Christian Democracy is the Inoculation to the Alt-Right, Part 1

I will begin my essay refuting the impending accusations of exhibiting Godwin’s Law with a plain explanation of terms.

Herein, the term “Alt-Right,” while it means several things to many people and all are different, shall be defined by the most prominent and intellectually incoherent definitions published by the Alt-Right supporters of the National Policy Institute and Robert Spencer. Much like a debate on whether or not zombies would be a apocalyptic threat or merely shotgun fodder for CDC agents in HAZMAT suits, we cannot discuss every Tom, Dick, and Harry of the largely undefined movement. This choice of definition serves two purposes. First, it precludes any who identify as Alt-Right but do not fall into the NPI’s line of thinking. Second, it is the precise ideology I am trying to refute. And that ideology is National Socialism.

For those who don’t know, National Socialism was made infamous by being the inspiration for the mass genocide of Jews, Poles, Romani, and other undesirables in mid-20th century Germany. That’s right; the NPI are Nazis. I can already hear the groans and eye rolls, but the facts are there and I intend to point them out.

NPI publishes a journal called Radix, which is the Latin word for root or stump, depending on your dictionary. The name is important as it goes with the NPI’s motto: “For our people, our culture, our future.” The “root” that they are clearly trying to defend racial. That is not me saying it, that is Radix writer Aylmer Fisher. In her article, The Prolife Temptation, she tries to tear down one of the cornerstones of the conservative movement with one of the following arguments.

First of all, the pro-life position is clearly dysgenic. A 2011 study showed that in 2008, while 16 percent of women aged 15-44 lived below the poverty line, among women who had abortions, the number was 42 percent. Hispanic and African-American women made up a combined 31 percent of this age group, but almost 55 percent of those who chose to terminate a pregnancy. The reasons behind these patterns aren’t hard to figure out. In a world with reliable birth control, it is quite easy to avoid an unwanted pregnancy; the only ones who can’t are the least intelligent and responsible members of society: women who are disproportionately Black, Hispanic, and poor.

A natural experiment in Colorado shows what happens when a state makes contraception and abortion more freely available. Over the last decade, the state has moved to the Left, and in 2009 it began offering free or low-cost long-acting contraception to poorer women. The state provided intrauterine devices and implants that, unlike condoms or the pill, did not require that the user be responsible enough to plan ahead. Within a few years, the birth rate of low-income women plummeted. In states where Republican legislatures have enacted a pro-life agenda, the opposite has happened.

A study in Europe found that over 90 percent of mothers who were told that their babies were going to have Down’s syndrome did not continue the pregnancy. In 2011, it was estimated that there are now 30 percent fewer people with the disorder in the United States due to prenatal diagnosis. In the future, as such technologies improve, what the Left calls “reproductive freedom” will continue to be the justification for private-sector eugenics.

It does not take too much thought to connect the statements here with those of the eugenic policies of National Socialists. Here Fisher argues that abortion is necessary to keep the poor from having too many children and to weed out birth defects. This is not unlike the forced sterilizations and outright murder of the poor and disabled respectively. The NPI’s solution, therefore, to poverty and disabilities is the Final Solution. I am not saying that; they are.

Byron Roth, writing fro NPI’s “research” section, argues that genetics can and should be used to explain lower IQ levels in groups.

On a more mundane level, the reality of human differences is, as James Watson suggested, the most powerful argument against the varied wasteful and generally unpopular policies pursued in the name of “fighting inequality.” For instance, the government has continued to spend enormous sums in the attempt to eliminate racial disparities in educational attainment on the false premise that any such differences are the result of bias, rather than the result of obvious differences in ability. Fifty years of this effort have produced no reduction in racial differences in academic performance. Currently, major efforts are underway to expand the efforts of the Head Start program into universal pre-schooling, which all research has shown to be of no value in improving performance.

A recognition of natural group differences would allow for a serious challenge to programs of racial preferences in the form of Affirmative Action, minority set-asides, and disparate impact rulings, all of which are premised on the assumption that racial differences in ability and temperament do not exist….


