THE NEW SPACE RACE: NASA Astronauts Gear Up for Boeing Starliner’s Groundbreaking Test Flight.

THIS IS HARDLY NEWS: Taking the stairs may up the odds for a longer life. “Folks who regularly climb stairs have a 24% reduced risk of dying from any cause, and a 39% reduced risk of dying from heart disease, compared to those who always take the elevator, researchers found. Stair climbing also is associated with a lower risk of developing heart disease or suffering a heart attack, heart failure or stroke, results show.”

Of course, healthier people are more likely to take the stairs to begin with.

EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN! Back in 1968, Paul Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb, kicking off a whole slew of doomsday literature and documentaries, and similarly-apocalyptic science fiction movies from Hollywood that wouldn’t stop until the massive success of George Lucas’ Star Wars completely upended the American movie industry in 1977. Perhaps leftist “intellectuals” were simply driven utterly mad when Richard Nixon won the presidency in 1968; this 2010 segment of Matt Novak’s Paleofuture YouTube series gives a hint of the tone of the first half of the 1970s:

And with Trump showing surprisingly good poling numbers (insert the usual insta-reminder to eschew cockiness here), the Politico have dusted off their bell-bottom jeans, platform shoes, grown some groovy long sideburns, and is ready to boogie on back to the doomsday population trend! The Far Right’s Campaign to Explode the Population.

The threat, we are told here this weekend, is existential, biological, epoch-defining. Economies will fail, civilizations will fall, and it will all happen because people aren’t having enough babies.

“The entire global financial system, the value of your money, and every asset you might buy with money is defined by leverage, which means its value depends on growth,” Kevin Dolan, a 37-year-old father of six from Virginia, tells the crowd that has gathered to hear him speak. “Every country in the developed world and most countries in the developing world face long-term population decline at a level that makes growth impossible to maintain,” Dolan says, “which means we are sitting on the bubble of all bubbles.”

Despite this grim prognosis, the mood is optimistic. It’s early December, a few weeks before Christmas, and the hundred-odd people who have flocked to Austin for the first Natal Conference are here to come up with solutions. Though relatively small, as conferences go, NatalCon has attracted attendees who are almost intensely dedicated to the cause of raising the U.S. birth rate. The broader natalist movement has been gaining momentum lately in conservative circles — where anxieties over falling birth rates have converged with fears of rising immigration — and counts Elon Musk, who has nearly a dozen children, and Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán among its proponents. Natalism is often about more than raising birth rates, though that is certainly one of its aims; for many in the room, the ultimate goal is a total social overhaul, a culture in which child-rearing is paramount.

NatalCon’s emphasis on childbirth notwithstanding, there are very few women in the cavernous conference room of the LINE Hotel. The mostly male audience includes people of all ages, many of whom are childless themselves. Some of the women in attendance, however, have come to Austin with their children in tow — a visual representation of the desired outcome of this weekend. As if to emphasize the reason we’re all gathered here today, a baby babbles in the background while Dolan delivers his opening remarks.

Broadly speaking, the people who have paid as much as $1,000 to attend the conference are members of the New Right, a conglomeration of people in the populist wing of the conservative movement who believe we need seismic changes to the way we live now — and who often see the past as the best model for the future they’d like to build. Their ideology, such as it exists, is far from cohesive, and factions of the New Right are frequently in disagreement. But this weekend, these roughly aligned groups, from the libertarian-adjacent tech types to the Heritage Foundation staffers, along with some who likely have no connection with traditionally conservative or far-right causes at all, have found a unifying cause in natalism.

This just in: religious people seek to make babies! Speaking of which, the Politico’s long-form article feels much like a Bizarro World version of Mark Steyn’s America Alone book from 2006, which grew out of a lengthy Wall Street Journal and New Criterion article Steyn published at the beginning of that year headlined, “It’s the Demography, Stupid.”

