I would add that the closing verse of the book of Judges is “In those days there was no king in Israel and everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” The chaos that develops from a negative world leads to a king - a political king - because people don’t submit to the King of kings. Saul became king of Israel - not God. People will not live in chaos but will bring in a secular king. Trump, whether you like him or not presents that image. The existing political class is a king in its own right because it uses its elite status and power to dictate to the nation. What we just witnessed was the exchange of one king for another. The Trump kingdom appears to be more in line with Christianity, but we will see.
Side note: I would disagree with the notion that mass immigration was ever meant to displace the native population. Rather, it was always meant to fill in the missing. The Turkish gastarbeiter, for example, were meant to fill in for the millions of German men who died in WWII.
Then Western governments started noticing their countries' fertility rates were going down, and, understanding that their economic regimes were dependent on there being multiple workers per retiree but being unwilling or unable to be pro-natal, decided to turn to immigration as a source of population growth.
IOTW, things like Merkle bringing out the welcome wagon for the Syrian refugees weren't meant as a replacement of native-born and ethnic Germans, the way some left-wing identitarians want and right-wing identitarians fear; rather, they are an attempt to make up for the millions of babies that were never born.
That is indeed a great review of your book. Congrats, Aaron, on having someone engage with it so thoughtfully. "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes." The Book of Judges frame seems an excellent corollary to your observations about the breakdown of public morality in essays like "What Does Donald Trump's Victory Mean for the Negative World?"
On the contemporary European model of marriage (or lack thereof):
My understanding is that in much of Europe, marriage is viewed as something that only religious or highly traditional people do; even upper-middle class people with conservative lifestyles will regularly have long-term relationships in which they raise children together without ever seriously contemplating marriage. And I don't think this is especially new; I believe it came into place some decades ago, at least in countries like France and the Nordics.
I actually find it curious that marriage has thus far persisted so stubbornly as an ideal in the US among all but the most radical social liberals. This was not my prediction 10-20 years ago (especially in the wake of Obergefell), when I expected this group to converge towards the European marriage model in lockstep with its convergence towards European levels of secularization. I wonder to what degree Europe's history of state churches explains its abandonment of marriage, which was always associated with those churches. Or, alternatively, does the superlative single-parent chaos in the US cause more grassroots support for marriage as an ideal, to resist that chaos?
I would add that the closing verse of the book of Judges is “In those days there was no king in Israel and everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” The chaos that develops from a negative world leads to a king - a political king - because people don’t submit to the King of kings. Saul became king of Israel - not God. People will not live in chaos but will bring in a secular king. Trump, whether you like him or not presents that image. The existing political class is a king in its own right because it uses its elite status and power to dictate to the nation. What we just witnessed was the exchange of one king for another. The Trump kingdom appears to be more in line with Christianity, but we will see.
Side note: I would disagree with the notion that mass immigration was ever meant to displace the native population. Rather, it was always meant to fill in the missing. The Turkish gastarbeiter, for example, were meant to fill in for the millions of German men who died in WWII.
Then Western governments started noticing their countries' fertility rates were going down, and, understanding that their economic regimes were dependent on there being multiple workers per retiree but being unwilling or unable to be pro-natal, decided to turn to immigration as a source of population growth.
IOTW, things like Merkle bringing out the welcome wagon for the Syrian refugees weren't meant as a replacement of native-born and ethnic Germans, the way some left-wing identitarians want and right-wing identitarians fear; rather, they are an attempt to make up for the millions of babies that were never born.
That is indeed a great review of your book. Congrats, Aaron, on having someone engage with it so thoughtfully. "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes." The Book of Judges frame seems an excellent corollary to your observations about the breakdown of public morality in essays like "What Does Donald Trump's Victory Mean for the Negative World?"
On the contemporary European model of marriage (or lack thereof):
My understanding is that in much of Europe, marriage is viewed as something that only religious or highly traditional people do; even upper-middle class people with conservative lifestyles will regularly have long-term relationships in which they raise children together without ever seriously contemplating marriage. And I don't think this is especially new; I believe it came into place some decades ago, at least in countries like France and the Nordics.
I actually find it curious that marriage has thus far persisted so stubbornly as an ideal in the US among all but the most radical social liberals. This was not my prediction 10-20 years ago (especially in the wake of Obergefell), when I expected this group to converge towards the European marriage model in lockstep with its convergence towards European levels of secularization. I wonder to what degree Europe's history of state churches explains its abandonment of marriage, which was always associated with those churches. Or, alternatively, does the superlative single-parent chaos in the US cause more grassroots support for marriage as an ideal, to resist that chaos?