.

It is a good thing to be knowledgeable and accepting of different cultures (and yes religion is apart [sic] of culture.  I will not be commenting further but again would suggest looking at the love and acceptance you can bring into the world through God instead of the hatred and anger.

She concluded her correction of me and all the other "hateful" Lutherans with a heart emoji.

I'm not suggesting that every employee must be a Lutheran.  But to show such callous insensitivity to her Christian employers and supporters of the university suggests that there is either no training for non-Lutheran and non-Christian employees so that they know what we believe, teach, and confess, or HR is prioritizing woke idealism over a commitment to our Lord Jesus Christ and our confession of the faith.  Or maybe, and perhaps more likely, it's just not a priority.

This is classic wokeism: to scold us for expressing our opinions based on our faith - and then couch it in syrupy love-talk.  But we know what it is, and we know where it comes from.  

Instead of engaging further after accusing all of us of hatred and not properly confessing God, her response was to block me and remove "Academic Support Specialist at Concordia University Ann Arbor" from her bio.  I double-checked the screenshot to make sure that I'm not misstating things.

Again, I'm not suggesting that Concordia employees all be Lutherans, but it would be helpful if they respected our faith and did not attack us during Holy Week.  

On a personal level, and as a postscript, I would encourage everyone to find an authentic Indian restaurant, preferably with a buffet, and try everything.  Indian food is wonderful (and, of course, varies considerably depending on region).  And I personally find Indians to be delightful and fun to hang around with.  My best friend when I lived in New York (a Hindu) and his roommate (a Muslim)  - took me to a countless number of Indian restaurants in Manhattan.  I once had an Indian cab driver try to refuse to take my money because I spoke with him in a few words in Hindi (I said some things that made him laugh).  I was making authentic chai at home long before it became popular in America, and probably before my critic was born (the secret is that you have to start with the dark, black, tannin-rich Assamese tea that makes your tongue stick to the roof of your mouth, none of that American sockwater).

One of my fondest memories (from thirty-three years ago) was driving in my tiny little ford Escort, crammed together with four of my Indian friends, leaving the Upper East Side of Manhattan at 4:00 am to drive to Moundsville, West Virginia, to visit a strange curiosity: an exotic gilded building - which was a Hare Krishna shrine.  One of my Hindu friends was not impressed with the Hare Krishna sect, as she believed that they were, what we would call today, LARPers - not real Hindus.  But we all had a great time on our roadtrip (see picture above, taken long before smartphones and selfies.  I'm easy to pick out.).

So, far from being ignorant of Indian culture and hateful toward Indian people, and in need to being scolded and educated - as my critic seems to surmise - I have great affection and respect for Indian culture.  It is a false accusation to accuse us of hatred, though that is currency among young people who want to discredit instead of constructively engage those who hold different beliefs than they.  They should apply their criticism and their woke bromides to themselves.

All of that said, and as St. Polycarp declared before his execution: "I am a Christian."  And the Lutheran confession within Christianity is what Concordia University Wisconsin is committed to.

CUW and its employees ought to respect Christians and the Christian faith.  It seems like so little to ask.  And though it is a bit early liturgically, I'm going to say it anyway: "Christ is risen!"

At the Assam Center, Edison, NJ, 1991, I'm on the left, and Prayag is on the right.  Good times!

Holi Week?

On Holy Tuesday, one of our Concordia Universities celebrated the Hindu festival Holi.  [The post has been removed without comment.]

It seems that “the origin of the festival is traced in Hindu mythology legends, one of which tells the story of a female demon, Holika, and her brother, King Hiranyakashipu.”

Holi has an entry at Wikipedia. It "celebrates the eternal and divine love of the deities Radha and Krishna. Additionally, the day signifies the triumph of good over evil, as it commemorates the victory of Vishnu as Narasimha over Hiranyakashipu.

Here are the Wikipedia links to those commemorated by this festival:

Krishna (/ˈkrɪʃnə/; Sanskrit: कृष्ण, IAST: Kṛṣṇa [ˈkr̩ʂɳɐ]) is a major deity in Hinduism. He is worshipped as the eighth avatar of Vishnu and also as the Supreme God in his own right. He is the god of protection, compassion, tenderness, and love; and is widely revered among Hindu divinities. Krishna's birthday is celebrated every year by Hindus on Krishna Janmashtami according to the lunisolar Hindu calendar, which falls in late August or early September of the Gregorian calendar.

Radha (Sanskrit: राधा, IAST: Rādhā), also called Radhika, is a Hindu goddess and the chief consort of the god Krishna. She is the goddess of love, tenderness, compassion, and devotion. In scriptures, Radha is mentioned as the avatar of Lakshmi and also as the Mūlaprakriti, the Supreme goddess, who is the feminine counterpart and internal potency (hladini shakti) of Krishna. Radha accompanies Krishna in all his incarnations. Radha's birthday is celebrated every year on the occasion of Radhashtami.

Vishnu (/ˈvɪʃnuː/ VISH-noo; Sanskrit: विष्णु, lit. 'The Pervader', IAST: Viṣṇu, pronounced [ʋɪʂɳʊ]), also known as Narayana and Hari, is one of the principal deities of Hinduism. He is the supreme being within Vaishnavism, one of the major traditions within contemporary Hinduism.