Roth argues that genetics can determine everything from how well you will do in school, whether you will commit crimes, and that denying that differences in genetic groups cause or at least contribute greatly to racial inequality is the source of all our woes. If this is not enough to cement the ties of NPI’s Alt-Right with National Socialism, we can go back to Fisher’s article for definitive proof.

If there were to be a pro-life position that we could accept, it would be based on arguments about what is good for the community. The case would have to be made that abortion is what is decimating the White population and decreasing its quality. While it’s true that a blanket ban on abortion would probably increase the White population in there numbers, it would, no doubt, decrease the overall quality, as well and leave all races stupider, more criminally prone, and more diseased.

Here is it quite explicit that abortion for eugenic purposes and should only be banned if were prejudicing White people. But more importantly, look at the invocation of “what is good for the community.” This is not Christian self-sacrifice. For the National Socialist, all values are judged based on their utlitity to the community. The community actioin programs the NSDAP implemented in the 30’s were geared toward the value of Volksgemeinschaft, best summarized by the mantra, “collective need ahead of individual greed.” This is why NPI supports a single payer healthcare system, at least for Whites or the preservation thereof. Their immigration policy is almost a direct copy of the NSDAP’s “Blood and Soil” belief, i.e. one is a citizen of a nation when they are both “of the blood” and born in the nation.

As parting thoughts, I leave you this quote.

“Its secret is to deal with the people not as individuals but as crowds. The message to the crowd is a series of simple, basic, memorable words — nation, people, blood, family, comrade, friend, home, soil, bread, work, strength, hope, life, fight, victory, birth, death, honor, beauty. [It] is set up as having a monopoly on giving the people these virtues and good things. To a people whose immediate past has been hard, muddled and apparently irremediable, simple emotional words have an immense, reverberating authority. But most of all the little man who is lost and friendless in a complex, lonely modern society is treated as important, if only in the mass.”

If you think that is a quote from another Alt-Right writer talking about NPI, you would be mistaken. It is a 1933 Life magazine article talking about the NSDAP. Be honest; you thought it was talking about the Alt-Right at first. I sure did. So let’s be clear; I don’t call them National Socialists because I want to shut them down and cut them out of the national debate. In fact, the opposite is true. I call them National Socialists because that is what they are ideologically. Their racial policies, they thoughts on the community, their whole value system and appeals to emotion are taken almost directly from the National Socialists. And the scary thing is that they are taking over the conservative movement. Slowly, the conservative movement has been losing its base to the ideology of NPI and ultimately the NSDAP. Few conservative publications hold out against the onslaught and if the rise of Trumpism says anything to the conservative movement, it is that Reaganism is dead to the base and a new ideology has taken root.

But there is a solution to the Alt-Right and it is the same solution that was presented back in 1933: Christian Democracy.


Seeking Solidarity: Preserving Voting Rights Preserves Democracy

Featured Image -- 34

We have all heard about the case in Colorado where a dead person apparently voted. While this may be an isolated incident, it has fanned the flames of fearful fanatics fighting for flagrantly fraudulent figures. I apologize; I couldn’t resist the alliteration. In any case, there is no accurate data on how many, if any, unqualified people vote. It is certainly not 1.8 million as Trump says. At the same time, it is not a frivolous issue as some critics on the left seem to make it.

While these instances of voter fraud seem small and isolated, it reveals a systemic problem in our electoral system. How was a dead man able to stay on the voter rolls for so long and then be able to vote? Whether or not voter fraud is common or not does not matter. What matters is that it happens and we need to do all in our power to ensure it does not.

The solutions put forward are varied, but the most famous is the call for voter ID laws. While these seem a surefire method of combating fraud, they have been found to adversely prejudice lower income voters and minorities. They also do not address the underlying issue of inefficient and disparate practices of the numerous voting precincts across the nation.

I propose a two-pronged attack: one to alleviate voter fraud fears and one to address the underlying issues. The elephant in the room in all this debate, however, is that the Virginia Department of Elections is underfunded and poorly staffed. Volunteers count ballots, not some trained ballot-counting professional. So to solve any electoral issue, we first need to realize that we are short-changing perhaps the most important and vital office in our republic. Before any real reforms can be made, we need to ensure that the Board of Elections is not scraping the barrel for funds.

