• 
  

POLITICS

Washington Post Makes Damaging Admission Re Trump’s 2016 Victory

https://lockerdome.com/lad/14192083036484710?pubid=ld-8939-4139&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fpatriotalerts.com&rid=&width=713

The mainstream media, Hillary Clinton and Democrats alike have all used “Russian interference” as an excuse for losing in the 2016 election but now they are finally admitting that they were FALSE…

Although well overdue, the Washington Post has finally come out and admitted that they were wrong about Russian interference in 2016, despite taking place well after the damage being done.

It was always a shock that the Democrats could not just swallow the pill admitting that Hillary Clinton was hated by most and lost fair and square and that rhetoric was pushed by many media outlets, especially the Washington Post.

Now seven years later, the Washington Post has cited a recent report led by the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics claiming that Russian interference in the election was incredibly minimal.

Check out the Washington Post‘s begrudging admission in the excerpt below:

Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning.

The study, which the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics helmed, explores the limits of what Russian disinformation and misinformation was able to achieve on one major social media platform in the 2016 elections.

“My personal sense coming out of this is that this got way overhyped,” Josh Tucker, one of the report’s authors who is also the co-director of the New York University center, told me about the meaningfulness of the Russian tweets.

“Now we’re looking back at data and we can see how concentrated this was in one small portion of the population, and how the fact that people who were being exposed to these were really, really likely to vote for Trump,” Tucker said. “And then we have this data to show we can’t find any relationship between being exposed to these tweets and people’s change in attitudes.”

While many other events like BLM riots, the 2020 election and the whopping coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic has stifled the news about the 2016 election, make no mistake this is MASSIVE news for conservatives who knew the accusations were false.

Holy Family Homily

Today we celebrate the Feast of the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary, and Jospeh.

It is important for us to remember the family for the family is central to our society. God took on our human flesh and He dwelt among us. In doing so He chose to enter into a family on this earth. There is no escaping the importance of a family, no matter how much our society might try to redefine, if not eliminate the family from its midst.

Within the Holy Family we discover a love for God which is perfect. Mary and Jospeh were well versed in their faith and knowledge of Scripture. They turned to God in prayer and placed their trust in His will for them no matter how difficult that would be. 

If we think of the modern family the notion of God so often gets pushed off to the side. In the midst of the busyness of everyday life we can never forget God. It is important that families pray together, study the faith together, and attend Holy Mass together. Sadly, the domestic church (the church at home) is something that is missing from many homes.

Within the Holy Family the love between man and woman was found to be perfect. Jospeh respected his bride and he would do anything to protect her. Mary respected her husband and she would do him no harm. Their home was filled with the virtue of love not a so called “love” that has so many restrictions attached to it. Their love is an extension of the love that they had for God. So often our homes might contain a concept of love, but do we truly love as love is meant to be?

When times get difficult, the opportunity for true love begins to form. This is so because in the midst of sacrifice we can let go of what is not important and begin to love freely. Our homes are so often filled with so many distractions caused by our self absorption that causes each member of the family to go off by their self and do their own thing. There is no concept of sacrifice because it is something that is found to be irksome.

The Holy Family lived a life of sacrifice for they lived a life of love. Mary humbly sacrificed everything to God through her yes. Joseph went in haste in order to sacrifice in order that his family would be protected. They would also make sure to offer the sacrifice that was expected of them by the Law. Are willing to allow our family to sacrifice in such a way or would we rather our family be built upon the ways of the world.

May Mary and Jospeh pray for us that all families may be found to be holy and in love with Christ.

by Father Dustin Collins at 7:32 AM 

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Labels: 1st Communion, All Saints, Christmas, Extraordinary Form, homily, Sunday

