No, these are deliberate teaching moments, showing that the pope takes a maximalist conception of "universal teacher" seriously, and is willing to use the mass media for this end, enhancing the papal personality cult in the process.
Italian journalist Costanza Miriano has written a book, now available in English, about the struggles and joys of modern married life, and why complementarity between spouses is much bigger than who does the housework.
Collapse will happen; if Trump is sworn in January then it will be the case that collapse will not be hastened by a Hilary Clinton presidency.
Are we witnessing the rise of Anglo-Celtic-European-American ethno-nationalism? Or merely just the rejection of politics as usual? How many are reacting against an overt anti-white bias in the media and the Democratic party?
The Alt Right is not moving for just a return to what the national identity was before leftists began exploiting identity politics among blacks and other ethnic minority groups, as that national identity seemed to have been focused on some version of civic nationalism or the proposition nation and is dead. Rather, a true ethnic identity based on ethnicity (or race) and Western culture (of which Christianity is an important part). This is what Vox Day calls the Alt West part of the Alt Right but I think he is correct in thinking that it will become the dominant part of the Alt Right. The Alt White part, in so far as it is focused purely on race and may even reject Christianity, will not gain in influence.
Rod Dreher may not like identity politics, but is he like delusional whites (and East Asians) who think that virtue signalling in real life and on mass media is proof that they are members of an actual people, or that they will be recognized AS A "righteous white (or Asian) person" by NAMs?
A people has a shared identity and culture and recognized mutuality, with ties of intermarriage. (What a political organization adds is a constitution (not necessarily a written one, but a constitution in the Aristotelian sense) -- and the resulting organization need not be some version of a legitimate Aristotelian polity, as the priorities may be focused on a certain group rather than the organization as a whole -- e.g. the clan.)
Liberal atoms who shriek the same ideology or SJW concerns to others do not make a people.
Will there be just one white American people or many? Perhaps there will be at least two, if white Southrons can hold on to a distinct heritage and culture. It is not clear that the paleo project of preserving an American heritage and culture going back to the colonies will be successful everywhere.
East Asian democracy is a joke -- the adoption of "democracy" by those countries seeking to modernize, when those peoples had not previous experience or education in democracy reveals what a stupid idea it was.
Hong Kong seems to have too many naive idealists who don't understand politics as the art of the possible but would rather make a name taking some stand unlikely to garner support internationally or have any sort of real consequence for protecting Hong Kong's unique freedoms. They may think they are ready to be suppressed and suffer the consequences from the Mainland, but why are they so willing to cause difficulty to their fellow Hong Kong people? Outright defiance is not possible, and they do not have the means to make Hong Kong independent, so why this sort of stupid talk?
A couple of months ago John Derbyshire asked why Chinese people seemed incapable of democracy, despite being "well-educated." Book smarts is not the same as political smarts, or the political virtues. Chinese people have no real tradition of republicanism -- Aristotle's observations of those to the east who live under empire and not suited for any other life is applicable not only to the Persians. Chinese people have lived thousands of years under despotism, soft or hard, and the character-shaping culture has been created accordingly.
Some Chinese may like their heroic bloodshed novels or movies, idealizing brotherhood with those who are not family members, but in a mass culture with no opportunity for alternative communities, institutions to develop, and where loyalty is directed primarily to the clan and others are recognized mostly through commercial ties and nothing more, they simply have no real practice with republicanism.
(It is intriguing to compare the development of the clan-focus in Scotland with that of China, as the causes are very different?)
Despite the movies, how many people really romanticize of the triads or conflate it with the jianghu of wuxia novels? While triads may have some rituals to bind their members to one another, in the end, they are criminal organizations that seek to make a living at the expense of society. What real loyalty do the heads of these gangs have to their members? How many would be willing to sacrifice their brothers to save their own skin?
Even in small local villages, how much equality is there between families? In the past there were leading families who benefited from having an education and passing the imperial tests. How much of this was really changed by the Communists?
Democracy then turns out to be nothing more than the manipulation of the masses by the few -- oligarchy under the guise of democracy.
"The Solidarists also diverge sharply from Trump on a number of his signature issues. One is immigration: the ASP platform calls unabashedly for amnesty, takes a jab at border walls, and implies that global inequality makes immigration “a necessity” for many workers."
What is the party's stance on feminism? Is American Solidarity Party a true Christian Democrat Party? Or churchian Democrat Party? It seems to be trying to replace the Democratic party but I don't think it will go anywhere because it does not acknowledge the concerns that what's left of white America has with its culture, identity, and nation.
Solidarity Hall promotes a similar "third option" and seems to involve more Catholics.
Who else will stand for economic liberty? Or distributism or some other economic "third way"? People associated with Solidarity Hall seem to be communitarians who value the common good and solidarity, but without any knowledge of how communities come into being, and often without any concern for proper scale. Solidarity is mentioned as a principle of Roman Catholic Social Teaching and is not really distinct from legal justice or political friendship, but seems to be an amalgam of the two. But these Christian "solidarists" like to moralize on certain issues (immigration, social justice) and are probably leftists in that respect. They assume that community exists but they do not understand that it doesn't, nor do they understand how it originates. For this reason they will continue to be ignored while ethnonationalism continues to rise.
Thought the Saker's latest was a bit surprising -- he talks about the conflict between Christians and Jews: The Ancient Spiritual Roots of Russophobia. Sadly, his view on the relationship between Western and Eastern churches is a skewed Russocentric one.
If it weren't for the development of the Western patriarchate and the corresponding notion of Christendom, would we have this sort of widespread erroneous application of the Gospel now within the patriarchate of Rome?