Most people reading this have strong stomachs, so let me lay it out as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries. There’ll probably still be a geographical area on the map marked as Italy or the Netherlands–probably–just as in Istanbul there’s still a building called St. Sophia’s Cathedral. But it’s not a cathedral; it’s merely a designation for a piece of real estate. Likewise, Italy and the Netherlands will merely be designations for real estate. The challenge for those who reckon Western civilization is on balance better than the alternatives is to figure out a way to save at least some parts of the West.

One obstacle to doing that is that, in the typical election campaign in your advanced industrial democracy, the political platforms of at least one party in the United States and pretty much all parties in the rest of the West are largely about what one would call the secondary impulses of society–government health care, government day care (which Canada’s thinking of introducing), government paternity leave (which Britain’s just introduced). We’ve prioritized the secondary impulse over the primary ones: national defense, family, faith and, most basic of all, reproductive activity–“Go forth and multiply,” because if you don’t you won’t be able to afford all those secondary-impulse issues, like cradle-to-grave welfare.

Americans sometimes don’t understand how far gone most of the rest of the developed world is down this path: In the Canadian and most Continental cabinets, the defense ministry is somewhere an ambitious politician passes through on his way up to important jobs like the health department. I don’t think Don Rumsfeld would regard it as a promotion if he were moved to Health and Human Services.

The design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birthrate to sustain it. Post-Christian hyperrationalism is, in the objective sense, a lot less rational than Catholicism or Mormonism. Indeed, in its reliance on immigration to ensure its future, the European Union has adopted a 21st-century variation on the strategy of the Shakers, who were forbidden from reproducing and thus could increase their numbers only by conversion. The problem is that secondary-impulse societies mistake their weaknesses for strengths–or, at any rate, virtues–and that’s why they’re proving so feeble at dealing with a primal force like Islam.

Speaking of which, if we are at war–and half the American people and significantly higher percentages in Britain, Canada and Europe don’t accept that proposition–then what exactly is the war about?

We know it’s not really a “war on terror.” Nor is it, at heart, a war against Islam, or even “radical Islam.” The Muslim faith, whatever its merits for the believers, is a problematic business for the rest of us. There are many trouble spots around the world, but as a general rule, it’s easy to make an educated guess at one of the participants: Muslims vs. Jews in “Palestine,” Muslims vs. Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs. Christians in Africa, Muslims vs. Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims vs. Russians in the Caucasus, Muslims vs. backpacking tourists in Bali. Like the environmentalists, these guys think globally but act locally.

I eagerly await Politico exploring that topic.

TREAT YOURSELF: Snailax Shiatsu Neck and Shoulder Massager. #CommissionEarned

YOU ARE FUNDING CAMPUS HATE: Well, if you pay your federal taxes, that is. Open the Books dug into the federal spending database and found that, for example, Columbia University got $5.7 billion from the feds between 2018 and 2022. Harvard, Yale and pretty every other school that has allowed anti-semitic demonstrations in recent weeks also got in on the beaucoup bucks. Check out my latest column on PJMedia.

THE EV BUBBLE DEFLATES: Hyundai will build more hybrids to supplement slowing EV demand.

SECRET BALLOTS ALLOW THE SILENT MAJORITY TO SPEAK: Israeli student elected by Columbia for role of student president as protests surge. “Columbia University has elected Israeli student Maya Platek as Columbia student government president for the 2024-2025 school year, the organization Students Supporting Israel (SSI) announced Friday. The election of an Israeli student for the role comes as the Columbia campus experiences an overwhelming wave of anti-Israel protests and encampments. Platek has been determined to speak up for Jewish students on campus as a member of SSI, an organization that, according to its website, aims to allow for a pro-Israel voice on college campuses.”

Bullying is much harder when you can’t identify targets. And the left’s power on campus — and most everywhere else — is based on bullying.

SPACE: Falcon 9 launches Galileo navigation satellites.Falcon 9 launches Galileo navigation satellites.

OCEANIA HAS NEVER BEEN AT WAR WITH ISRAEL: Pro-Hamas Protesters Seek Amnesty, Pardons to Protect Careers.

Maryam Alwan figured the worst was over after New York City police in riot gear arrested her and other protesters on the Columbia University campus, loaded them onto buses and held them in custody for hours.