    Archbishop Georg Gänswein, 66, personal secretary to Pope Benedict XVI from 2003 until his death on December 31, 2022. Pope Francis asked Gänswein to meet with him yesterday morning. No details about the meeting of the two have been made public (CNS photo/Paul Haring)    Preliminary note: “Less is more”        I just received the following note from a reader of these letters:    ”I thank you for all your wonderful reports which are very carefully explained, etc. My problem is the length and the too many details. I wonder if it can be broken into several articles instead of one very long one. Few people have the time to read the whole thing because we also have other articles we read and work and household, etc.     Sincerely yours,     Ilonka“    I do not know if most readers share Ilonka’s problem, but I can understand it.    I too find the letters often very long, and I too wrestle with the details, sometimes dozens or hundreds of details, that emerge with every story.    So I will try to keep this problem in mind in the future.    I will try to shorten the letters, and give only the most relevant details, following a maxim my father taught me: “Less is more.”    Or, as he also said: “Short and sweet.”    Thank you for your understanding.—RM    ***    Letter #10, 2023 Monday, January 9: Gänswein    The future of Archbishop Georg Gänswein, the long-time personal secretary of Pope Benedict, is being decided in these days.        Yesterday, Gänswein, apparently summoned by Pope Francis, met privately with the Pope just four days after Pope Benedict’s funeral on January 5.    So, first point: the Vatican is “adjusting” to a new reality, which is that Pope Benedict has passed away, and there remains, for the first time in almost 10 years, only one Pope in the Vatican: Pope Francis.    The second point is that this is affecting Gänswein very personally right now. Will he be “exiled”? Sent to a small diocese in Germany, never to appear in the Vatican again? Or…?    But the deeper question is: will Francis (as most seem to expect) take this moment to settle old scores, punishing “opponents” and rewarding “friends”?    Or will Francis, perhaps, surprise the majority and take a different course, thinking of his primary, essential role as “Peter”: to preserve the unity of the Church?        Most observers think Francis was (probably) irritated with Gänswein in recent days because Gänswein gave several interviews in which — in addition to focusing on Benedict’s understanding of his life and work, which was to be expected, of course — he went a bit further and suggested that Pope Benedict, and he himself, had opposed decisions Francis had taken on some issues.    In particular: Gänswein depicted Pope Benedict as being (more or less) “heart-broken” due to the July 16, 2021 decision of Pope Francis, in his decree Traditionis custodes, to suppress the use of old Mass, effectively overturning the decision Benedict had taken in 2007 in his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum to praise the old liturgy and allow it to be widely celebrated.    This seemed to set one Pope directly against the other, just 14 years apart (2007 to 2021).    And so it seemed, to many observers, to set up a possible challenge to other decisions of Pope Francis as well. (See, for example, this Italian report, and this, by French journalist Jean-Marie Guenois, link)    A general challenge to his magisterium.    A general challenge to him as Pope.    So most observers saw yesterday morning’s meeting as the occasion chosen by Francis to say “let’s stop this right now,” because he, perhaps rightly, fears the Church could be split between followers of the old Pope, Benedict, led in part by his secretary, Gänswein, and the reigning Pope, himself.    ”Benedictines” and “Franciscans.”    But Cardinal Malcom Ranjith of Colombo, Sri Lanka, has just poured oil on these boiling waters, saying the pontificates of Benedict and Francis are not opposed, but “complementary.” (link)    And another commenter this morning, Luis Badilla of Il Sismografo, suggested that Francis may have called the meeting, not to express irritation, but to try to smooth over any differences and misunderstandings, as he looks toward a new stage of his papacy (with Benedict passing away), a new period of uncertain length, but a period he wishes to be characterized by unity, and not division, in the Church.    Time will tell…    ***    Consider joining me at Easter in Italy. We begin in Assisi where we prepare for the Easter Triduum. We then go to Norcia and visit there with the Benedictine monks who have rebuilt a monastery after 200 years in the birthplace of St. Benedict. Then we go to Rome for the Easter vigil and Easter Sunday Masses in St. Peter’s. Then we visit Manoppello to see the Holy Veil which many believe contains a miraculous image of Christ’s face. If you have time and would like to make this pilgrimage, go to InsideTheVaticanPilgrimages.com to sign up.    All best wishes.—RM      Here is an article published yesterday in the National Catholic Registerabout the private meeting yesterday morning between Pope Francis and Archbishop Georg Gänswein..”    Note that, because the article was written and published yesterday, January 9, it refers to the meeting as occurring “this morning.”    The meeting occurred yesterday morning, January 9, in Rome.    ***    Pope Francis meets with Benedict XVI’s longtime secretary, Archbishop Gänswein (link)    By Jonathan Liedl, National Catholic Register    January 9, 2023    Archbishop Georg Gänswein, the longtime personal secretary of the late Pope Benedict XVI, met with Pope Francis this morning, according to the Vatican’s daily press briefing.    The German prelate’s meeting with the Holy Father comes only four days after Benedict XVI was laid to rest in the crypt of St. Peter’s Basilica on Thursday, Jan. 5.     It also took place shortly before the public release of Gänswein’s forthcoming book detailing his nearly 20 years of service to Benedict XVI.     According to a preview of the text published by Reuters, the book includes details about the German pope’s alleged disagreements with his Argentinian successor over matters such as Pope Francis’ restriction of the traditional Latin Mass and his statements regarding moral matters such as abortion and homosexuality.     Titled “Nothing But The Truth — My Life Beside Benedict XVI,” Gänswein’s 330-page book will be released in Italian on Jan. 12. Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni has provided no comment on the book, which was written with Italian journalist Saverio Gaeta.    Another episode reportedly discussed in the book is Gänswein’s effective dismissal from the role of prefect of the Papal Household, which occurred in 2020. Originally appointed to the position by Pope Benedict XVI in 2012, Gänswein continued to serve as prefect during Pope Francis’ pontificate, a role that includes organizing official audiences with the Holy Father.     However, Gänswein ceased performing the duties associated with the position following a controversy in January 2020 surrounding a book on priestly celibacy originally published as co-authored by Pope Benedict XVI and Guinean Cardinal Robert Sarah. The book, “From the Depths of Our Heart,” was published amid the controversial pan-Amazonian synod and was seen by many as a critique from the former pontiff of Pope Francis’ allowance for questions of married clergy to be discussed during the proceedings.    Gänswein asked Sarah to remove Pope Benedict’s name as co-author of the text and said that a “misunderstanding” had led to the retired pope’s inclusion as an author.    Gänswein’s role did not change following the incident, but his cessation of papal household prefect duties was explained by the Holy See Office as a reflection of the “redistribution of the various commitments and duties” of papal household staff.    In his forthcoming book, Gänswein reportedly writes that, following the authorship incident, Pope Francis told him “not to come back to work tomorrow.”    “Nothing But the Truth” reportedly claims that Pope Benedict wrote two letters to Pope Francis asking him to restore Gänswein to his duties because the German archbishop was “under attack from all sides,” but his reinstatement never took place.    With Pope Benedict no longer living, it is unclear what role Gänswein will have going forward in the Vatican, if any.     As is standard practice for private audiences, the details of the meeting were not shared by the Vatican press office. A request for comment from Gänswein was not immediately returned.

Archbishop Gänswein

Archbishop Georg Gänswein and Pope Francis | Daniel Ibanez/CNA

By Jonathan Liedl

Vatican City, Jan 9, 2023 / 09:24 am

Archbishop Georg Gänswein, the longtime personal secretary of the late Pope Benedict XVI, met with Pope Francis this morning, according to the Vatican’s daily press briefing.

The German prelate’s meeting with the Holy Father comes only four days after Benedict XVI was laid to rest in the crypt of St. Peter’s Basilica on Thursday, Jan. 5. 

It also took place shortly before the public release of Gänswein’s forthcoming book detailing his nearly 20 years of service to Benedict XVI. According to a preview of the text published by Reuters, the book includes details about the German pope’s alleged disagreements with his Argentinian successor over matters such as Pope Francis’ restriction of the traditional Latin Mass and his statements regarding moral matters such as abortion and homosexuality. 

Titled “Nothing But The Truth — My Life Beside Benedict XVI,” Gänswein’s 330-page book will be released in Italian on Jan. 12. Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni has provided no comment on the book, which was written with Italian journalist Saverio Gaeta.

Another episode reportedly discussed in the book is Gänswein’s effective dismissal from the role of prefect of the Papal Household, which occurred in 2020. Originally appointed to the position by Pope Benedict XVI in 2012, Gänswein continued to serve as prefect during Pope Francis’ pontificate, a role that includes organizing official audiences with the Holy Father. 

However, Gänswein ceased performing the duties associated with the position following a controversy in January 2020 surrounding a book on priestly celibacy originally published as co-authored by Pope Benedict XVI and Guinean Cardinal Robert Sarah. The book, “From the Depths of Our Heart,” was published amid the controversial pan-Amazonian synod and was seen by many as a critique from the former pontiff of Pope Francis’ allowance for questions of married clergy to be discussed during the proceedings.

Gänswein asked Sarah to remove Pope Benedict’s name as co-author of the text and said that a “misunderstanding” had led to the retired pope’s inclusion as an author.

Gänswein’s role did not change following the incident, but his cessation of papal household prefect duties was explained by the Holy See Office as a reflection of the “redistribution of the various commitments and duties” of papal household staff.

