Good review of the Left’s scripture du jour

By fellow French intellectual Guy Sorman at City Journal:

As a source of knowledge, [Thomas Piketty’s] Capital in the Twenty-First Century is formidable; as an ideological pamphlet, it breaks no new ground. The book marshals new data to rekindle old socialist answers. By all indications, the Left has already fallen in love with Piketty’s book; those of other persuasions will find its remarkable trove of data useful. I found particular value in the many anecdotes Piketty shares describing the origins of wealth in various nations throughout history. He convincingly shows that wealth is more often a matter of luck than talent. The question then becomes: should one be punished for his luck? Piketty would say yes. Like a true socialist, he sees himself as a moralist on the side of the angels. Yet, hidden behind the garb of history, statistics, and social science, Piketty’s arguments are more self-righteous than moral.

Predictions, or Probable Trends?

There has been some talk around the political analysis circles lately, and the Czar is reluctant to admit he agrees with all of it. All of it, unfortunately.

Yes, the Czar agrees that the midterm elections will be disastrous for the Democrats, and that Republicans will win the Senate. In fact, the election may be another 2010-level blowout. The Czar cannot recall the last time back-to-back midterms were blowouts, which showcases what an awful president we have. Bottom line is that America seems to be genuinely sorry they voted for Barack Obama’s re-election. Fair enough.

But the Czar also agrees that Republicans will totally squander this victory into more posturing and missteps. Look, the Czar is the first autocrat who will tell you that these stories of Republican infighting between squishy moderates and venom-spewing Tea Partiers is largely a media invention designed to discourage voters from leaning Republican. But the national-level Republican party is so inbred now that a more accurate analogy are the blind banjo duelers from Deliverance, as well as possibly the pig farmers from said movie.

Further, the Czar notes that conservative Republican politics is all the rage on the state level. Blue states are running out of your money, fast, and red states are openly challenging the blue states to account for it. Everyone in either party knows that if you really want successful government, you need to look to Texas and Wisconsin long before you consider Illinois and New York. There are, incidentally, no blue-run states that can claim economic success right now and back it up with anything approaching a fact.

Eventually, Americans will notice this on a larger level; but until they do—unless they do—the national Republican party is not going to matter much. Until and unless America starts dumping most of the inbred pickers out of DC (from both parties), not much will change there. Senators and representatives are comfortable with their limos and lunches, and lobbyists are too happy to swing by the house on Saturday and drop off some promotional Ping clubs for the kids. When a horde of successful state Republicans get elected to displace them, the chaos will be horrific for DC…and generally great for the country. Yes, it happened before.

Alas, this will not happen in time for 2016. Democrats have never been weaker going into a presidential election: Carter was a foreign policy mastermind compared to the utterly bankrupt Hillary Clinton, and Walter Mondale was a genius compared to the village idiot Joe Biden. Know why the media isn’t informing you about a third choice for president? There isn’t one.

Likewise, Republicans have never been stronger. There’s a general popular sense that Mitt Romney was right about everything. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are firing up voters and starting to monitor the crap that comes out of their mouths. Numerous other possible candidates are teasing the media, drawing negative attention away from Paul and Cruz. Younger voters are starting to look at the GOP, and the War on Women ploy has been exposed for what it was.

And yes, the Czar agrees with most analysts who agree the GOP will blow this opportunity big time in 2016. While there may not be this massive secret civil war going on, the party lacks cohesion. There are, if anything, too many quarterbacks. Soiled brands like John McCain and Lindsay Graham are souring the public.

The only thing that can save the Republicans in 2016 is if people get so fed up with Democrats, and so enamored with their state Republicans, that they pull the levers for the Republican candidates all the way down. It’s certainly possible, but the Czar doubts it.

And in 2020, if there are still elections, the only thing that will save the Republicans—maybe the country—is the inevitable reality that the Democrats’ candidate pool becomes so shallow that they can no longer field a competent national candidate. But we’re already there, considering Clinton and Biden. Until the state success stories become the basis of the national Republican party’s platform, not much gonna change.

EMPs: Harden the grid now.

Via Drudge:

The catastrophic effects of an electromagnetic pulse-caused blackout could be preventable, but experts warn the civilian world is still not ready.

Peter Vincent Pry, executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and director of the U.S. Nuclear Strategy Forum, both congressional advisory boards, said the technology to avoid disaster from electromagnetic pulses exists, and upgrading the nation’s electrical grid is financially viable.