Narasimha (Sanskrit: नरसिंह, lit. 'man-lion', IAST: Narasiṃha), sometimes rendered Narasingha, is the fourth avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu. He is believed to have incarnated in the form of a part-lion, part-man being to kill Hiranyakashipu, to end religious persecution and calamity on earth, thereby restoring dharma. Narasimha is often depicted with three eyes, and is described in Vaishnavism to be the God of Destruction; he who destroys the entire universe at the time of the great dissolution (Mahapralaya). Hence, he is known as Kala (time) or Mahakala (great-time), or Parakala (beyond time) in his epithets. There exists a matha (monastery) dedicated to him by the name of Parakala Matha at Mysuru in the Sri Vaishnava tradition. Narasimha is also described as the God of Yoga, in the form of Yoga-Narasimha.

Hiranyakashipu (Sanskrit: हिरण्यकशिपु, IAST: Hiraṇyakaśipu), also known as Hiranyakashyap, was a daitya king of the asuras in the Puranas.

In Hindu mythology, Hiranyakashipu's younger brother, Hiranyaksha, was slain by the Varaha (wild boar) avatar of Vishnu. Angered by this, Hiranyakashipu decided to gain a boon of invulnerability by performing tapas to propitiate Brahma. After his subjugation of the three worlds, he was slain by the Narasimha (man-lion) avatar of Vishnu.

Holika (Sanskrit: होलिका, romanized: Hōlikā), also known as Simhika, is an asuri in Hinduism. She is the sister of the asura-kings Hiranyakashipu and Hiranyaksha, and the paternal aunt of Prahlada.

The legend of Holika Dahan (Holika's burning) signifies the triumph of righteousness over sin. Holika is associated with the annual bonfire on the night before Holi, the festival of colours.

Concordia University Wisconsin is the university that suspended and banned CUW professor the Rev. Dr. Gregory Schulz for calling out the university's problem with wokeness.  As of today, Dr. Schulz has been suspended and prohibited from teaching any of his classes - though with full salary - for more than two years.

The best construction is that the university's International Center is ignorant of what Holi is all about.  And that is a terrible thing.  It shows that in spite of all the talk of "Lutheran Identity," we can see how important it really is in practice.  Sadly, this confusing celebration during Christian Holy Week vindicates Dr. Schulz.  And as we have seen some five Concordia universities fall in recent years - beginning with the most "woke" first, one can only pray that God will be merciful and spare this university (and our synod), and that those in charge of CUW will lead the university away from wokeness and cultural syncretism back to a clear Christian confession within our Lutheran tradition.

Sybil for the 21st Century?

Nearly fifty years ago, the popular culture was introduced to a rare and horrific mental illness that was, at the time, called Multiple Personality Disorder. The 1976 movie Sybil was apparently based on a true story of a young woman academician who suffered from this ailment, today called Disassociative Identity Disorder.  She had sixteen distinct personalities, and could not live an ordinary life until she was treated.

This award-winning made-for-TV movie (based on the book by the same name) starred Sally Fields, and made quite a splash in the culture of the time.  Debates rage over how much of the novel/movie is true, but the disorder is very real.  Since that time, we haven't heard much about this ailment. 

According to the Mayo Clinic:

Formerly known as multiple personality disorder, this disorder involves "switching" to other identities. You may feel as if you have two or more people talking or living inside your head. You may feel like you're possessed by other identities.

Each identity may have a unique name, personal history and features. These identities sometimes include differences in voice, gender, mannerisms and even such physical qualities as the need for eyeglasses. There also are differences in how familiar each identity is with the others. Dissociative identity disorder usually also includes bouts of amnesia and often includes times of confused wandering.

And this is a mental illness brought on by trauma:

Sometimes dissociative disorder symptoms occur in a crisis with severe or impulsive behavior. People with these symptoms need care more urgently and in an emergency department at a hospital when safety becomes a concern.

If you or a loved one has less urgent symptoms that may be a dissociative disorder, contact your doctor or other health care professional for help. 

Moreover, 

Dissociative disorders usually arise as a reaction to shocking, distressing or painful events and help push away difficult memories. Symptoms depend in part on the type of dissociative disorder and can range from memory loss to disconnected identities. 

Symptoms include "a blurred sense of your own identity" and "mental health problems, such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors," again, according to the Mayo Clinic.  Causes, again according to the Mayo clinic, include traumatic events in childhood, such as sexual abuse:

Dissociative disorders usually start as a way to cope with shocking, distressing or painful events. The disorders most often form in children who go through long-term physical, sexual or emotional abuse. Less often, the disorders form in children who've lived in a home where they went through frightening times or they never knew what to expect. The stress of war or natural disasters also can bring on dissociative disorders.  You're at greatest risk of having a dissociative disorder if you've had long-term physical, sexual or emotional abuse during childhood.

Other shocking, distressing or painful events also may cause dissociative disorders to arise. These may include war, natural disasters, kidnapping, torture, extensive early-life medical procedures or other events.

Per the Mayo Clinic, this disorder spawns other symptoms, including: "depression and anxiety," "problems with sexual function," "personality disorders," self-injury or high-risk behavior," and "suicidal thoughts and behavior."

Obviously, this is purely a clinical, psychological explanation for this disorder.  Christians who believe in the supernatural certainly see the possibility of an underlying spiritual cause in such cases.  Whether any individual is being tormented and victimized by demons is not something that secular mental health professionals are qualified to address.  For this article, my goal is to show how mainstream mental health professionals describe such things, and how mainstream journalists typically accommodate one person with multiple personae.