In his forthcoming book, Gänswein reportedly writes that, following the authorship incident, Pope Francis told him “not to come back to work tomorrow.” “Nothing But the Truth” reportedly claims that Pope Benedict wrote two letters to Pope Francis asking him to restore Gänswein to his duties because the German archbishop was “under attack from all sides,” but his reinstatement never took place.

With Pope Benedict no longer living, it is unclear what role Gänswein will have going forward in the Vatican, if any. 

As is standard practice for private audiences, the details of the meeting were not shared by the Vatican press office. A request for comment from Gänswein was not immediately returned.

• Tags:
• Catholic News, 
• Pope Francis, 
• Archbishop Ganswein, 
• Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI

Jonathan Liedl is senior editor for the National Catholic Register. His background includes state Catholic conference work, three years of seminary formation, and tutoring at a university Christian study center. Liedl holds a B.A. in Political Science and Arabic Studies (Univ. of Notre Dame), an M.A. in Catholic Studies (Univ. of St. Thomas), and is currently completing an M.A. in Theology at the Saint Paul Seminary.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Confronts Biden Over Border Policies On The Tarmac: ‘Your Failure’

(Jennie Taer//Daily Caller News Foundation)

JENNIE TAERINVESTIGATIVE REPORTER

January 08, 20234:29 PM ET

FONT SIZE:

Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a vocal opponent of the president’s border policies, confronted President Joe Biden as he landed in El Paso, Texas.

Abbott was the first to greet Biden as he departed Air Force One onto the Tarmac of the El Paso airport, where he handed the president a letter with proposed solutions to the border crisis that also excoriated Biden over his handling of the border crisis. Biden’s visit will be his first to the border, a fact that Abbott mentioned as he described Biden’s visit as “too late.” (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: ‘Give The Illusion’: Border Patrol Agents, Union President Pour Cold Water On Biden’s Planned Border Visit)

“Your open-border policies have emboldened the cartels, who grow wealthy by trafficking deadly fentanyl and even human beings,” the letter read. “Texans are paying an especially high price for your failure, sometimes with their very lives, as local leaders from your own party will tell you if given the chance.”

Abbott told the DCNF that he chose to confront the president personally due to Biden’s handling of the border, which Abbott argued had greatly harmed his state of Texas.

“The President announced on Thursday that he was gonna be coming to the border and we didn’t hear from him. He said he was gonna meet with local officials. Last night, a staff person in my office received an invitation from the president’s office for me to greet the president at the tarmac, which I did do as I always do,” Abbott said after speaking with Biden, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Democratic Texas Reps. Veronica Escobar, Henry Cuellar and Vicente González.

“But I wanted to use the opportunity to express to the president the damage that he’s caused in the state of Texas and the solutions that he could deploy today to eliminate that damage, to restore the immigration system to an orderly system and to eliminate illegal immigration,” he added.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott speaks with reporters on the tarmac in El Paso, Texas Sunday (Jennie Taer//Daily Caller News Foundation)

Abbott’s letter suggests that Biden resume construction of the border wall in Texas, fully implement Title 42, the Trump-era public health order used to immediately expel certain illegal immigrants, and designate the Mexican cartels as foreign terrorists.

“Even the city you visit has been sanitized of the migrant camps which had overrun downtown El Paso because your administration wants to shield you from the chaos that Texans experience on a daily basis,” the letter read, referring to the scores of migrants that had taken over El Paso’s streets in recent months.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Baleful Cargo of 

Woke Diversity Worship

By: Victor Davis Hanson

January 2, 2023

What do all our notable fabricators—George Santos, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Barack Obama—have in common?

Well, quite like the Ward Churchills or Rachel Dolezals of the world, one way or another, they lied about their identities. Or they sought fraudulent ways of suggesting their ancestries were marginalized. Or they had claims of being victims on the theory their constructed personas brought career advantages.

George Santos claimed, apparently in search of a victimized status, that he was an “American Jew” and a “Latino Jew,” and a descendent of Holocaust survivors.

Joe Biden lied that he went to “shul” as well as that he grew up in a veritable Puerto Rican household and just happened to attend a black college as well as being an honorary Greek.

Elizabeth Warren ended up a laughingstock for claiming her high cheekbones were proof of her Native-American ancestry—a lie she rode all the way to being the “first” Native-American professor on the Harvard Law school faculty.

Somehow the half-white, prep-schooled Barry Soetoro, who had taken his Indonesian stepfather’s last name, rebooted in the university back to Barack Obama. The latter oddly did not catch his literary agent “misidentifying” him in a book promo as being born in Africa. And only as president, did we learn his “autobiographical” memoir was mostly a concoction.

This fixation with constructing identities is one of the great pathologies of our woke era.

When we obsess in neo-Confederate style on race, ethnicity, or religion as the defining element of who we are, and we do this to leverage political advantage, then we set off a chain reaction of Yugoslavian- or Lebanese-style tribalism. Like nuclear proliferation, once one group goes tribal, then all others will strain to find their own deterrent tribal identity.

A Society of Lies

There are warning signs all around us of our fate to come if we do not stop this nihilism: Latino members of the Los Angeles City Council caught on a hot mic of matter-of-fact venting tribalist hatred and mocking of non-Latino tribes—blacks, gays, indigenous people, and whites. Or the Jussie Smollett farce, both the lies he concocted to promote his victimhood and the lies the Chicago prosecutor’s office initially promulgated to ensure initial preferential treatment for Smollett based on his race. Read the comments posted below news stories of rampant swarming smash-and-grab, knockout game, or carjacking crimes—and be warned of the venomous and tribalist backlash to venomous tribalism.

In a world in which there are too many oppressed for the static number of oppressors, then it is perfectly logical that an Elizabeth Warren on the one hand would fabricate an advantageous identity for careerist opportunity, and a Jussie Smollett on the other hand would invent mythical white MAGA demons to ensure he was victimized and deserving of careerist reparations for his suffering.

Yet the tribal problem is not just an epidemic of false identities and fraudulent victims. Entire areas of social and political reality are now set off and exempt from rational discussion. We are currently witnessing an upsurge in black-male crime, often descending into disproportionate hate crimes perpetrated against Asians and Jews. Yet any discussion of this violence is taboo, lest one is deemed racist or illiberal.

Questioning the morality of allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports and to destroy decades of striving for equal female athletics likewise is put off-limits.

So are discussions about the epidemic of illegitimacy and the negative effects of fatherless families contributing to problems in some minority communities.

Even the national challenge of epidemic obesity is racialized as if worries about the unhealthy weight of all Americans derive somehow from mythical white “body shaming.”