“The problem is not the technology,” Pry said. “We know how to protect against it. It’s not the money, it doesn’t cost that much. The problem is the politics. It always seems to be the politics that gets in the way.”

He said the more officials plan, the lower the estimated cost gets.

“If you do a smart plan — the Congressional EMP Commission estimated that you could protect the whole country for about $2 billion,” Pry told Watchdog.org. “That’s what we give away in foreign aid to Pakistan every year.”

In the first few minutes of an EMP, nearly half a million people would die. That’s the worst-case scenario that author William R. Forstchen estimated in 2011 would be the result of an EMP on the electric grid — whether by an act of God, or a nuclear missile detonating in Earth’s upper atmosphere.

Posted in EMP

Stupid Things Liberals Believe: Majority Approval Ends All Debate

‘Puter wrote about Ms. Gunn Barrett’s dipstickery on the topic of New York’s unconstitutional SAFE Act yesterday. ‘Puter would like to revisit Ms. Gunn Barrett’s logic-challenged and fallacious letter to make a larger point about the quality of liberal thought today.

Ms. Gunn Barrett’s letter makes an argument ‘Puter hears more and more from the Left these days. Because a law liberals favor has been enacted, it is thus forever unassailable without regard to the law’s effectiveness or constitutionality.

That’s ‘Puter’s version of liberals’ “shut up and obey already, stupid deltas” argument. Here is Ms. Gunn Barrett in her own tightly scripted, ghostwritten words:

And law-abiding gun owners should comply with a law that was passed by a bipartisan Legislature, is supported by a broad majority of New Yorkers and has been in effect for 15 months.

Furthermore, the SAFE Act has been ruled constitutional by both federal and state courts despite vigorous efforts by the corporate gun lobby to block it.

‘Puter’s going to give you a breakdown of liberalism’s current go to argument’s logic.

Clearly, liberals have found the one truly irrefutable argument. ‘Puter cannot assail the unassailable, he’s just not that bright. So ‘Puter guesses he’ll just have to resort to the only problem solving method that got him through Algebra II/Trigonometry in his Jesuit high school days: plug and chug.**

  • Liberals in a deeply blue state favor regulation of a constitutional right.
  • The constitutional right is exercised primarily by conservatives.
  • The constitutional right is strongly disfavored within the deeply blue state.
  • Liberal legislators draft a sloppy, deeply flawed law banning exercise of a significant portion of the constitutional right.
  • Conservatives sue to overturn the unconstitutional law with some very limited success.
  • The law has been in effect for less than two years and has had no appreciable effect on crime rates.
  • The law has engendered widespread disregard for the law among otherwise law abiding citizens, many of whom have refused to comply with the law’s onerous and confiscatory diktats.
  • Liberals state this deeply flawed, short lived law, crammed through the legislature using chicanery and upheld by elected judges beholden to liberals for campaign funds, is unassailable.

Liberals know they cannot win the argument on the merits, so they resort to claiming the matter is settled and therefore not a suitable topic of debate any longer. Liberals know sympathetic media will cover for them, but this argument assumes Americans will ignore its numerous glaring fallacies.

Liberals would never, ever permit conservatives to steal the bases liberals have were the tables turned. Consider, for example, liberal media darling Wendy Davis’ “abortion now, abortion tomorrow, abortion forever” attempted filibuster of a moderately restrictive abortion law in the Texas Senate. Liberals screamed that requiring abortionists to maintain clean facilities and be adequately trained was akin to raping women. Liberals also ranted that requiring a woman to decide five months after having consensual sex whether or not to kill her child was an undue burden, completely ignoring the undue burden death causes the child. If liberals were consistent, conservatives could have simply claimed “it’s the law,” and liberals would have had to admit defeat and move on.

But liberals aren’t consistent. The only consistency in a liberal’s mind is that liberal ideas are the greatest good, to be protected at all costs. The most reprehensible means are justified by great liberal ends achieved.

Take ObamaCare, a law so bad it had to be crammed through Congress without a single Republican vote using procedural trickery and bribes to drag its bloated corpse to Obama’s desk for signature. Americans now know what many of us said for years. ObamaCare’s a bad law, damaging to our country’s health care system, bankrupting to middle class Americans and fiscally unsustainable in the long term. Worse, Americans now know Obama lied through his teeth not only to get the law passed, but to prevent massive Congressional losses in the 2012 elections.