Moreover, the existence of this disorder highlights the importance of protecting children from predators, from being sexualized, and from exposure to people with sexual abnormalities and disorders.  Again, per the Mayo Clinic: 

Children who are physically, emotionally or sexually abused are at increased risk of developing mental health conditions, such as dissociative disorders. If stress or other personal issues are affecting the way you treat your child, seek help.

While we don't hear much about this rare disorder, we are seeing a surge in people presenting themselves in different personae, people who seem to have been traumatized and suffer sexual confusion, who are also plagued by suicidal ideation.  There is an increasing social reluctance to see this kind of sexual identity and personality confusion (and even multiplicity) as a malady to be treated, as it is, instead being normalized.  There is increasing mainstream pressure to give actual recognition to multiple personalities, even using multiple names and pronouns for the same person.

By way of example, a recent article in the free New Orleans newspaper The Gambit casually refers to a man by different personalities and genders.  In the February 12, 2024 piece called "A Moment Like This: The Big Gay Baby variety shows are a space to heal your inner child," author Kaylee Poche refers to the same man as both "Maxwell, who is trans" by the plural neuter pronoun "they," as well as "April May" by the singular feminine pronoun "she."

For example: 

• "Maxwell took to the stage as their drag persona April May at the next Big Gay Baby show to perform a mashup of emotional, nostalgic songs."  
• "Maxwell had long dreamed of performing in drag.  They loved singing in their bedroom as a child... and did musical theater in their youth, but they hadn't found the right outlet to get back on stage as an adult." Emphasis added.

The article is peppered with "they say," when quoting Maxwell.  It creates a sense of plurality.  One has to depend on context to determine whether the "they" is singular or plural.  And in fact, there is a plurality to Maxwell's personalities.

On stage, he is "April May."  And the author of this article, when speaking of Maxwell in that context, switches pronouns to "she" - as if Maxwell has multiple personalities instead of his simply acting on stage and playing a role.  The author describes the role as an actual personality.

For example: 

• "The crescendo synched with an epic costume change as she ripped off her black gown to reveal a pink tulle dress underneath."
• "As April May ended her performance, a trans flag with the words 'PROTECT TRANS KIDS' projected onto the screen behind her, and she put her fist into the air."  Emphasis added.

There is video footage of Maxwell speaking - in drag - before the Louisiana Legislature - along with some other activists opposing a bill to prevent certain sexual procedures being implemented on minor children.  One of these activists describes parents who refuse such procedures to their own children as "bigots" who should have no say in their children's mental and physical health, not to mention their education.  It is apparent that these activists do not have children of their own, and they feel entitled to have access to children who are not their own.  We would do well to vet teachers to make sure that they are mentally and sexually healthy, that they respect parental rights and the law, they keep proper boundaries with children, and are not simply acting out something on children that was acted out on them in their own youthful mental and sexual development.

The bill was vetoed by the (former) governor of Louisiana, a Democrat, and the veto was overridden.  

The current penchant for legitimizing - and even compelling - the use of pronouns (some made up, some of mixed gender and number) to accommodate personalities, even using plural pronouns and multiple names/identities, may be covering up genuine cases of Disassociative Personality Disorder.  And not only that, giving such traumatized people (perhaps even sexually traumatized people) access to children - even in their desire to have private access without parental oversight or even consent - should raise red flags.

Often those who are pushing for teachers talking about sexuality with even very young children in public schools - even against the wishes of the parents - try to diffuse the matter by pointing out that "drag" is a benign comedic entertainment genre of the type one sees in light Hollywood comedies and British humor.  But this is different.  This is not comedy.  This is not an actor performing on stage.  What we see with Maxwell is two distinct personalities with two distinct names and pronouns.  He doesn't dress up as a woman on stage for laughs.  He is serious, even to the point of appearing as he does, in a blonde wig and blue face paint - to testify before the Legislature.  We see a reporter writing about him using a bifurcated pronoun scheme based on which personality he is presenting at a given time.  We see a man doing all of these things testifying in favor of allowing professionals to permanently change the physical bodies of children's sexuality by means of surgery and hormones, and for teachers to speak to children about sexual matters - and to do so over the objections of the parents.  

Of course, I have no idea whether Maxwell and the other specific people testifying against this bill were sexually abused as children, or if they suffer with disassociative disorders, but it would certainly be consistent with what we read in the Mayo Clinic article.  It is not uncommon to hear people who identify as non-heterosexual to describe being sexually abused as children.

It is up to those who are healthy - mentally and sexually - to protect children from physical, psychological, and sexual abuse and trauma, and to find a way to generationally reduce the number of people impacted by childhood abuse.  All people within the healthy bell curve have the duty to protect the most vulnerable in our society.  And if people like Maxwell truly want to lead a life unencumbered by the desire to live with multiple personae, to be able to raise healthy and well-adjusted children of his own, there may be a path forward.  That is up to him.  

But neither he, nor any other activist who insists on being addressed in alternate personae, has the right to have access to children against the wishes of their parents.  And mental health professionals, doctors, counselors, and others should give serious consideration to the possibility that we are seeing pathological multiple personalities - and speaking to it - instead of just taking the politically-correct path that helps no-one.

That's a Lot of Athletes...