So are inquiries about how the states in tough economic times are to house, feed, care, educate, and instruct 5 million entrants across the southern border, arriving en masse and illegally, all without simple background checks, knowledge of English, or a high-school diploma, and in non-diverse fashion. If the first thing an immigrant does is break U.S. law by illegally crossing the border, and the second thing is illegally residing in the United States, then it is only logical that he concludes further illegal activity will be similarly exempt. Illegal immigration is not a noble endeavor but a crime against its host.

In sum, woke tribalism inevitably turns us into fabricators, and society itself becomes a liar.

Against Meritocracy

The old 1970s cynical canard that racial quotas would not extend to pilot training or neurosurgery is no longer true. Some of the major airlines have announced mandatory non-white acceptance quotas for pilot training, and are not predicated on competitive résumés or standardized test scores. Many universities and professional schools are considering adopting pass/fail grading on the theory that affirmative action admissions must become synonymous with guaranteed graduation.

Yet what is the alternative once one travels this pathway? Suppose the idea of quota-based admissions is declared valid and salutary. In that case, grading must likewise be recalibrated along this long chain of anti-meritocracy to continue ensuring equality of results.

Licensing boards are next. If one is admitted to universities on diversity, equity, and inclusion concerns rather than demonstrable achievement as quantifiably determined by competitive grades and test scores and other definable exceptional achievements, and one is further graduated on the assurance that grades either will not be issued or will be inflated, then the logical next step is that licensing exam standards in law or medicine must likewise be relaxed so as not to interrupt the ever-lengthening wokeist chain.

In other words, soon where one went to medical school, or what one did in medical school, or where one did his residency, or his certification by a medical board of examiners will become rather irrelevant. The point is not to recruit applicants with the most competitive records and to ensure that they all are subject to the same standard of rigorous instruction and assessment to ensure the public can have confidence in the medical profession, but to make sure that the profession measures up to some artificial notions about diversity, equity, and inclusion. The relationship between these metrics and health is beside the point.

We forget that what once separated the Western world from the rest was not race, climate, or natural bounty, but its gradual creation of meritocracies replacing the pre-civilizational rule of the clan, the tribe, or the race. The old inherited and stubborn obstacles remained: aristocratic privilege, class chauvinism, and plutocratic clout that warred with qualifications. They were the ancient impediments to merit whose power in the West slowly was also dethroned.

How ironic in their places, the reactionary Western world has simply created new exemptions and privileges, calibrated on premodern criteria such as race and sex that will set off chain tribal reactions as we degenerate into Hobbesian factionalism.

Anytime perceived merit, or something close to merit, was not the standard, a society either imploded or became impoverished and calcified. The racial, one-drop categories of the Old South or the Third Reich, the colorized spectrum of the old apartheid South Africa, the racial chauvinism of the new tribal South Africa, the commissar system of the Soviet Union, the religious intolerance of fundamentalist Islam, or the familial gangs and clannish tyranny of prewar Sicily ensured that all were dysfunctional societies, and often much worse than that. Opportunity was instead guaranteed and excellence defined by something other than demonstrable talent and achievement.

There will be no exceptions granted to the United States from these rules of history. There are many talented black women in the corporate world, private sector, and elsewhere who would have made excellent vice presidents given their race was incidental and an afterthought to their achievement and talent.

The Best We’ve Got?

But Kamala Harris is not among them. She was selected by Biden’s braggadocio, not because of any past stellar record as a Bay Area prosecutor, an accomplished senator, an effective orator, or a superb presidential candidate, but because a frightened Joe Biden amid the George Floyd riots announced in advance that he would preselect his running mate exclusively based on race and sex, sort of in the fashion of the white male-dominated world of the past.

Ditto Pete Buttigieg, who, in his dismal record as a rather inconsequential small city mayor and failed presidential candidate, had never evidenced aptitude for transportation issues—other than occasionally and ostentatiously riding a bike. He was never expected to seriously address problems like spiraling auto fuel prices, the bottlenecks at our harbors, the wild-west train robbing at the port of Los Angeles, the Southwest Airlines implosion, or our clogged freeways. Instead, he was appointed Transportation Secretary because of the diversity of his sexual orientation and his woke rhetoric that almost immediately surfaced in wildly out-of-pocket lectures about “racist” freeways.

Similarly, upon appointment as press secretary, we were immediately told Karine Jean-Pierre was the nation’s first black, gay press secretary rather than being asked to recognize any prior achievement that earned her such a coveted spot. Few said her appointment reflected a successful record as chief of staff for Kamala Harris’ not-one-delegate presidential campaign, or national megaphone for an ossified Moveon.org, or her stellar work as an MSNBC pundit.

What will a university like Stanford do when it admits much of its 2026 class largely based on tribal considerations? It does not release who of the admitted opted not to take the now-optional SAT. It seems proud, in fact, that it has rejected in the past 70 percent of those applicants with perfect SAT scores. So why would one believe that Stanford truly deplores its past Jewish exclusionary quotas, when it easily trumps them in the present—and uses the same argument of diversity to excuse prejudice and disqualify those who, by its own former standards, had earned admission?

Diversity is neither a strength nor a weakness. Diversity of thought can be helpful or become chaotic as orthodoxy. Hitler’s 3.7 million soldiers who charged into Russia were especially diverse, but that fact did not make the invaders less murderous.

A multi-religious India is certainly diverse but is not always calm or humane. Yugoslavia was diverse, and so is current-day Lebanon. Was either country a kinder, gentler, or more successful society than decidedly nondiverse Japan or Poland?

Just as uniformity can result in both stability and stagnation, so too can diversity sometimes ensure either dynamism or bedlam. In all these cases, the emphasis on tribalism is the critical determinative. If a 95 percent Asian or white country defines itself in blood-and-soil terms as did Japan of the 1930s and early 1940s and Germany between 1933 and 1945, then it becomes toxic, unlike a more natural assumption that race is incidental, not essential, even in a racially uniform society.

The same is true of diversity. Accentuate it; sharpen differences; treat individuals as part of tribal collectives—and a descent into violence and anarchy is assured. But consider tribal differences superficial, and human commonality more important than racial differences, then diversity can be enriching through voluntary contributions to the whole in terms of varieties of food, music, art, fashion, and literature. But again, envision diversity as iron-clad calibrations of identity in which the individual cedes to the collective tribe, then a tribally regressive America will be no different from the world elsewhere and our fate is assured.

So, we are headed, dangerously so, into an historically ugly, hateful, and volatile place—all the more so because we lie that it is utopian when it is pre-civilizational and reactionary.