But the next evening, the college junior received an email from the university. Alwan and other students were being suspended after their arrests at the “ Gaza Solidarity Encampment,” a tactic colleges across the country have deployed to calm growing campus protests against the Israel-Hamas war.

The students’ plight has become a central part of protests, with students and a growing number of faculty demanding their amnesty. At issue is whether universities and law enforcement will clear the charges and withhold other consequences, or whether the suspensions and legal records will follow students into their adult lives.

As noted above, the students are fearful that their arrest records and suspensions will “follow them into their adult lives.” Based on their recent actions, I realize that we’re not dealing with the fastest set of tractors on the farm here, but I have a news flash for these rioters. Nearly every one of you is at least 18 years old and some of the juniors and seniors are in their twenties. You are already in your “adult life,” despite the fact that you’re not acting in a very mature fashion.

In 1993, at a Cato Institute dinner, P.J. O’Rourke famously said, “There’s only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.”

Why aren’t today’s college protestors willing to live the consequences of their actions? It’s almost as if they’re still in the Marlon Brando, “What are you rebelling against? Whaddya got?” Jurassic school of reactionary protests, and don’t actually believe in the cause du jour.

UPDATE (FROM GLENN): This is what they’re worried about: Dox ’em! Let’s make the Ivy kids have to choose between their support for baby beheaders and those cushy jobs after graduation. Big business is ready to withdraw the job offers; all they need are the names…

The 1968 Columbia protesters asked for, and got, amnesty, as I recall. It set a bad precedent.

Related: Education Apocalypse Now?

HMM: Ron Baron Describes Unreleased Tesla FSD.

ROGER KIMBALL: Uncharted territory in court and on campus: The current of viciousness and unthinking sloganeering, so at odds with the stated purpose of these pampered institutions, is breathtaking.

The two big stories du jour are 1) the continuing campus assault on sanity, brought to you by the pro-terrorist “death-to-America-Death-to-Israel” lobby, and 2) the circus of the nationwide legal manhunt against the once and future president of the United States, Donald Trump.

Regarding the former, this video showing two Columbia students displaying their solidarity with brave protestors at NYU sums up one portion of the insanity:

Interviewer: Why are you protesting?
Protester #1: I don’t know. I’m pretty sure there’s something about Israel [turns to friend] Why are we protesting?
Protester #2: I wish I was more educated.
Protester #1: I’m not either.

File that under “Clueless Overprivileged College Ignoramuses” or (apologies to Tennyson) “In the Spring a Young Girl’s Fancy Lightly Turns to Thoughts of Protest.”

Much darker is the current of — well, I was going to say “antisemitism,” but really it is snarling, anti-civilizational hatred, the objects of which are incidentally Jews and Israel, but more broadly are America and “the West” generally. Emblematic was the mob of Yale students on Beinecke Plaza shouting “Viva, Viva Palestina” as they tore down an American flag and cheered when it hit the ground. . . .

Also breathtaking is the whole-of-government assault on one man, Donald Trump. As I write, two big cases are before the Supreme Court. One, hailing from ashes of Enron’s collapse, has to do with whether a statute devised to criminalize the willful destruction of documents can be deployed against people like the January 6 protesters, many of whom were accused of “obstructing an official proceeding,” just as those Enron executives were accused of doing. Except, of course, the cases are wildly different. Many observers expect the Court to find for the defendant, in which case, Donald Trump, too, will see some of the charges against him evaporate.

The other case has to do with presidential immunity. When the issue was raised by Trump, people tended to scoff. But then people began to speculate about what might happen if presidential immunity were circumscribed. Would Barack Obama, say, be open to prosecution for killing two Americans in a drone attack? Would Joe Biden be liable for the murder of Laken Riley, who was killed by an illegal immigrant, present in the country only because of his administration’s border policies? Wouldn’t every past president be open to prosecution by his successor? And would that transform the presidency into a ceremonial office, whose occupants would be overcautious to the point of timidity?