Gotta get those population numbers down for Mother Earth and our Insect Overlords!

https://goodsciencing.com/covid/athletes-suffer-cardiac-arrest-die-after-covid-shot/

Raving Madman With Too Much Time On His Hands

 

Yep, that's me!  😂

Click here.

A Tale of Two Statues

When Robert E. Lee died in 1870, a memorial association was formed in the City of New Orleans.  After six years had passed, the association raised an amazing $36,400 - during the throes of Reconstruction - to construct a monument.  The world-famous New York-based sculptor Alexander Doyle (who studied in Bergamo, Rome, and Florence) was commissioned, and it was installed at Tivoli Circle - renamed Lee Circle - in 1884.  The statue was placed atop a granite pedestal consisting of a 60 foot column.  The statue itself is 16.5 feet high and made of bronze.  Attendees at the dedication included Jefferson Davis, two daughters of General Lee, and former Confederate general P.G.T. Beauregard.

Monuments such as these also memorialized the many common soldiers whose bodies were never recovered for burial, or who lie strewn across battlefields in unknown, unmarked, or even mass graves.  The postwar monuments provided solace for survivors and healing between the regions as monuments to the dead of both sides in the war were erected as the veterans were dying off.  The Lee statue was a rare early monument erected during the post-war federal occupation of Louisiana.

In time, Lee Circle and the monument became an important landmark and meeting point for locals, especially for Mardi Gras parades.  The Circle stands at basically the intersection of the Garden District, the French Quarter, and the Central Business District.  The statue became iconic to the landscape of the city.  The monument made the National Register in 1991, and in 2011, New Orleans Magazine declared it one of the most important statues in the city (along with another striking Doyle piece, the equestrian statue of P.G.T. Beauregard).

Six years later, after 133 years, the monument was declared "racist" and removed, being placed in a shed in a city junkyard where it remains - along with three other historical monuments (including Doyle's Beauregard) hidden to this day.

The column remains in place with nothing on it.

On January 22, 2022, a new statue was erected at the ground level of the pedestal where it will remain for several months.  It was executed by another New York sculptor named Simone Leigh.  The statue is entitled "Sentinel (Mami Wata)" and it "takes the diversity of African cultures in New Orleans as a starting point, evoking African folklore and spiritualities."  The statue is supposedly an African idol, described as a "water spirit or deity."  The deity is sometimes associated with lust and prostitution.  This representation is a nude female form wrapped by a snake with the unique and unusual element of having a head shaped like a spoon.  

Yes, a spoon: 

"The ceremonial spoon form of the sculpture references a symbol of status in Zulu culture, so honored in New Orleans," according to the exhibition. "Leigh’s sculpture holds forms of knowledge that have been passed down through spiritual and masking traditions of the city and beyond, wherein masking signifies transformation, not simply concealment."

Rather than locate it on the top of the sixty foot pedestal, it sits on the ground.  It is claimed that this was intentional:

"Not looming over people but rather emerging from among us," the exhibition statement said. "This constellation de-centers whiteness and the legacies of colonialism, renewing access to knowledge and culture that has been suppressed by the falsehoods of white supremacy."  

Of course, that may just be a flowery way of saying that they lacked the know-how and the money to hoist it to the top of the six-story column.

At any rate, this is a fitting symbol of New New Orleans: a crime-ridden, violent, impoverished, drug-invested, culturally-debased, infrastructure-ruined, politically-destroyed and corrupted city, a shell of its former historical greatness.  The naked woman with the head of a spoon is wrapped by a serpent, calling to mind Eve and the original sin of mankind, a primitive hot-mess of a superstitious idol, representing the decay of civilization, culture, art, history, and craftsmanship.

This is a fitting display of public art that fits in with the city's other offerings, such as electrical boxes painted in what appears to be finger paint, often with depictions that look like stick figures, or a large scrap-heap of junk bicycles painted white and piled on one another, and murals that are indistinguishable from the seedy graffiti and rat-infested blight that dot the landscape where majestic statues once stood in manicured public spaces.

And like most displays of inferior-quality "modern art," people will stare at it, rub their chins, and applaud, like the townspeople in The Emperor's New Clothes, wanting not only to appear sophisticated, but in today's reality, to prove their politically-correct bona fides by pretending that this somehow represents an improvement instead of decay.

Facebook and "Spam"

 

Zuckerberg and his neo-Nazi minions think we're stupid.  While running interference for his insect overlords, censors any posts at political odds with his masters.

But what's more, they come up with cockamamie cover stories. 

Take this link that I posted from a writer commenting on the well-known and documented change in policy in Norway regarding Covid.

It was removed by Facebook ostensibly - not because it was false information, dangerous, threatening, or even contrary to Facebook's political and social conventions - but because it was "spam."

How can a FB post on my own FB timeline be "spam."  "Spam" is when you send unwanted emails or posts to someone else's account.

There is no other conclusion to draw than the fact that Facebook is manned by political hacks and censors, but also blatant liars. seeking to suppress any truths that are inconvenient to their lords' and masters' agenda.

DEI and Sports

A Girls' College Basketball Team

One of the interesting things about hitting the treadmill in the gym is the bank of televisions with closed captioning.  Since I don't watch the boob tube, I'm not only exercising the body, but getting a glimpse into the alien world of the popular culture.  Sometimes the juxtapositions are telling.

On one channel was an international soccer game between Belgium and Finland.  Another channel had a talk show that was addressing the controversy about biological men competing in women's sports - in this case, a male powerlifter who is being permitted into competition in the women's division in the Olympic games.