Sure, Obamacare’s a horrible law. And sure, Obama and the Democrats knew when they passed it the law sucked. But ObamaCare can’t be changed. It’s the law. Just ask Obama and his catamites in the White House Press Corps.

So let’s let Democrats and liberals have their argument. We can politely remind them of some other things that, by virtue of their logic, are law and must immediately be reinstated.

  • Slavery
  • Segregation
  • Poll taxes
  • Disenfranchised women and minorities
  • Prohibition of alcohol
  • Prohibition of interracial marriage
  • Prohibition of gay marriage
  • Prohibition of birth control
  • Prohibition of abortion
  • No federal income taxes
  • No federal administrative agencies
  • No New Deal programs
  • No Great Society programs

‘Puter could go on like this for hours. Suffice it to say, liberals don’t really believe “it’s the law” is an acceptable argument. How does ‘Puter know this? Because if liberals actually believed their crappy logic, courts would immediately strike down a great many laws and programs liberals worship as false gods because “it’s the law.”

When liberals say “it’s the law,” what they really mean is “shut up, obey us and ignore the horrendous mess that our ideas have wrought.”

It’s pathetic, but “shut up” is the only argument liberals have to defend the indefensible.

* “And at this hour of the morning, ‘Puter’s barely sober.,” adds Czar knowingly.

** Or, as this mathematics instructor refers to in, substitute and evaluate, which sounds much more acceptable.

What Are You Doing With Your Life?

GorT’s eldest is a junior in high school and therefore we are knee-deep in the college search process including the SAT and ACT, picking a college, road trips to rule out (or in) various universities and the whole financial planning side of things.  The college guidance department at her school and the resources they have made available have been nothing short of outstanding.

You know what that makes you? Larry! Lollygaggers!

You know what that makes you? Larry!
Lollygaggers!

This past week, GorT and daughter took a day trip to a small university nearby that offers a broad set of degrees in the arts and sciences.  She’s already been to 8+ schools so she is getting a pretty good sense of what she wants to look for in a school and we’ve determined that attending an information session and tour is key to finding out some of that.  At this university, the senior who presented the information session – and did a very good job of doing so – periodically peppered in her own experiences with various aspects of the school’s offerings including studying abroad, internships and some of the course offerings.  Early on, she introduced her major as “American Studies” and I believe she said she was pursuing an Art History minor.  Later she mentioned two of the study abroad opportunities she took advantage of: a week or two long tripto Cuba to study the influence of Jazz in Salsa music and a semester in Jordan to study Arabic.  Her coursework sounded equally as disjoint.  I could not help myself but to begin thinking during the presentation, “Miss, what are you going to do with your life?”  I do not begrudge or doubt that our civilization needs people with creative abilities and historical knowledge of such areas.  But I wonder how she’s going to fit into the statistic that she touted that stated that the university’s graduates have a 93% “placement” success rate within six months – meaning that within six months of graduation, graduates are working full-time, enrolled in full-time graduated school or volunteering/working via AmeriCorps or the Peace Corps, etc.  Well, maybe she’ll find something of the latter.

She didn’t connect on a personal level with my daughter who is interested in the sciences, specifically the medical or forensic science fields but nonetheless the presenter did a good job of conveying the information about the university.  I hope she finds success, however she defines it, in her future as she graduates later this Spring.

Mailbag: Spooky Vets Edition

Gentle Readers, the Retired Spook writes:

Force-Lightning_EP3-IA-95899_R_8x10

Dr. J. providing constructive feedback.

Dear Dr. J.,

Thought you might find this story interesting.

Tuesday night, I got home from work to find that only one of the horses had showed up for feeding, so I grabbed a flashlight and went looking for the errant member of the herd. Followed the nickers, and found her standing on three legs, looking so pitiful it would break your heart. I had to go get a feed bucket and bribe her to move at all, and she refused to put ANY weight on the right forefoot. 

Got her to the barn, cleaned the injured hoof, and could find nothing wrong, but a lot of heat in the hoof, and heat w/swelling in the coronary band (the hairline above the hoof). Called our family vet just after 7 PM, described the situation, and he said he’d be right over. It’s nearly 20 miles of rural roads from his office to the house, but he made it in 25 minutes.

He diagnosed it as an abscessed hoof, and spent nearly an hour with a hoof knife and tester trying to determine the best way to deal with it, the options being to drain it through the sole of the hoof, or if the abscess is too high up in the hoof, to let it work it’s way out at the coronary band. Finally decided on plan B, and he loaded her up with injections of antibiotics and painkillers.