BY RACHAEL BADE

Presented by

With help from Eli Okun and Garrett Ross

DRIVING THE DAY

Speaker Kevin McCarthy holds the gavel. | Francis Chung/POLITICO

For the first time all week, House Republicans were jubilant and KEVIN McCARTHY’s smile finally seemed genuine. It was 10 p.m. Friday night, and word had spread that after days of painful negotiations and 13 failed ballots, McCarthy finally had the votes to be speaker.But as the clerk started to call the roll, there was a problem. Rep. MATT GAETZ (R-Fla.) approached McCarthy’s top floor lieutenant, JOHN LEGANSKI, and told him they needed to adjourn the House. The six McCarthy holdouts had discussed a plan to back the GOP leader by voting “present” in tandem so none of them could be fingered as the final vote giving McCarthy the gavel — but Gaetz didn’t have the entire group sold at that moment.If they waited until Monday, Gaetz said, he could probably deliver.That wasn’t an option, Leganski told him. There was no guarantee all 222 Republicans would be in attendance Monday, with several members dealing with family emergencies. The wife of Rep. ROGER WILLIAMS (R-Texas) was undergoing treatment for a newly discovered brain tumor, and Rep. WESLEY HUNT (R-Texas) had left his wife’s bedside to fly back for the expected final vote. She has struggled with medical issues, Hunt said Friday, after giving premature birth to a baby boy.Gaetz went back to his seat, but he wasn’t about to deliver McCarthy the deciding vote for the gavel. Just days before, he had suggested he’d rather be waterboarded. So he voted “present” — leaving McCarthy just short of a majority on the 14th ballot.McCarthy made a beeline for Gaetz. “Matt, come on,” he told him, according to a person present. “You’ve made your point. People have to go home.” Gaetz replied this wouldn’t be happening if they’d adjourned as he’d suggested.So began a wild, 28-minute floor scramble that salvaged an unimaginably messy start to the new House Republican majority and finally fulfilled McCarthy’s long dream of wielding the speaker’s gavel.At 11:03, after confronting Gaetz in the back benches, a defeated and dejected McCarthy headed back to his seat at the front of the chamber. A top ally, Rep. PATRICK McHENRY (R-N.C.), moved to adjourn the House until Monday — a risky plan that would send the GOP’s leadership turmoil into a second week.Then McCarthy’s whips went back to work. McHenry, who had been leading negotiations with conservatives, reiterated to Gaetz the concessions that his fellow conservative hard-liners had won. What more, he demanded to know, could they do to break the logjam?Earlier that week, Gaetz had insisted on a House Armed Services subcommittee gavel as his prize for backing McCarthy. McCarthy told him he couldn’t give him that position — that decision was up to committee Chair MIKE ROGERS (R-Ala.). But as they struggled to nail down votes that night, leadership talked through the idea again — even after Rogers had confronted Gaetz on the floor in one of the night’s most dramatic moments.As McHenry tried to fix the problem, Rep. MATT ROSENDALE (R-Mont.) came into the aisle to cheer Gaetz on. “We got your back,” he said, according to a person present. “Hold the line. You’re not on your own.”Meanwhile, Majority Whip TOM EMMER sat next to Gaetz, with Chief Deputy Whip GUY RESCHENTHALER standing on the aisle — blocking Gaetz from leaving but keeping other angry Republicans (some of whom had been drinking) from approaching and making things worse. The whips pulled on the holdouts’ heartstrings, reminding them about Rogers and Hunt and their wives.“Think about the human element of this,” one McCarthy ally told Gaetz.At one point, Reschenthaler turned to Rep. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-Ga.) with a request: “I need you to get [DONALD] TRUMP on the phone right now,” according to a person who overheard the remark.Greene did just that, calling up the former president and putting him on the line with both Gaetz and fellow holdout Rep. LAUREN BOEBERT , as CNN’s Kaitlan Collins first reported. He would later talk to other holdouts, though one McCarthy foe, Rosendale, refused to talk to him, a rejection captured in a striking photo by Al Drago. “Don’t put me in that situation!” he yelled at Greene.

Twitter screenshot

Trump angrily told the group to knock it off, according to a person familiar with the conversations, arguing that the televised mayhem was making him look bad. “He ripped them a new asshole,” the person said.Amid the full-court press, the holdouts ping-ponged between huddles before finally agreeing that McCarthy would ultimately get the gavel one way or another and that they should let fate take its course.Gaetz, who had already voted to adjourn until Monday, walked to the clerk’s desk at 11:31 and pulled a red slip to change his vote. He found McCarthy and told him the group would clear the way for him to get the gavel.McCarthy immediately yelled for a 15th and final vote, sparking an eruption of cheers from his rank-and-file. Members chanted “One more time! One more time!” as dozens went to change their votes for adjournment.An hour later, McCarthy prevailed. He won 216 votes, with the six holdouts all voting present. Not a single GOP vote was cast against him.It was a remarkable and suitably dramatic ending to the wildest speaker race in modern congressional history. We highly recommend diving into the killer accounts of the floor spectacle from our Olivia Beavers, Sarah Ferris and Jordain Carney; from Mel Zanona and the rest of the CNN team; and from WaPo’s Paul Kane and Dylan Wells.Good Saturday afternoon. Thanks for reading Playbook. Sorry we’re so late sending today! We were working the phones trying to get a full tick-tock on all of last night’s drama! Drop us a line anytime: Rachael Bade, Eugene Daniels, Ryan Lizza.The must-see video clips, via C-SPAN: The McCarthy-Gaetz-Rogers scuffle… McCarthy and Gaetz talking before the final vote… The winning moment… McCarthy sworn in… McCarthy swearing in the membersThe deets: “What’s in McCarthy’s emerging deal with conservatives — and why it could work,” by Olivia Beavers, Sarah Ferris, Connor O’Brien and Meredith Lee HillThe view from back home: “‘Kevin Who?’ In McCarthy’s Hometown, a Different Take on His Fate,” by David Siders in Bakersfield, Calif. … “Kevin McCarthy wins his dream job, but at a humiliating and stifling cost,” by L.A. Times’ Jeffrey Fleishman and Melanie Mason … “Column: Kevin McCarthy ‘won’ the House speakership. Now the country will pay the price,” by L.A. Times’ Mark BarabakThe view from the other side: “How Democrats could exploit the McCarthy situation,” by WaPo’s Aaron BlakeKnowing Eli Crane: “How the last freshman holdout against McCarthy made it to Congress,” by Ally MutnickThe media lens: “The flailing, tedious thrill of reporting on the House leadership fight,” by WaPo’s Paul FarhiMore reads: “Speaker Fight Could Preview Months of Turmoil in Congress,” by WSJ’s Lindsay Wise, Andrew Duehren and Kristina Peterson … “McCarthy speaker battle shows a party still incoherent, ungovernable,” by WaPo’s Michael Scherer … “Speaker McCarthy: A weakened leader or emboldened survivor?” by AP’s Lisa Mascaro… “This congressman carried his baby around the Capitol all week,” by WaPo’s Roxanne Roberts

A message from Instagram:Teens’ experiences on Instagram should be positive and supportive. That’s why we have tools to help teens see less sensitive content and help them spend less time on our platform. Learn more about our tools and set them up today.