The token black lady on the panel was yammering on and on about the buzzwords "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion."  For the reader of the future - perhaps landing here by means of a Google search - this is a fad of our present day based on the concept known as Critical Theory - which is basically the denigration of one intersection of demographic traits for the supposed benefit of others.  The au courant acceptable hatred in this, the Year of our Lord 2021, pertains to racially being white, sexually being heterosexual and not inventing a pretend sexual identity for oneself (in other words, just being a normal man, woman, boy, or girl), politically conservative, and religiously Christian.  One is also considered to be akin to the lepers in biblical times if one is not handicapped physically or mentally.  

If one has all of these markers, it is socially and legally acceptable to treat such persons as the Untouchables in the caste system in India.  And the fewer of these characteristics one has, the greater the worth of that individual.  If you read about "apartheid" in 20th century South Africa, it's a similar concept, only with the "bottom rail on top" as the old saying goes.

DEI is a godsend for people who cannot compete in a meritocracy, and who have bleak job prospects.  For getting a cushy job in a big corporation is a piece of cake if one were to be, say, a lesbian black woman in a wheelchair who identifies as two-spirit non-binary Islamo-Buddhist, whose coffee is soy latte, skim milk, light foam, extra shot, and a dusting of cinnamon, and whose pronouns are zig and zag.  It doesn't matter is zig never showed up for class or passed a test, whether zig can read or add two plus two, or has a work ethic.  In fact, it's to one's advantage in many cases not to.

Yes, this insanity was a part of our times, and it may well explain the collapse of our great civilization and why you are today speaking Mandarin and translating this from ancient English.

The juxtaposition with this DEI to sports was interesting.  

Let's take them in order.

Diversity

Celebrating diversity: the first all-black NBA team in 1979

"Diversity" refers to the distribution of racial/ethnic/sexual characteristics.  It does not refer to what you might think the word means, such as having a diverse range of opinions or thoughts.  In fact, it's really the opposite.  The most "diverse" group of people according to DEI orthodoxy will be 100% Leftist in their politics, and will think in lockstep about such things as DEI itself.  The normal sense of the word is also distorted.  For in a population sample where 13% of the people are, say, black - only 13% representation in a smaller sample is not considered diversity.  In other words, if 80% of a sports team were to be black, this would not be considered a distortion, nor would the lack of, say, white players be considered a lack of diversity.  To the contrary, this is actual "diversity" according to the new definition of the word.

The Finnish football team on the tellie had very few - if any - "diversities" playing in this game.  And that is understandable.  Finland is a Nordic country that is overwhelmingly white.  Finland (unlike their opponents: Belgium) had no colonies, no presence in Africa, and not a great deal of immigration until recently.  One could imagine the diversity on the field had the Finns been playing, say, Ethiopia.  

Here is a picture of the current Ethiopian national football team:

Diversity rating: A+

It's not much of a surprise.  According to the classical understanding of diversity, this is not a very diverse team.  And for all of the repetitions of the mantra "diversity is our strength," the lack of whites, Asians, Latinos, American Indians, Aleutian Islanders, or Esperanto speakers from Nepal seems not to impede their ability to be successful on the soccer field.

And of course, this is why Ethiopia must be praised for its "diversity" in the Newspeak sense of the word, while Finland must assuredly be "problematic."

And here is a picture of the Finnish team:

Diversity rating: D- (passing grade thanks to virtue-signaling)

So when it comes to sports, Olympics, international, or even in the NFL and NBA, the idea of diversity is a joke - as it should be.  I live in New Orleans, and plenty of black guys wear Drew Brees jerseys.  Maybe some radicals would call them Avuncular Thomases for doing so, but the average sports fan isn't interested in quotas and affirmative action on the field.  Rather, they want to win games and championships.  In other words, sports fans of all ethnic and sexual configurations really overwhelmingly desire meritocracy over and against racial, ethnic, or sexual considerations.

On a side note, international football is perhaps the last bastion of nationalism.  One can only surmise that there are plans afoot to rearrange the teams into non-national teams to get rid of the flag-waving and patriotism - one of the last impediments to our lords' and masters' dream of a Great Reset.  The future reader will know whether this happened or not.  I don't see how it can be avoided.  But then again, perhaps by that time, the evil and disturbing Klaus Schwab's brain in a vat will be the human owner of a professional team of robots - and maybe that will be the sports of the future.

Equity

The concept of equity sounds nice.  It sounds like "equality."  But it means something different.  Equality means everyone has the same opportunity.  No-one is penalized for his race, station in life, or any other immutable characteristic.  Equality is a meritocracy.  There are no second-class citizens, and no caste system.

Equity is the opposite.

Equity penalizes some people and redistributes advantages, real or perceived, (and perhaps even directly as money) to others based on the above-mentioned hierarchy of values. 

This redistribution can be based on historical reality.  For example, a person from Tunisia may well point to his ancestors in Carthage who were defeated by Roman imperial legions in the Punic Wars in 146 BC, and so the descendants of the conquering Romans are on the hook.  Thus the 21st century Italian government should indeed tax its citizens and wire the proceeds to Tunisia, where hopefully one will see modern-day Carthaginians driving Lexuses, and modern-day Italians posing for pictures with signs of apology and saying "no" to racism.  