Before he left, he gave me oral antibiotics, oral pain meds, and a probiotic (while also recommeding cheap fruit-flavored yogurt, to help restore intestinal bacteria) as well as instructions on how to soak the hoof.

He also spent a few minutes to calm me down, and assure me that this would be ancient history by next month.

So, he made an after-hours farm call, did an examination of the hoof, injected meds, left more meds, and needed a bandaid because he’d cut himself with the hoof knife. Total charge? $205.00

I got home from work Friday, and it took me five minutes to catch the mare in question because she wanted to run around and play silly-buggers. Yes, actually running! Not quite Derby territory, but a far cry from that pitiful creature who wouldn’t let that hoof touch the ground three days before!

If you had any idea how panicked I was on Tuesday, you’d understand why Dr. H is my hero today.

Just thought I’d share,

Best wishes,

Retired Spook

Dear Spook,

Thanks for writing in!

A great vet, like a great doctor, is worth his (or her) weight in gold. Dr. J. is blessed to be surrounded by a number of great choices. Loki J’s breeder used one vet who Dr. J.’s spoken to to get old records, and she is kind, gentle and has a tremendous bedside manner. Dr. J.’d switch to her but he’s been using his vet group for 13 years (for 3 cats and 2 dogs) and is equally happy with them. Even when a tech was a little unprofessional with Mrs. Dr. J. and then with Dr. J. regarding Lady J.’s spaying last year, the senior partner received Dr. J.’s negative feedback constructively and used it as an M&M conference on professionalism. After all, feedback is a gift.
He also apologized on her behalf, mortified at her lack of sensitivity to Mrs. Dr. J. and the kids in graphically describing the procedure to them, and for referring to Lady J. as a drama-queen to Dr. J. If she were our first pet with them, we’d not likely have returned for follow up. As we have a long track record, Dr. J. knew it was an anomaly, provided fraternal correction, and moved on.

Indeed, a month ago, Loki J. got corneal abrasion and had to take a trip to the puppy ER followed by close follow up with the vet, and they were fantastic. Sounds like you have a winner too!

Best,

Dr. J.

 

 

New Yorkers Who Merrily Transgress Constitutional Rights: Idiot SAFE Act Supporters Edition

The delightfully named executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, one Leah Gunn Barrett,* takes to the pages of today’s New York Times to display her ignorance of firearms, government and law, not necessarily in that order.

Ms. Gunn Barrett** clearly derives onanistic pleasure from her self-satisfying regurgitation of demonstrable falsehoods, all in service of the great liberal god(dess) of gun banning.

Here are a few of ‘Puter’s favorite rhetorical ejaculations:

A Deadline for Grandfathered Weapons” (editorial April 15) is right in saying that registering assault weapons in New York under the SAFE Act is no big deal. After all, owners of assault weapons before the law’s passage can keep them as long as they register them.

Ah, yes. The old “the Second Amendment’s no big deal” argument liberals know and love. Let’s try this, gun-banning true believers.  See if you can get behind the same sentiment in this slightly rewritten paragraph.***

“A Deadline for Abortion Recipients” (editorial April 15) is right in saying that registering before receiving an abortion in New York under the SAFE Act is no big deal. After all, women who could receive abortions before the law’s passage can still receive abortions as long as they register.

“But ‘Puter, that’s not the same thing at all, you wymyn hating misogynist!”, scream the shrill, humorless sisterhood of hirsute feministing rape culture pre-vyctyms. You’re right, Sister Chia Pet Leg Foliage.**** It’s not the same thing at all.

The pesky Second Amendment is actually in the Constitution (in the Bill of Rights, no less), with no need to go searching the penumbras for emanations like abortion supporters must. It is logically inconsistent and legally incoherent to believe abortion restrictions are subject to a more stringent standard than firearm restrictions.

But wait, there’s more! Ms. Gunn Barrett gunsplains to us ignorant firearm owners why restricting “military-style assault weapons” is so very, very important.

The ban on military-style assault weapons is an important part of the law. Experts, like those in law enforcement who understand firearms, tell us that each of the features on an assault weapon serves a specific military combat function. Civilian assault weapons retain the specific design features that make them so deadly.

“See, stupid ‘Puter! You don’t even know that specific design features make scary guns even more deadly!”, say the millions of New Yorkers backing the SAFE Act who have never seen, much less handled, a firearm.

