The Empire of Lies by Guy Sorman (Google Books)
City Journal article from 2007
Empire of Lies: The Truth About China in the Twenty-First CenturyPublic Affairs Program
Guy Sorman, Joanne J. Myers
Why Is God Not Nice?
21 minutes ago
Dancing Yoga provides a high-energy workout with therapeutic effects to align and purify the body. It si inspired by Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga, but enhanced with graceful dance movements to form a dynamic series of flowing postures. Dancing Yoga synchronizes movements with breathing to build inner energy to cleanse and strengthen the body.
There is no one good book defining republican government which in any case has to be understood in a variety of forms and within different historical contexts. Some books however are essential: Aristotle’s Politics, Cicero’s De Republica, Livy's History and Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy. In the American tradition I would study Jefferson and Calhoun and perhaps John Adams. There are several central themes essential to the republican tradition and I shall mention two or three.
First is the emphasis on law and tradition taking precedence over both the will of the sovereign (whether king or democratic majority) and raison d’état. Then there is the acknowledgment of the valid powers of the constituent social authorities of family, clan, region, church sometimes simplistically summed up as subsidiarity. Finally I would point to institutional strategies to avoid tyranny especially the tyranny of the majority that AT so feared but also the lesser tyranny of Louis Napoleon in which AT initially acquiesced. We discussed some of these themes in connection with the Politics.
The issue is marriage and the death of marriage, and even more specifically, of the rapid and tragic abolition of the very concept of fatherhood. That is what matters, and that is where moral conservatives must fight - in society, and in the Church. The homosexual question affects a tiny number of people and is, more or less, a provocation to get us to charge off in the wrong direction and make fools of ourselves. The destruction of marriage and the end of fatherhood is changing the western world for the worse and must urgently be addressed.
Once again, I have to remind you all, that the Ancien Regime, while it interfered in the political process and regulated economic affairs, did not stick its nose into private life. Even so, it used the technique, so familiar to us, of encouraging a bogus public “freedom of expression” to encourage the delusion that people free to discuss stupid ideas have the reality of political liberty. “Since Frenchmen must always be allowed the sop of a little flexibility, to console them for their enslavement, the government allowed them to discuss very freely all kin of general and abstract theories in matters of religion, philosophy, ethics, and even politics. It was quite willing to tolerate attacks against the fundamental principles upon which society then rested and even arguments about God Himself, provided that is most menial agents were not the subject of their ramblings.”
Today, of course, attacks on God and society are the principles on which the regime rests, but it is quite comfortable in tolerating the pseudo-opposition of talkshow hosts and websites so long as they do not get in the way of business. When someone does, say Julian Assange, he finds himself the target of malicious prosecution.
But the figures need to be parsed carefully. While overall, as many men as women wanted to marry, age played a big role in their preferences. Younger (ages 21 to 24) and older men (50 and up) were more favorably disposed to legal lifetime unions than their female peers. In the between years — the decades when women must pay heed to a uterine deadline — the ratios shift the other way.
Men's greater inclination toward parenthood, however, seems to hold across every age group. While more than half the single men ages 21 to 35 wanted kids, only 46% of the women did. After that, the difference widens further, and not just out of biological reality. Only 16% of childless women in the still fertile years from 35 to 44 wanted kids; 27% of the men did. Plus, more women than men were prepared to say definitively that they were skipping parenthood.
(See an illustration of the expectations and realities of marriage.)
"Women are much more interested in their independence than men are," says Fisher. They value certain parts of their single lives more than men do: according to the survey, women are likelier to want to have their own bank accounts, their own interests, their own personal space and solo vacations, even if they're in a committed relationship. They also care more about nights out with buddies.
Before we had easy access to reams of medical journals featuring research on the link between physical activity and brain function, Jack intuitively knew exercise was about mental fitness and psychological well-being as much as it was about physical fitness. A constant refrain of his was that people were unhappy, unfit, and messed up because we had forgotten how to move and live naturally.
I think we can distinguish three phases or aspects of centralization: 1) an inevitable and probably necessary process of expansion and state-building in response to internal and external threats. If Philip Augustus had not expanded his realm and begun to centralize control, he could never have fought off English aggression, and his successors would have lost France permanently to predators like Edward III and Henry V. The second phase was a non-ideological campaign to turn France into the Great Nation, able to beat back challenges both from England and the Empire. If phase I organized and centralized feudal France, phase II subordinated and destroyed feudal France. Phase III was the egalitarian ideological nationalism of the Jacobins, transmitted by Napoleon, who disciplined it, to subsequent generations. While it is true that we can see how each phase leads to the next, I think it a mistake to attribute motives across the ages or even assign guilt. If Philip Augustus, his grandfather Louis the Fat, and his grandson Saint Louis. had not strengthened France, it would never have survived.
The new technologies allow people to meet each other beyond the confines of space and of their own culture, creating in this way an entirely new world of potential friendships. This is a great opportunity, but it also requires greater attention to and awareness of possible risks. Who is my “neighbour” in this new world? Does the danger exist that we may be less present to those whom we encounter in our everyday life? Is there is a risk of being more distracted because our attention is fragmented and absorbed in a world “other” than the one in which we live? Do we have time to reflect critically on our choices and to foster human relationships which are truly deep and lasting? It is important always to remember that virtual contact cannot and must not take the place of direct human contact with people at every level of our lives.
In the digital age too, everyone is confronted by the need for authenticity and reflection. Besides, the dynamic inherent in the social networks demonstrates that a person is always involved in what he or she communicates. When people exchange information, they are already sharing themselves, their view of the world, their hopes, their ideals. It follows that there exists a Christian way of being present in the digital world: this takes the form of a communication which is honest and open, responsible and respectful of others. To proclaim the Gospel through the new media means not only to insert expressly religious content into different media platforms, but also to witness consistently, in one’s own digital profile and in the way one communicates choices, preferences and judgements that are fully consistent with the Gospel, even when it is not spoken of specifically. Furthermore, it is also true in the digital world that a message cannot be proclaimed without a consistent witness on the part of the one who proclaims it. In these new circumstances and with these new forms of expression, Christian are once again called to offer a response to anyone who asks for a reason for the hope that is within them (cf. 1 Pet 3:15).