Or it may be based on fads.  In other words, if a famous Hollywood actor reveals that he identifies as a hen and has a sexual fetish regarding eating corn kernels off the floor, this new lifestyle may be named (Poultryamory?) and picked up by young people, incorporating a new color on the LGBT flag, securing a place in the Pride parade, and receiving a new sense of entitlement.  Perhaps the national soccer team should have a minimum of two players who pretend to lay eggs whenever their team scores a goal.  Universities should provide special "coops" for such people.  This would be an example of equity.

It may also be based on fantasy.  Perhaps a young woman became enamored with a comic book about a race of aliens on another planet.  These creatures have three heads and are asexual.  And so this is how our sci-fi fan identifies.  And in the story, earthlings came to her planet and wiped it out.  Therefore, equity demands redistributive justice for our asexual three-headed identifyee.  Maybe she should get a check every week for life to help overcome her oppression.  This would be an example of equity.

As far as sports goes, as it stands now, there is no equity.  What we see instead is meritocracy.  Usain Bolt is not required to start the race a half-mile behind everyone else.  LeBron James doesn't have to wear a ball-and-chain on the basketball field.  The NFL Super Bowl Champions are not required to spot opposing teams a touchdown or play with two less players during the next season.  World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen isn't required to give up a pawn to his opponents in competitions.  Things don't currently work like that, though perhaps they will by 2081. In fact, nobody would want to see it.  Sports fans love that Usain Bolt and LeBron James and Magnus Carlsen can do things that nobody else can.

There is a meritocracy and a hierarchy in sports - both of which are anathema to the idea of equity (which seeks not equality at the starting line, but rather at the finish line).  Fans want to see their hero on the highest platform brandishing a gold medal.  Equity would rather that all players receive a participation trophy and there should be no champions.  Or at very least, if there are champions, they should get there by means of various handicaps and imposed advantages, changes to the rules, and other manipulations.  But again, fans would probably not want to watch such a thing.

Inclusion

Inclusion is the opposite of exclusion.  And this is clearly at odds with sports.  The motto of the Olympics is Citius, Altius, Fortius (Faster, Higher, Stronger).  This is by definition exclusive, not inclusive.  It is elitist.  The whole world will not watch breathlessly as a bunch of guys my age chuck javelins.  They want to see competitors in the prime of life, the elite of the elite, strive to set a new world record.  And yes, there are the Senior Olympics, Special Olympics, and the Paralympics as specialty niches for fans who enjoy such competition.  And yet, even there, participants strive to win medals and to perform to the best of their abilities.  There is still competition - even if the competition is against oneself.  

Different divisions for weight and sex and level of competition in sports are by definition exclusive.  A heavyweight may not compete in the lightweight division.  He is excluded for the sake of fair competition - regardless of how he "identifies."  Because a freshman football team lacks the physical size and experience of the varsity team, unless a freshman player is able to compete at the higher level, he will hone his skills with other freshman - excluding upperclassmen from the team.  And until recently, women have enjoyed competition against other women, as their lack of testosterone, their disadvantage in upper body strength vs. men, and even their skeletal structure puts them at a dramatic disadvantage were they forced to compete with biological males.  Real life isn't like comic books or Marvel movies.  No amount of Girl Power posters in grade school can prevent the vaunted American women's national soccer team from being soundly defeated by a team comprised of fourteen-year old boys who towered over them, or the Australian women's team being shut-out 7-0 by a team of fifteen-year old boys who weren't even of championship caliber, or a world class champion female fighter having her skull broken by a crushing blow from a man in the ring in a "fight" lasting two minutes.

And this last plank of DEI is the camel's nose in the tent of the sports meritocracy.  It is at the present time a raging controversy, as high school girls are presently being denied scholarships and opportunity in the name of "inclusion" as boys are being permitted to compete against them in high school sports events.  In professional and Olympic competition, there is the potential of seeing women virtually eliminated from competition - and to many advocates of DEI, this is an acceptable price to pay for their vision of a more "just and sustainable world."

A Brave New World

So female competitors will just have to sacrifice their own opportunities and abilities to compete, and fans of women's sports are just going to have to get used to seeing muscular men dominate these events in the name of inclusion.  In time, we can expect champions to be handicapped and the lower-performing to receive affirmative action to boost their representation in the world of sports in the name of equity.  We will also see new variations on the "paper-bag test" to assure even fewer white athletes than there are already in high level sports - and probably a busting up of international leagues to prevent even a small minority of nations being represented that are insufficiently melanized (not to mention to get rid of that nasty "nationalism') - all in the name of diversity.

Sports fans are just going to have to accept the changes, give up on their meritocracy, and perhaps even some day be content to watch professionals and Olympians play "just for fun" without keeping score, as fans all wave the same flag in inclusivity and social justice instead of the diversity of banners of their own nations in pursuit of being the best.

Again, time will tell how far the insanity will go, and when - if ever - the pendulum works its way back to normalcy and the true meaning of sports, without regard to racial quotas, unconcerned with the guaranteed equality of results, and once more admiring the best of the best in fair and free meritocracy of competition.

On Universal Conscription

 

 "I honestly think that every US citizen should serve in the military for at least two years."
~ Comment on Facebook

As we look at the degeneration of our culture, it becomes apparent that younger generations are lacking in things like discipline, self-confidence, and the idea of serving one's fellow man, but are instead increasingly dependent, self-centered, and narcissistic.  It isn't surprising that simplistic solutions are floated - like this common suggestion above, that young people be subject to universal military conscription.