Again, ‘Puter must confess the iron clad, unassailable logic of Ms. Gunn Barrett’s argument. It is indisputable that the only people capable of opining on the characteristics of firearms are “[e]xperts, like those in law enforcement who understand firearms.”

There are no known circumstances where any member of law enforcement has used a weapon in an unsafe manner. Certainly not in New York City, and certainly not within the last two days.

But wait a minute, Ms. Gunn Barrett. What about the specific military design features that make “[civilian assault weapons” so deadly? Tell us more, please. We’re all ears.

Those features are not cosmetic but are what distinguish assault weapons from traditional sporting rifles. Such weapons of war have no place in our communities.

Of course! How could ‘Puter have been so stupid! Just look at this list of features banned by New York’s misnamed SAFE Act, each of which is a tragedy waiting to happen! Governor Cuomo has sensibly banned possession of any semiautomatic rifle capable of receiving a detachable magazine if the rifle also has any one of the following features: folding or telescoping stock; protruding pistol grip; thumbhole stock; second handgrip; bayonet mount; flash suppressor, muzzle brake; muzzle compensator; threaded barrel; and grenade launchers.*****

Glory Moses, thank you Ms. Gunn Barrett! ‘Puter was mightly afeared of a gun with a detachable magazine, like nearly every single pistol in current production. And goodness knows the damage that could be wrought without a ban on folding stocks and pistol grips! Why, ‘Puter might get pinched when a wrongdoer attacks by attempting to crush ‘Puter between the stock’s foldy parts! ‘Puter positively feels faint when he sees a pistol grip or second handgrip, because ‘Puter knows in his heart of hearts that scary looking cosmetic characteristics are better indicators of potential damage than a firearm’s rate of fire and magazine capacity, not to mention the skill of the firearm’s operator.

Flash suppressors are not useful for any legitimate purpose, like coyote hunting in season at night so as not to be blinded by muzzle flash. And there’s no way anyone like an amateur competitive shooter would ever want a threaded barrel to accommodate a muzzle brake or muzzle compensator to increase her accuracy in shooting competitions.

And if you’re truly worried about stabbings, rifle mounted bayonets are the least likely method of inflicting stab wounds ‘Puter could think of. Reforming New York’s lax knife laws would be a better use of your time. And grenade launchers? Really? Let’s assume ‘Puter’s very bad scary shooting thing has a grenade launcher. It’s already illegal for ‘Puter to possess grenades, so where’s the need?

Ms. Gunn Barrett has an answer to ‘Puter’s question. Without oppressive and borderline if not outright unconstitutional firearms regulations, New Yorkers would slaughter each other on a scale unseen since the Civil War.

The SAFE Act, through measures like universal background checks on gun and ammunition sales, a stronger ban on assault weapons and tougher penalties for illegal gun use, will protect communities across the state. Our strong gun safety laws are the reason New York has the fourth lowest gun death rate in the country.

Ms. Gunn Barrett like all good liberals believes only government can protect us from each other. ‘Puter, like all rational humans, worries less about his neighbors owning firearms than about a government that disarms him in the name of protecting him.

Liberals who are unbothered by government infringement of their neighbors’ constitutional rights should not be surprised when the tables are turned and they find their favored rights infringed. Don’t come crying to ‘Puter then, liberals, because he won’t be able to help you.

You see, you’ve disarmed him.

* Come on. That’s good stuff. A gun banning New York City harpy named both “Gunn” and “Barrett?” You can’t make that stuff up.

** Or is it simply Ms. Barrett? Or Ms. Gunn? ‘Puter never knows with these hairy-legged, anti-choice, bigoted city dwellers. Take your husband’s name, keep your own name, ‘Puter doesn’t care. But in the name of sanity, pick one name. What’s going to happen when your only child Wilberforce Gunn Barrett marries Lesbiana Barrett Browning? Are the wedding announcements going to read “Join us in a zero carbon footprint, Gaia-centered joining ceremony for the future Barrett Browning Gunn Barrett ( or is it the Gunn Barrett Barrett Brownings)”? Damned liberals, ruining everything for everyone in the name of a misguided sense of equality or some other leftist horse crap.

*** This is also known as the ‘Puter Postulate. Simply put, an anti-gun argument advanced by liberals will be immediately disclaimed if the word “abortion” is substituted for “gun,” “assault rifle,” “scary black bang stick” or “ERMAGERD! THET GUN SKEERED MEE SEW BAD AH CRAPPED MAH PASHMINI UNDIEEZ!!1!” as circumstances require.