Most observers believe that the Court will find for Trump by a 5-4 or possibly a 6-3 margin. But it will not necessarily be smooth sailing then. It seems likely that the Court will say that the president has immunity — but only for his official acts. Were Trump’s actions with respect to the January 6 jamboree official acts or private acts? Any bets?

Since the case is likely to go back to the Obama-appointed DC judge Tanya Chutkan, we can bet that she will say “private acts” and endeavor to convict him. Trump would than appeal, but the appeal, I believe, would go to a three-judge panel in Washington, i.e., to another thoroughly biased left-wing kangaroo court. Trump could then appeal to the Supreme Court again, but the Court might well refuse to revisit the case. That would bring us well into the fall, maybe past the election. What happens then?

It’s Civilizational Jenga all the way down.

But:

I have a suggestion, though. Why doesn’t the Supreme Court contrive some way to short circuit this appalling vendetta, this unprecedented political persecution of a popular presidential candidate who has the enmity of the regime the the love of the common people? How could they do this? Easy. Impose the world’s greatest change of venue. Be creative. In order to save “Our Democracy,” let the people be the jury. Let the voters decide. It’s a novel idea, I admit, but nothing else has worked.

An idea so crazy, it just might work.

JACK SMITH MAY HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM: Former Attorneys General Ed Meese and Michael Mukasey point out in an Amicus Brief that Special Counsel Jack Smith lacks credible authority to bring a case against former President Donald Trump:

“Those actions can be taken only by persons properly appointed as federal officers to properly created federal offices. Smith wields tremendous power, and effectively answers to no one,” Meese and Mukasey told the Supreme Court in their brief.

“However, neither Smith nor the position of special counsel under which he purportedly acts meets those criteria. And that is a serious problem for the rule of law, whatever one may think of the conduct at issue in Smith’s prosecution.”

The Epoch Times’ Naveen Athrappully notes that Justice Clarence Thomas raised the issue during the High Court’s hearing on the immunity of the President. One wonders if the forthcoming ruling on the immunity issue might prove to be more damaging to the Biden administration’s case against Trump than anybody expects.

HMM: CNN Poll: Trump maintains lead over Biden in 2024 matchup as views on their presidencies diverge.

FOUR YEARS AGO TODAY: Texas restaurants, retailers and other businesses can reopen Friday. Here’s the rules they have to follow.

Gov. Greg Abbott’s plan to reopen Texas will allow some businesses — like retail stores, restaurants, movie theaters and malls — to open as early as Friday, with new rules outlined by the governor’s taskforce.

Abbott also said a second wave of openings and looser restrictions that will include barbershops, hair salons, bars and gyms could go into effect as early as May 18, as long as the state sees “two weeks of data to confirm no flare-up of COVID-19.”

It would take Abbott another 10 months before declaring on March 2nd, 2021:

TO BE FAIR, IF YOU’RE LIVING NEAR GREEN SPACE YOU’RE PROBABLY RICHER: Study suggests that living near green spaces reduces the risk of depression and anxiety.

But it does suggest that advocates of high-density urban living may be in effect advocating for depression and anxiety. Of course, maybe that’s not a bug, but a feature: Neurosis and the Curley Effect.

Reading all of these pieces I’m seeing a story that goes something like this: Depressed, neurotic people (especially single women) are more likely to support Democrats. Democrats support policies and messaging that produce more depressed, neurotic people, especially single women.

Now maybe this is an accident, but maybe it isn’t. Enter the “Curley Effect.” As this Harvard paper notes, “James Michael Curley, a four-time mayor of Boston, used wasteful redistribution to his poor Irish constituents and incendiary rhetoric to encourage richer citizens to emigrate from Boston, thereby shaping the electorate in his favor. As a consequence, Boston stagnated, but Curley kept winning elections. . . . We call this strategy—increasing the relative size of one’s political base through distortionary, wealth-reducing policies—the Curley effect. But it is hardly unique to Curley.”

Making the populace (especially women) more fearful, depressed, and neurotic is undoubtedly bad for societal wealth and happiness. But does it yield votes for Democrats? Clearly yes. Are they doing it on purpose?

Cui bono?