The reasoning would be sound - if we were dealing with animals or machines.  If something doesn't work, you apply outside force to get a different result.  But most of us treat human beings differently than golden retrievers or Wankel rotary engines.  Especially, as members of Western civilization, as being within the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, and as Americans, a solution grounded in empowering the State to solve social problems ought to raise a red flag (perhaps even literally so).

Applying the "military for all" option for human beings rests upon the fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - that because previous generations (such as the generation that went through World War II) were better equipped for life than the current crop of young men and women, and because our grandfathers and grandmothers were shaped by the rigors of military life, both at the battlefront and on the homefront, it follows that widespread military service would inculcate values of discipline, service, thrift, and personal responsibility into the current profligate and rootless generation.  Of course, this presumes that military service and such positive traits are related by causation instead of mere correlation.  

There are indeed a lot of variables in the current cultural soup, too many to presume that adding one ingredient will assure a pleasant stew.

Another problem with the "make everybody serve two years in the military" solution is that it is merely a conservative appropriation of a progressive idea, namely that the military exists for the purpose of social engineering.  The Left believes the military is a means to promoting the agenda of ethnic diversity, pushing quotas and overt race-consciousness - if not outright racial hygiene - within the ranks to achieve its social goals.  The Left also uses the military to promote sexual diversity and the mainstreaming of identities and behaviors that are not within the normal range of the bell curve.  The Left is now also pursuing a political agenda that seeks to cull out soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines whose political ideas may be considered too "extreme" (read: "conservative").

To all of these, the Right rightly cries "foul!" - but the Right likewise sees the military as its own Petri dish to effect social ends, by means of the oft-floated idea of compulsory universal conscription.

The purpose of the military is not to make people more accepting of the woke ideology, nor is it to get your lazy twenty-somethings to learn how to wake up and go to work instead of sleeping in on mom's couch and playing video games all day.  The purpose of the military is to defend the country against invasion, and to provide a deterrent to such attacks.  This is not to say that the United States doesn't use their armed forces to twist foreign arms, to threaten invasion for its own global interests, and to essentially occupy other countries.  But in general, for a country - any country - the military's primary job is to protect the people of that country from invasion.

Turning the military into a social experiment, jobs program, path to college, or a way to instill responsibility in the minds of ne'er-do-wells does not serve the purpose of the military.  And it would likely weaken it.

The suggestion of vastly increasing the size and scope of the military by drafting every 18-year old man and woman presumes that the armed forces are understaffed.  To the contrary, the Unites States taxpayers pay more for "defense" than the next ten countries combined, including all military expenditures of China and Russia.  To add to the numbers of personnel by the millions would be to create jobs that are not needed, and to push an even larger tax burden for the military than we have now at roughly a three-quarter of a trillion dollars per annum.  This influx of recruits would need to be housed, equipped, fed, paid, and trained.  Conservatives used to understand the dictum that money does not grow on trees, though it is printed fraudulently by the Fed. 

And there is also the temptation that having a vastly larger military establishment will result in looking for ways to use it.  When one's only tool is a hammer, one tends to see nails everywhere.  Expanding the military could well result in increased bellicosity on the part of the military and civilian leadership of the country.  After all, what good is a massive standing army if you don't have someone to invade, some "monster to destroy"?

As any serious student of American history knows, the founders were greatly opposed to the idea of a standing federal army, and made no provision for it in the Constitution.  The founders considered standing armies to be a threat to liberty.  

At the time of the founding of the Republic, there was indeed a military obligation of sorts - but not to a standing army.  Able-bodied males of fighting age were considered members of the militia - citizen soldiers - who voluntarily trained with their own families and communities.  They were not taken away from home and perhaps even sent into foreign countries.  Instead, they drilled on the community green periodically with their neighbors. And this was part of genuinely defending the country - even against the federal government itself if need be - hence the Second Amendment.  The militia was not a character-building exercise or scheme to make citizens appreciate racial differences.  Its members  continued to hold their civilian jobs and lives.  

This scheme of artificially increasing the government labor supply in the now-professional standing federal armed forces is the equivalent of FDR's alphabet agencies to pay men to dig holes and fill them as a fallacious way to stimulate the economy - which resulted in prolonging the Great Depression for many years.  For conservatives to suggest such a massive Big Government "solution" demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic market economics.  Were we to suddenly give the military an influx of millions of teenagers - whose services aren't really needed - would create a vast supply with no demand - with the burden of paying for this discrepancy placed on the back of the taxpayer.  And given our progressive tax structure, this would amount to a massive Marxian redistribution of wealth.

And this is coming from the conservative side of things, not the progressive.

Moreover, today's military is not your grandfather's service.  No indeed.  Physical standards have been lowered, the sexes train and serve in close contact, the training received by soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines is today less rigorous than that of the men who prepared for combat in World War II - who would not have imagined the idea of maternity flight suits for female aviators and support crews.  In fact, in recent years, the leadership of the military has become, well, "woke."  Conservatives have been plucked out of the highest levels of leadership, and the military - like other institutions of our society - has become focused on leftist political ideology and goals.

So what conservative in his right mind would think of sending all young people to be brainwashed with the same Critical Theory and Intersectionalism that one finds in the debauched universities?