**** Don’t blame ‘Puter. That’s the name this young wymyn took in honor of the great groundbreaking Native American feminist Sen. Pocahontas Warren (Du-MbAss). Keep your shames off our names, oppressor!

***** ‘Puter actually owns a “weapon of war,” an operable and used in battle Japanese Arisaka Type 99 rifle (chambered in 7.7mm Jap, for those who care), complete with crazy anti-aircraft sights (really) and a bayonet lug. This rifle is not affected by Governor Cuomo’s poorly conceived SAFE Act.

A Piece of the Action

Even Kirk got a piece of the action...

Even Kirk got a piece of the action…

The Obama Administration announced yet another delay in the Keystone XL Pipeline.  After multiple delays citing environmental issues (none found) and other such nonsense, now they are citing a Nebraska court case that could possibly affect the route of the pipeline.

This issue should be a plain and simple slam-dunk for Republicans.  You have democrats crying foul about it including Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA): “Today’s decision by the administration amounts to nothing short of an indefinite delay of the Keystone pipeline.  This decision is irresponsible, unnecessary, and unacceptable.”  In fact, 11 democrats (many facing tough battles this fall) wrote President Obama a message urging him to make a decision by the end of May.  Clearly, this is being done for political reasons.  All of these cases and complaints could have been addressed quickly and either a go or no-go decision made.  

It’s simple:  President Obama is anti-job.  This pipeline will get built – whether it ships to Canadian harbors on the west coast or south through the United States, that oil will get extracted and processed.  We just need to decide whether we want a part of the action in terms of jobs and revenue.

While the democrats continue to blast the GOP recently during their gloating over the 7.5 million people enrolled in ACA*, specifically saying that the GOP has no alternative plan to offer**, the democrats continue to fumble on any sort of plan for jobs recovery.   Instead, they continue to put up roadblocks in front of any sort of pro-business, pro-growth policy.  How obstructionist!

* As discussed, this number is relatively meaningless until more details are forthcoming.
** And the GOP has offered alternative options but the Senate democrats have blocked them

When Americans built in beauty

Turn-of-the-century New York’s transformation.

When Le Corbusier visited New York in 1935, he was already known as a fervent advocate of high-rise construction, so the New York Herald Tribune found his disdain for the city’s recent crop of tall buildings both surprising and amusing: “Your skyscrapers are too small,” he huffed. Of course what he found lacking in the streetscape was the “tower in the park”—his vision for a new urbanism based on point towers, arranged with Cartesian rigidity, of a density sufficient to allow open public space, highways, and landing strips at their bases. While Corbu and his allies were reacting with furiously destructive impulses to free their visions of the future from the very real and beloved context of old Europe, Americans—and New Yorkers in particular—were bent on creating their own modern cities on a basis that was completely antithetical to the tenets of the budding modernist movement: The new architecture of New York was fueled in equal parts by robust capitalism and by assertive mastery of the lessons of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. The modernists were at the very least uncomfortable with capitalism and completely rejected the historical basis of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts pedagogic model. But the American students at the Ecole were able to export their training to great ends back home.

Meanwhile, in developments that could change the world

From the Telegraph:

Less than four decades later, some believe China is now poised to become not just the world’s number one economy but also its most numerous Christian nation.

Chinese Christians surround Sanjiang Church (Protestant) in Wenzhou to defend it against government threats of demolition.

“By my calculations China is destined to become the largest Christian country in the world very soon,” said Fenggang Yang, a professor of sociology at Purdue University and author of Religion in China: Survival and Revival under Communist Rule.

“It is going to be less than a generation. Not many people are prepared for this dramatic change.”

China’s Protestant community, which had just one million members in 1949, has already overtaken those of countries more commonly associated with an evangelical boom. In 2010 there were more than 58 million Protestants in China compared to 40 million in Brazil and 36 million in South Africa, according to the Pew Research Centre’s Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Prof Yang, a leading expert on religion in China, believes that number will swell to around 160 million by 2025. That would likely put China ahead even of the United States, which had around 159 million Protestants in 2010 but whose congregations are in decline.

By 2030, China’s total Christian population, including Catholics, would exceed 247 million, placing it above Mexico, Brazil and the United States as the largest Christian congregation in the world, he predicted.

There’s a pretty good book on this that came out some years ago: Jesus in Beijing by David Aikman.