Two Trojan Horses

The current American political landscape is witnessing a dramatic shift as the Democratic Party introduces two ideological "Trojan horses" into the mainstream. These movements, while often presented as benign, represent radical departures from traditional American governance and values.

The first of these movements is the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which is described as a Communist movement explicit in its goal of destroying the American state. Despite the fact that Marxist thought has been intellectually debunked and completely politically bankrupted in recent decades, it continues to hold significant academic and intellectual clout.

The second Trojan horse is the Islamist movement, which seeks to introduce personalities into politics and education to apply Islamic culture and law within America. The ultimate goal of this movement is the conversion of the American "empire" into an Islamic state. Unlike more recent political trends, Islamism is supported by 1,400 years of practical conquest and a theological framework that supports jihad, or the struggle for Islamic dominance.

 

In response to these shifts, the political right has turned toward Integralism and Christian-Nationalism, movements that seeks to rebase the American constitutional system on Judeo-Christian precepts. However, they face significant hurdles that make them an unequal match for the movements on the left. They struggle to reconcile constant disagreements between various Protestant denominations and other forms of Christianity, such as Catholicism and Orthodoxy. While these ideologies aim to redefine the American identity, their theoretical support is considered weak compared to the formidable intellectual edifices of Communism and Islamism.

 

A troubling commonality between these three movements—Communism, Islamism, and Christian-Nationalism cum Integralism—is their tendency to fall back on anti-Semitism. This ideology of resentment views the "parasitic Jew" as a scapegoat who supposedly robs the host society of its rightful enjoyment. While these movements are often attacked for their anti-Semitism, such critiques may miss the underlying theoretical strengths of Communism and Islamism, ultimately proving most damaging to the already-weak right-wing Christianity-based movements. It is lamentable that the three pernicious political movements will predictably gain a lot support from this vile ideology while opposing anti-Semitism, though it must be opposed, does not address the core issue.

 

Although they are currently aligned through the far-left wing of the Democratic Party, the two Trojan horses of Communism and Islamism are fundamentally contradictory. History, specifically the 1979 Iranian Revolution, suggests that Islamism will eventually cannibalize its Marxist allies, eliminating them and their "useful idiot" supporters to establish an Islamic post-revolutionary society.

The "liberal center" has largely failed to provide a vigorous pushback to these developments. Organizations like Project Liberal, which claim to promote a combination of liberal and libertarian ideas, are acting as apologists for the Democratic Party and its radical factions. By focusing their attacks on the "far-right" and on the Trump follies, damaging to the US as they may be, while ignoring the more dangerous revolutionary ideologies on the left, these groups fail to address the primary threats to the American state.

 

The current political situation can be summarized by the observation (by Mike Pence) that while the Republicans and the right may have "lost their way" by professing stupidities, the Democrats and the left have "lost their mind" by professing total absurdities. While it may be easier to recover from stupidity than from a commitment to the absurd, the introduction of these two Trojan horses poses a profound and immediate challenge to the future of American politics.

 

[AI was utilized in creating this post] 

Ethics of abortion and in-vitro fertilization

I hold what many consider an unpopular opinion: abortion should be legal, while IVF should be banned. (IVF = In-Vitro Fertilization) The ethics of this stance is based on the assertion of sovereign authority of the parents (especially the mother) over creation of new life and informed by the view of parenthood as an eminently sexual life function.

Since a woman's body is the host of the initial development of human life, she is granted the prerogative to decide how and if she becomes a mother. In my view, her sovereignty and authority extends from the moment of conception until the point a fetus transitions from a potential human being into an actual one. The deciding agent is the mother -- not a judge or a doctor -- who declares whether new life has begun within her womb.

The woman exercises control through her choice to allow or disallow pregnancy, whether through contraception or abortion and, of course, selection of her male partner. If she chooses to reject her pregnancy, she must do so with the full gravitas of the matter and within reasonable time after conception, recognizing that she is terminating a potential human life rather than removing a "meaningless piece of flesh." Under this ethics, abortion can be justified as a subjective claim of self-defense, as protection against an invading body. We have seen such subjective claims made by police shooting threatening persons. Once a woman accepts her pregnancy, the new life becomes actual and termination of pregnancy can be permitted only under extraordinary circumstances.

Consistent with my support for woman's authority over natural pregnancy, I believe IVF methods should be banned because they insert artifice into sexual reproduction. IVF separates fertilization from the sexual encounter, allowing embryos to be formed in laboratories rather than through a human connection. Under IVF creation of new life is no longer sexual but technological. While it may appear that IVF is an advantage and even achievement of humanity, eliminating burdensome sexuality from initiation of new life, we are not fully able to grasp what is being lost. At the very least, the male partner is effectively eliminated and generation of new life is surrendered to technology. Under IVF the process of acceptance of new life, from conception to early pregnancy, eliminates parental authority and replaces it with the authority of technical experts.

In near future, technology may replace the mother's womb entirely. Scientists are already working on an artificial womb and have "greater ambitions". They see

a future in which a machine like “Mother” will be able to fully gestate a human, all the way from embryo to newborn. It could offer a new path to parenthood for people who don’t have a uterus, for example, or who are not able to get pregnant for other reasons Ref: National Review article

This raises a terrifying possibility: human life generated entirely artificially, born without a human mother in a process that may resemble production of intelligent robots. If, or rather when, this is allowed, will such individuals be seen as equals to naturally conceived people, or will they be viewed as disposable, reproducible "machines" similar to sentient AI? Or will they be superior products -- an achievement of technology and finance? Will they be able to confront their "maker" with the anxiety of their existence?

Our current reproductive ethics lost sight of the centrality of the child and its interests in favor of aspirations of adults to parenthood. In my view, life should be a gift lovingly given by parents to a child. I could even say: A child has a human right to be naturally conceived within a loving parental bond. Ethical parenthood requires dedication and sacrifice, beginning the moment a mother accepts a pregnancy into her womb following a coupling with a partner.

In the context of IVF, the crucial connection between conception and parenthood is severed. By banning these methods and supporting a woman's right to choose within the scope of natural conception, we enshrine the human factor in the creation of life. We ought to support a reproductive ethic that protects the right of every child to be conceived naturally and lovingly.