There is also a constitutional issue.  Were our judiciary honest in submitting the federal government to the strictures of the Constitution, the black-robes would have long ago forbad conscription based on the Thirteenth Amendment.  For under that provision, slavery (or "involuntary servitude") is only permitted for convicts.  In other words, we may enslave jailed criminals and force them into jobs against their will, but to do this to those who are innocent of any crime is not permitted.  That's why slavery is illegal in the United States.  Those who join the military currently do so voluntarily.  They willingly set aside some of their rights (such as criticizing the president) for the time of their enlistment, being told what do to and when to do it, being under the Uniform Code of Military Justice instead of the civil courts, and being subject to orders - even orders that may well assure their deaths.  To conscript people and put them into such situations is simply slavery by a different name.

It is common to refer to military "service," to refer to the military itself as "the service."  It is common for citizens to thank veterans for their "service."  The word "service" is based on the Latin "servus" - which means "slave."  And there are other forms of service in which one is under orders: such as the police and fire services.  But these too are voluntary vocations into which one enters by means of a voluntary contract.

It is curious that conservatives, of all people, should advocate a form of State slavery to achieve an elusive, if not Utopian, social goal.

There is also the practical consideration that armies made up of conscripts are just not as good as those comprised of volunteers.  This is not rocket science.  Whom would you rather have building an addition to your house, a professional contractor who does that kind of work voluntarily?  Or a team of 18-year -old convicts who have been ordered by the State to show up and labor under compulsion?  

Universal conscription is also a manifestation of bad economics.  

Most people are not familiar with the term "opportunity cost" or Frederic Bastiat's "broken window fallacy."  The idea is that any action taken is done at the cost of the action not taken.  If a family vacations at the beach, it does so at the expense of vacationing in the mountains - because one cannot do both.  If a young man or woman is serving in the military, he or she is doing so at the expense of some civilian calling.  This could mean that a young person who is brilliant in math or theology or medical research will instead be learning how to march, to field strip an M16, and passing time polishing boots instead of studying nuclear physics, going into labor and nursing a child, or starting one's own business.  The costs of such roads-not-taken are unseen, and thus are not typically factored into the equation.  But those costs are very real.

One might argue that one can be an engineer or chaplain or doctor, or one could be both a mom and a Green Beret, but the reality is that serving in the military, as is every other career option, is at the expense of serving elsewhere, where market forces communicate information about careers and opportunities to those entering the labor market.  The military does not operate based on the market, but rather by bureaucratic government planning.  Thus the Army will have to find something else for an aspiring poet to do, the Navy will be put into the unenviable position of employing the Latin scholar, the Air Force will have to figure out where to slot a dog trainer, and the Marines will be forced to put a nursery school teacher to work somewhere in the Corps.  

Again, the purpose of the military is narrower than the free civilian marketplace.  Conscription would result in "malinvestment" of human capital, and would socialize a good part of the job market, not to mention taking away a resource of human capital from the private sector.  And this central-planning government approach is a conservative idea?

Such a scheme also violates the Christian doctrine of vocation. 

God has created people with different gifts and talents.  Not everyone is called into service vocations, like pastors, teachers, police officers, nuns, those who work in orphanages, EMTs, and yes, soldiers.  Rightfully understood, the military is a godly calling.  We see this all throughout the Scriptures.  Joshua led a famous military campaign into Jericho and other cities in Canaan.  King David had his "mighty men."  St. Paul even famously compares the Christian life to a soldier wearing armor.  The Church on earth is often called the Church Militant.  Traditionally, military life is the place for big men who can fight hand to hand against other big men.  Technology has expanded opportunities for military service, for example, to support the big guys who are in the field with rifles and grenades and bayonets.  But the life of the warrior is just not for everyone.

Moreover, the suggestion that any and all people, even all 18-year-olds, are capable of being soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines is quite the insult to the military vocation.  It suggests that one who is obese, sociopathic, antisocial, of low IQ, a person with authority issues, the uncoordinated, the physically weak, those with demanding physical ailments, etc. can all become warriors is not only ludicrous, but takes a position that the job of soldiering is the lowest common denominator, that there is no reason to cull out anyone from military life.  

Why would a conservative strap the officers and NCOs of the military with millions of new recruits who may well be entirely unfit, and perhaps a detriment to the readiness of the country to defend against attack?  Again, this is the same as the Left insisting that sexual minorities be accommodated in the ranks at any cost - whether it strengthens or weakens the military forces.

No, the solution to our malaise does not lie in State compulsion.  That is the easy and lazy way out, and it won't work.  There are always unintended consequences.  What we need is not conscription, but parenting.  We don't need every man and women to put on fatigues and tactical boots, but rather to put on the Armor of God, procreate, and raise boys and girls of honor.  We need mentors, not drill sergeants.  We need volunteers who will lead for the sake of love, not more taxpayer supported authoritarianism with an end goal that has nothing to to with doing battle.  We need to restore our lost institutions: morality, community, a commitment to liberty, etc. and that is hard work - far harder than just having the president sign a piece of paper and ordering all teenagers to Fort Benning or Parris Island.

Both progressives and conservatives have the propensity to turn to the State to solve social problems.  This is natural to progressives, but is a contradiction to conservatives.  Those who identity with the political and social Right should abandon seeing Big Government as a Savior, and should instead roll up their own sleeves and get to work improving society by means of liberty, sweat, and the power of human cooperation by means of the market.