NEW JMART COLUMN: “Gingrich and Pelosi Agree: The GOP Is Rudderless”: “NANCY PELOSI was never shy about her skillset — she often called herself ‘a master legislator’ — yet when I caught up with her this week in the Capitol she downplayed her talents to make a point about the structural differences between the two parties.“‘People always give me credit, “Oh you keep them together,”’she recalled of her days leading House Democrats, though still using the present-tense. ‘I said I really don’t, our values keep us together. We’re committed to America’s working families. If you don’t have that, what’s your why?’ Republicans, Pelosi said, lack that why. …“NEWT GINGRICH said his party is contending with a band of ‘deranged disrupters’ in the House, a cadre of ‘Biden Republicans’ enabling the president in the Senate and ‘a grassroots base that wants anger.’ Stuck in the middle, Gingrich said, is the sunny son of 1970s Bakersfield.”PHOTOS OF THE DAY …It was an historic day inside the House chamber on Friday. While much of the action unfolded live on C-SPAN, a host of ace photographers were also on hand to capture the couldn’t-miss moments for history.

Gaetz speaks to McCarthy after voting “present” on the 14th ballot. | Francis Chung/POLITICO

Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) pulls Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) back as he spoke with Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.). | Andrew Harnik/AP Photo

Gaetz flexes. | Francis Chung/POLITICO

Rep.Katie Porter (D-Calif.) reads a book during speaker votes. | Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries laugh in the House chamber. | Andrew Harnik/AP Photo

A message from Instagram:

Rep.Lance Gooden’s (R-Texas) daughter high-fives McCarthy. | Win McNamee/Getty Images

McCarthy celebrates winning the 15th vote for speaker. | Alex Brandon/AP Photo

House members, including Reps. George Santos (R-N.Y.) and Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), are sworn in. | Alex Brandon/AP Photo

McCarthy embraces Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). | Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

McCarthy and Gaetz shake hands. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

    The hands of the late Pope Benedict, as he lay in state in St. Peter’s Basilica from January 2 to 4, before his funeral in Rome on January 5, yesterday. The rosary beads that wrapped his fingers suggested that he was a man of prayer, a man who spent his last years praying for the Church, and the world…    Letter #6, 2023 Friday, January 6: Viganò’s reflection    I am sending out to readers the reflection prepared by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò for the death of Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI.     I draw the text from the website of Marco Tosatti, in Italy, at this link: link)    Benedict died on December 31 at the age of 95.    His funeral Mass was celebrated on January 5, yesterday, in Rome.    Benedict is now buried in the crypt below the main floor of St. Peter’s. —RM          Archbishop Viganò. Homily on the Death of Benedict XVI. “Absolve, Lord…” (link)    Dear friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae, we receive and gladly publish this homily by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. Enjoy the reading. ABSOLVE, DOMINEHomily by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganòon the death of Pope Benedict XVIDies iræ, dies illa, dies tribulationis et angustiæ,dies calamitatis et miseriæ, dies tenebrarum et caliginis,dies nebulae et turbinis, dies tubæ et clangorissuper civitates munitas et super angulos excelsos.    Zephaniah 1, 15-16 (these Latin verses are translated into English below)    Bitter is the day of the Lord! Even a brave man shouts it. A day of wrath that day, a day of anguish and affliction, a day of ruin and extermination, a day of darkness and gloom, and a day of cloud and gloom, a day of the blowing of the horn and of war cries on the fortified cities and on high towers. Thus the Prophet Zephaniah.    Absolve Domine. Forgive, O Lord.     We sing these words in the section of the Mass of the dead, whether they are Popes or simple clerics, rich or poor, wise or simple. Et gratia tua illis succurente, mereantur evadere judicium ultionis, et lucis æternae beatitude perfrui. “May they pass the final judgment with the help of your grace, and enjoy the bliss of eternal light.”    Let us address this same prayer to the divine Majesty, as we celebrate the Holy Mass of suffrage for the soul of Joseph Ratzinger, Roman Pontiff until February 28, 2013.     And as it asks for mercy towards the deceased, we entrust it to the mercy of God, who knows everything and who peers into the secret of hearts.     Of what he did and said during his long life, and in particular after ascending to the Throne of Peter, we want to recall that providential gesture of truth and justice with which he recognized the full legitimacy of the Apostolic Liturgy, promulgating the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.     The good that the liberalization of the ancient rite has done to the Church will weigh in the balance of souls that we see in many depictions of the Archangel St. Michael.     Thanks to it, a multitude of faithful and priests – among whom we can also number ourselves – have been able to know the priceless treasure of doctrine and spirituality which unfortunate choices had made inaccessible for fifty years; thanks to it a flood of graces, which no one will be able to stop, has poured out — and is still pouring out today — on the Church and on the world.    In contemplating the rubble that survived the conciliar devastation, I dare not think what the situation of the Church might be without the Mass of Saint Pius V.     Yet, in the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum itself, one cannot fail to notice the precarious structure adopted by the distinguished theologian Ratzinger: the thesis of Catholic orthodoxy (and of the traditional Mass), the antithesis of the modernist heresy (and of Montini’s Mass) and the synthesis of Vatican II (and of the coexistence of two forms of the same rite). Unfortunately, the delicta juventutis [“sins of youth”] were never formally disavowed, even if the horrors of the last ten years have almost overshadowed them.    We can only pray fervently that in the near future that complete restitution of the ancient rite may take place which will put an end to decades of abuse, manipulation, adulteration and persecution made more ferocious in the Bergoglian era.    Si iniquitates observaveris Domine, Domine, quis sustinebit? “Who can stand God’s judgment, if only we consider our faults?”    No one.     Yet the Mercy of God, who is our Father and who loves us to the point of giving his Only Son for our salvation, deigns to look at the good done with greater attention than it pays to our shortcomings. It is as if, in knowing us to be weak and sinful, He was looking for all the ways to save us from eternal damnation, giving us a thousand opportunities to redeem ourselves.     This applies to the least of the faithful and to the one who sits on the highest Throne.     The consideration of our sin should not lead us to consider ourselves destined to give in, and exempt from punishment, but spur us to put all our trust in the One who gives us strength (Phil 4, 13).     And this is also true for whom Providence has chosen to govern the Church.    Animated by this trust, Pope Benedict XVI tried in some way to repair that terrible vulnus that one of his Predecessors had caused to the ecclesial body; a wound that was healing, but that the maneuvers of the Enemy and of his acolytes try to keep open, nullifying Summorum Pontificum even in the face of the undeniable spiritual goods that it brings to souls; indeed, precisely because of these infinite Graces, because they represent the most burning defeat of the secularized and worldly spirit of the conciliar ideology.    And if the reformed rite canceled the Dies iræ from the Requiem Mass and imposed the Alleluia, we find in the old Mass reasons for hope and composed suffrage for the soul of a man whom the Lord wanted as His Vicar.     In this rite we hear the voice of the Bride imploring mercy, forgiveness, indulgence, absolution, remission; the voice of the Bride who, in acknowledging the sins of her children, presents them before the Eternal Father, whom the divine Son redeems with his own Sacrifice.     Therefore, may Pope Benedict’s soul find the place of refreshment, light and peace that we invoke for him in the Memento of the Canon.    In the blessed glory of Heaven, or in the purifying flames of Purgatory, Pope Benedict XVI will be able to pray for us and for the whole Church, finally knowing facie ad faciem that divine Truth which earthly exile reveals only obscurely.     His prayers join ours and those of the holy souls and of the heavenly Court, to implore the divine Majesty for an end to the present tribulations, and in particular the defeat and expulsion of the sect of heretics and corrupt which afflicts and eclipses the Holy Church of God.    And so be it.—Archbishop Carlo Maria Viagnò5 January MMXXIIIEve of the Epiphany of the Lord