First, we make your voter registration card a photo ID. Radical, I know. This addresses the concerns of all parties. A college intern with a smartphone and an app can register someone to vote, snap a picture in the process, and help alleviate the fears that people who shouldn’t be voting are.

This brings me to my next point. One may object: how does that prevent someone who should not be voting from registering on the street? This is where things get interesting. We need to create better integration and collaboration within government; in other words, we need Governmental Solidarity. Doesn’t it seem common sense would dictate that the department of Vital Records, i.e. the people who keep the death certificates, should be sending the Department of Elections lists of people in the Commonwealth who have died? Shouldn’t the DMV and the Post Office also let them know if someone has moved? These are internal changes that merely require the government to use collaboration software already existing and probably in use to create a more integrated and effective unit. So, if someone registers to vote outside a metro station, the application can be electronically sent to the necessary agencies that can confirm that the person is a resident. And we know they are alive because we snapped a picture of them. We need to update the processes and procedures in the Department of Elections itself. Its technology is outdated and might even disenfranchise people.  We need to drop unqualified (and deceased) voters from the rolls.

The importance of these reforms cannot be mired in partisan politics. The vehicle of our democracy, the lifeblood of our republic is the fact that we have free and fair elections. We cannot do anything that even has the potential of disenfranchising the voter nor can we allow voter fraud to exist or go unpunished. Every citizen has the right to vote and the government has the duty to protect that vote, allow it to be cast in a free and safe environment, and allow the voice of the people to be heard. We can never forget that we are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We cannot allow an underfunded office, polling malpractice, inter-agency miscommunication, outdated technology, or other blatantly preventable problems to cause our republic to perish.

Full Text of ASPVA Chairman’s Reply to Professor Camosy in Crux

In his recent article, Professor Charles Camosy wrote about the need for a political party with a consistent ethic for life. Being the chairman of the American Solidarity Party of Virginia and thereby affiliated with the only political party in the U.S.A with a consistent life ethic explicitly in their platform, I was elated. That is, until I read his piece.

Professor Camosy is an eminent theologian and writer. I could not hope to write a reply that could match his expertise. I shall, however, offer a defense for the people he has wronged by his rash judgment. Professor Camosy states that his main objection to the ASP is “the mealy-mouthed language which supposedly addresses abortion….” This is a rather serious if somewhat crass accusation and I shall present the offending passage. “We support constitutional and legal measures that establish the Right to Life from conception until natural death.”

The ASP supports a constitutional life amendment. This would define, once and for all, that life begins at conception and ends in a natural death. Our very first plank is taking the issue of abortion off the table entirely by making a radical affirmation rather than a condemnation. We affirm that all have a right to life from conception to natural death. Thus, we do not merely oppose abortion, but we support life. It says more than mere opposition ever could. It is a bold and firm stand for life, not merely against abortion.

The affirmation of the inalienable right to life is the cause of all opposition to the various threats to life and so we go straight for the gold: enshrining the right to life in the Constitution along with such rights as freedom of speech, bearing arms, and voting. In short, we cannot be “mealy mouthed” when we are taking a much more restrictive and bolder stand.

An important fact about the ASP is that every member is unequivocally against abortion. There is no debate over its immorality and the need to remove such a great poverty from our nation. We differ from every single other political party by requiring that all new members affirm the sanctity of human life prior to joining. Even if our platform seemed to Professor Camosy to lack strong language on abortion, the truth of the matter is that the party itself i.e. its members are so staunchly pro-life and opposed to abortion that Professor Camosy’s objection seems trivial in comparison to the general will of the party.

As for myself, I joined the ASP and dedicated so much time to its growth precisely because of the affirmation of the right to life. After seeing both political parties—one faster than the other—shedding total opposition to abortion, I looked for a place to call my political home. With the very first plank in our Right to Life platform being the advocacy of a life amendment, I decided I had found my home.

I am not alone in this either. Many of our members became disillusioned with other parties due to their lack of support for life. Other came to the ASP because pro-life became synonymous with anti-abortion and wanted to take an even stronger stand. Being political refugees, most of us are not politically savvy and our platform reflects that. Efforts are being made to clarify the platform which would include a more explicit condemnation of abortion. The difficulty lies in the fact that we are in the middle of a political campaign and we are not a one man band or small cabal of people pretending to be a political party. We are an actual party with a platform created during our national convention. We cannot now change the platform without invalidating the will of the party and behaving like some other major parties we could mention. Instead, we are working on publishing clarifications and expansions on our platform to dispel confusions.

