Pagans lived with tragedy and consoled themselves with the idea of fate.
Christians lived with tragedy and consoled themselves with the idea of heaven.
Secular Humanism has no mechanism for dealing with tragedy and concerns itself instead with its elimination.

It is scarcity that engenders manners between people within small communities. Manners are a form of social insurance that becomes habit.
Religion and tradition takes these tribal manners and uses them as morality to ritualise acceptable behaviour in larger societies.
Abundance and individualism is the death of these things. Secularism that has no traditions breaks the links of mutual dependence between people in larger societies. Abundance means that other people no longer matter - social insurance is not required.

The culture of the wealthy is therefore toxic when given to the poor - which is why slums and the underclass lose their moralities and squabble, even while still poor. The communal culture has been eclipsed by a consumer culture that's in their faces - even though it should never have been applied to them.

Love with passion, but do not expect to be loved.
Fight with determination, but do not expect to win.
Live well, but do not expect to live forever.

Stoicism - you know it makes sense in a crazy world.

War in Afghanistan

For all the talk about the war in Afghanistan, it is important to understand that there are actually three wars in Afghanistan.
The first war is the Humanitarian war. This is the war to create stability, democracy, greater women's rights, strong economy, etc. This is the most visible of the three wars.
The second war is the War on Terror war. This is the war that hits the Taliban and conducts raids and drone strikes into Pakistan. This war is less visible and only mentioned when there are casualties.
The third war is the Bases war. This is the firm staking out of military bases to increase US influence and leverage in Central Asia. This war is all but invisible to the media, as it is the most complex but the least interesting to the casual viewer.

The Humanitarian war has already been lost. As an attempt at enlightened Liberal Imperialism it has foundered upon intractable realities and has absorbed billions to little effect. This war will soon be abandoned, taking most of the media journalists with it.
The War on Terror war failed in its initial aim of eliminating the Taliban, thus paving the way for victory in the first war. It now only aims to weaken the Taliban in order to preserve an imperfect pro-western regime. This will be scaled down to a Special Forces and Drone war and will become far less visible.
The Bases war is so far a success. Remote bases are easy to defend and only require the permission of the host government, whoever they are. They can also project future power when necessary, and serve as bases for Special Forces, Intelligence assets and cash outflows to bribe warlords and, if necessary, Taliban to allow gas pipelines going west to be left in peace. They serve as a strategic bargaining chip in The Great Game with China, India and Russia. They will remain largely invisible to a public who don't really care where their troops are stationed in the world, provided they're not dying.
Idealistic aims will give way to realpolitik and the original 'War in Afghanistan' will be forgotten.

Feminism is not really about equality. In its post-war form it emerged from the Left's view of class consciousness - sex consciousness if you like. It is, therefore, a form of sectarianism.

A better society? What outcome do you desire? If you wish there to be peace, declare a dictatorship and rule with an iron will, so that none dare transgress the State or their own neighbours. If you wish for individual liberty, disband the dictatorship and allow everyone to do what they will, to themselves and to each other. If you wish for greater meaning in life, disband the State and break it down into simpler groups where life is poor but tribal identity is palpable and sweet. Which will you choose? Or do you think there is no incompatibility between the modes, and therefore no paradox? Do you really think there is a better society? Better for whom?