The Baleful Cargo of Woke Diversity Worship

By: Victor Davis Hanson

January 2, 2023

What do all our notable fabricators—George Santos, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Barack Obama—have in common?

Well, quite like the Ward Churchills or Rachel Dolezals of the world, one way or another, they lied about their identities. Or they sought fraudulent ways of suggesting their ancestries were marginalized. Or they had claims of being victims on the theory their constructed personas brought career advantages.

George Santos claimed, apparently in search of a victimized status, that he was an “American Jew” and a “Latino Jew,” and a descendent of Holocaust survivors.

Joe Biden lied that he went to “shul” as well as that he grew up in a veritable Puerto Rican household and just happened to attend a black college as well as being an honorary Greek.

Elizabeth Warren ended up a laughingstock for claiming her high cheekbones were proof of her Native-American ancestry—a lie she rode all the way to being the “first” Native-American professor on the Harvard Law school faculty.

Somehow the half-white, prep-schooled Barry Soetoro, who had taken his Indonesian stepfather’s last name, rebooted in the university back to Barack Obama. The latter oddly did not catch his literary agent “misidentifying” him in a book promo as being born in Africa. And only as president, did we learn his “autobiographical” memoir was mostly a concoction.

This fixation with constructing identities is one of the great pathologies of our woke era.

When we obsess in neo-Confederate style on race, ethnicity, or religion as the defining element of who we are, and we do this to leverage political advantage, then we set off a chain reaction of Yugoslavian- or Lebanese-style tribalism. Like nuclear proliferation, once one group goes tribal, then all others will strain to find their own deterrent tribal identity.

A Society of Lies

There are warning signs all around us of our fate to come if we do not stop this nihilism: Latino members of the Los Angeles City Council caught on a hot mic of matter-of-fact venting tribalist hatred and mocking of non-Latino tribes—blacks, gays, indigenous people, and whites. Or the Jussie Smollett farce, both the lies he concocted to promote his victimhood and the lies the Chicago prosecutor’s office initially promulgated to ensure initial preferential treatment for Smollett based on his race. Read the comments posted below news stories of rampant swarming smash-and-grab, knockout game, or carjacking crimes—and be warned of the venomous and tribalist backlash to venomous tribalism.

In a world in which there are too many oppressed for the static number of oppressors, then it is perfectly logical that an Elizabeth Warren on the one hand would fabricate an advantageous identity for careerist opportunity, and a Jussie Smollett on the other hand would invent mythical white MAGA demons to ensure he was victimized and deserving of careerist reparations for his suffering.

Yet the tribal problem is not just an epidemic of false identities and fraudulent victims. Entire areas of social and political reality are now set off and exempt from rational discussion. We are currently witnessing an upsurge in black-male crime, often descending into disproportionate hate crimes perpetrated against Asians and Jews. Yet any discussion of this violence is taboo, lest one is deemed racist or illiberal.

Questioning the morality of allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports and to destroy decades of striving for equal female athletics likewise is put off-limits.

So are discussions about the epidemic of illegitimacy and the negative effects of fatherless families contributing to problems in some minority communities.

Even the national challenge of epidemic obesity is racialized as if worries about the unhealthy weight of all Americans derive somehow from mythical white “body shaming.”

So are inquiries about how the states in tough economic times are to house, feed, care, educate, and instruct 5 million entrants across the southern border, arriving en masse and illegally, all without simple background checks, knowledge of English, or a high-school diploma, and in non-diverse fashion. If the first thing an immigrant does is break U.S. law by illegally crossing the border, and the second thing is illegally residing in the United States, then it is only logical that he concludes further illegal activity will be similarly exempt. Illegal immigration is not a noble endeavor but a crime against its host.

In sum, woke tribalism inevitably turns us into fabricators, and society itself becomes a liar.

Against Meritocracy

The old 1970s cynical canard that racial quotas would not extend to pilot training or neurosurgery is no longer true. Some of the major airlines have announced mandatory non-white acceptance quotas for pilot training, and are not predicated on competitive résumés or standardized test scores. Many universities and professional schools are considering adopting pass/fail grading on the theory that affirmative action admissions must become synonymous with guaranteed graduation.

Yet what is the alternative once one travels this pathway? Suppose the idea of quota-based admissions is declared valid and salutary. In that case, grading must likewise be recalibrated along this long chain of anti-meritocracy to continue ensuring equality of results.

Licensing boards are next. If one is admitted to universities on diversity, equity, and inclusion concerns rather than demonstrable achievement as quantifiably determined by competitive grades and test scores and other definable exceptional achievements, and one is further graduated on the assurance that grades either will not be issued or will be inflated, then the logical next step is that licensing exam standards in law or medicine must likewise be relaxed so as not to interrupt the ever-lengthening wokeist chain.

In other words, soon where one went to medical school, or what one did in medical school, or where one did his residency, or his certification by a medical board of examiners will become rather irrelevant. The point is not to recruit applicants with the most competitive records and to ensure that they all are subject to the same standard of rigorous instruction and assessment to ensure the public can have confidence in the medical profession, but to make sure that the profession measures up to some artificial notions about diversity, equity, and inclusion. The relationship between these metrics and health is beside the point.