Yet, though it could be attributed to mere ignorance, it cannot be denied that Professor Camosy made a rash judgment. How Professor Camosy could come to this conclusion while other eminent writers can specifically praise us for our pro-life stance. Such a judgment does a disservice to party members like me who see the plank as the stand for the sanctity of life that we have been waiting for, the bold call to be a witness to the Truth without compromise.

Professor Camosy is perfectly free to disagree with other parts of our platform and we welcome such disagreement. He cannot, however, oppose our plank on the right to life without it seeming trivial and quibbling. It is my hope that this clarifies the true position of the ASP and leads to a greater dialogue between pro-life voters so we can finally end the Culture of Death.

Aquinas on the best form of government


In the Summa Theologica first part of the second part, question 105 (ST, I-II, 105.1) Thomas Aquinas discusses what he considers to be the best form of government. “For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly democracy, i.e. government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers.

Such was the form of government established by the Divine Law. For Moses and his successors governed the people in such a way that each of them was ruler over all; so that there was a kind of kingdom. Moreover, seventy-two men were chosen, who were elders in virtue: for it is written (Deuteronomy 1:15): “I took out of your tribes wise and honorable, and appointed them rulers”: so that there was an element of aristocracy. But it was a democratical government in so far as the rulers were chosen from all the people; for it is written (Exodus 18:21): “Provide out of all the people wise [Vulgate: ‘able’] men,” etc.; and, again, in so far as they were chosen by the people; wherefore it is written (Deuteronomy 1:13): “Let me have from among you wise [Vulgate: ‘able’] men,” etc. Consequently it is evident that the ordering of the rulers was well provided for by the Law.”

Saint Thomas recommend that we take the best from monarchy, one empowered but not tyrannical executive, from aristocracy we take the idea that a group of especially able or virtuous persons are set authority that balances and checks the authority of the executive and finally we take from democracy that the people choose the executive and the aristocracy. While the USA does not mirror Thomas’ recommendations perfectly the structure is there. We obviously have a president (executive), a congress (aristocracy) and some sort of democracy (elections). We also all know how distorted all these structures have become in modern America. The power of the executive in some domains (e.g., surveillance of private citizens or prosecution of undeclared wars) has become too huge and unchecked. The aristocracy does not really function most of the time as a group of excellent, virtuous and “able” citizens. And finally our elections, as well know, sometimes do not allow us to really choose our leaders.

The current presidential election is a case in point. Nobody believes we are being given a real choice when presented with Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump. Now more than ever in the USA we need not only a third party but a party informed by Catholic principles –that party is the Solidarity party.


Cardinal Dolan denounces “Catholics for Choice” and recent “deceptive ads” — – Worldwide Catholic Network Sharing Faith Resources for those seeking Truth –

A Statement from Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities An abortion advocacy organization called “Catholics for Choice” (CFC) placed deceptive full-page newspaper ads in multiple cities on September 12 calling for taxpayer funding of abortion in the name of the Catholic faith. As the U.S.…

via Cardinal Dolan denounces “Catholics for Choice” and recent “deceptive ads” — – Worldwide Catholic Network Sharing Faith Resources for those seeking Truth –

The American Solidarity Party opposes abortion as an objective moral evil. Abortion is never the right choice because it is a false choice. It is based upon the lie that children are a shackle that weighs down mothers and imprisons them with a burden they do not want and are not ready for. This lie helps to further the Culture of Death in our society. Instead of aiding the poor to rise out of poverty, they are offered a greater poverty: abortion. Instead of offering women equal pay and fair maternity leave, they are given the choice between financial solvency and sacrificing their children.

The American Solidarity Party seeks integral social development that eliminate the perceived necessity for abortion and exposing the lies spread by its proponents. The American Solidarity Party is not just pro-birth, but consistently pro-life for the whole life. This includes greater and better care for the poor and the vulnerable in our society and ensuring the demands of justice are fulfilled regardless of race, religion, sex, or number of children.