We forget that what once separated the Western world from the rest was not race, climate, or natural bounty, but its gradual creation of meritocracies replacing the pre-civilizational rule of the clan, the tribe, or the race. The old inherited and stubborn obstacles remained: aristocratic privilege, class chauvinism, and plutocratic clout that warred with qualifications. They were the ancient impediments to merit whose power in the West slowly was also dethroned.

How ironic in their places, the reactionary Western world has simply created new exemptions and privileges, calibrated on premodern criteria such as race and sex that will set off chain tribal reactions as we degenerate into Hobbesian factionalism.

Anytime perceived merit, or something close to merit, was not the standard, a society either imploded or became impoverished and calcified. The racial, one-drop categories of the Old South or the Third Reich, the colorized spectrum of the old apartheid South Africa, the racial chauvinism of the new tribal South Africa, the commissar system of the Soviet Union, the religious intolerance of fundamentalist Islam, or the familial gangs and clannish tyranny of prewar Sicily ensured that all were dysfunctional societies, and often much worse than that. Opportunity was instead guaranteed and excellence defined by something other than demonstrable talent and achievement.

There will be no exceptions granted to the United States from these rules of history. There are many talented black women in the corporate world, private sector, and elsewhere who would have made excellent vice presidents given their race was incidental and an afterthought to their achievement and talent.

The Best We’ve Got?

But Kamala Harris is not among them. She was selected by Biden’s braggadocio, not because of any past stellar record as a Bay Area prosecutor, an accomplished senator, an effective orator, or a superb presidential candidate, but because a frightened Joe Biden amid the George Floyd riots announced in advance that he would preselect his running mate exclusively based on race and sex, sort of in the fashion of the white male-dominated world of the past.

Ditto Pete Buttigieg, who, in his dismal record as a rather inconsequential small city mayor and failed presidential candidate, had never evidenced aptitude for transportation issues—other than occasionally and ostentatiously riding a bike. He was never expected to seriously address problems like spiraling auto fuel prices, the bottlenecks at our harbors, the wild-west train robbing at the port of Los Angeles, the Southwest Airlines implosion, or our clogged freeways. Instead, he was appointed Transportation Secretary because of the diversity of his sexual orientation and his woke rhetoric that almost immediately surfaced in wildly out-of-pocket lectures about “racist” freeways.

Similarly, upon appointment as press secretary, we were immediately told Karine Jean-Pierre was the nation’s first black, gay press secretary rather than being asked to recognize any prior achievement that earned her such a coveted spot. Few said her appointment reflected a successful record as chief of staff for Kamala Harris’ not-one-delegate presidential campaign, or national megaphone for an ossified Moveon.org, or her stellar work as an MSNBC pundit.

What will a university like Stanford do when it admits much of its 2026 class largely based on tribal considerations? It does not release who of the admitted opted not to take the now-optional SAT. It seems proud, in fact, that it has rejected in the past 70 percent of those applicants with perfect SAT scores. So why would one believe that Stanford truly deplores its past Jewish exclusionary quotas, when it easily trumps them in the present—and uses the same argument of diversity to excuse prejudice and disqualify those who, by its own former standards, had earned admission?

Diversity is neither a strength nor a weakness. Diversity of thought can be helpful or become chaotic as orthodoxy. Hitler’s 3.7 million soldiers who charged into Russia were especially diverse, but that fact did not make the invaders less murderous.

A multi-religious India is certainly diverse but is not always calm or humane. Yugoslavia was diverse, and so is current-day Lebanon. Was either country a kinder, gentler, or more successful society than decidedly nondiverse Japan or Poland?

Just as uniformity can result in both stability and stagnation, so too can diversity sometimes ensure either dynamism or bedlam. In all these cases, the emphasis on tribalism is the critical determinative. If a 95 percent Asian or white country defines itself in blood-and-soil terms as did Japan of the 1930s and early 1940s and Germany between 1933 and 1945, then it becomes toxic, unlike a more natural assumption that race is incidental, not essential, even in a racially uniform society.

The same is true of diversity. Accentuate it; sharpen differences; treat individuals as part of tribal collectives—and a descent into violence and anarchy is assured. But consider tribal differences superficial, and human commonality more important than racial differences, then diversity can be enriching through voluntary contributions to the whole in terms of varieties of food, music, art, fashion, and literature. But again, envision diversity as iron-clad calibrations of identity in which the individual cedes to the collective tribe, then a tribally regressive America will be no different from the world elsewhere and our fate is assured.

So, we are headed, dangerously so, into an historically ugly, hateful, and volatile place—all the more so because we lie that it is utopian when it is pre-civilizational and reactionary.

\

A top Roman Catholic official called for a three-day fast in support of those who are incarcerated for their participation in the Jan. 6 Capitol protest.

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano is the former Apostolic Nuncio to the U.S., and he said he will fast from Tuesday through Thursday as a commemoration of the second anniversary of Jan. 6.

In a letter to Human Events, the archbishop detailed his motivation for stepping up and encouraging those detained by the government for their roles in the protest.

Vigano said that he hoped “this initiative will find many adherents, in the spirit of true reparation of the innumerable sins and grave betrayals committed.”

The church official added that “I can only encourage and bless this commendable gesture of penance, to be accompanied by prayer — above all, the Holy Rosary, for the beloved Nation which I had the privilege of knowing during my office as Apostolic Nuncio.”

The government has charged 964 people for the events of the day, and 465 already pled guilty to the mostly misdemeanor offenses. However, Human Events reported that hundreds more remain in jails in the Washington, D.C. area pending trial.

Vigano’s plea for fasting was made to attorney Joseph McBride, who has handled the legal defenses for many of the accused.

McBride explained his professional efforts as part of his job as “an American Catholic Civil Rights Attorney.” He said he is tasked to “defend…every January Sixer in the most devoted and intelligent way possible.”

The outspoken archbishop is no stranger to controversy and taking strong stands. He once called President Joe Biden a “self-styled Catholic” over his refusal to adhere to church teachings on abortion and other issues.

He also criticized COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Vigano made headlines in 2018 when he accused several Vatican officials, including Pope Francis, of covering up accusations made against former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. The retired archbishop of Washington, D.C. was ultimately expelled from the priesthood for acts against minors.

It is refreshing to see the attention given by a prominent church official to those who continue to languish in jail awaiting trial for their parts in the protest. Archbishop Vigano deserves credit for standing up for the accused, even when most have forgotten their plights and moved on.