Tucker Carlson Lays It On the Line
1 hour ago
Tom Sunic interviews Professor Andrew W. Fraser. Topics include:Part 2 - mp3
- Fraser’s thesis that WASPs surrendered identity based on ties of blood and faith in favor of civic-nationalist pseudo-religion;
- How loss of ethnic identity has made WASPs victims of the successful states and corporations that they created;
- The internationalism of the papacy, and the excesses of American Puritans and revolutionaries;
- How the Anglo-Saxon “spiritual disease” has been imposed on Europe and the rest of the world;
- The orthodox Anglican Church’s potential to bring about spiritual revival for Anglo-Saxon “tribes” around the world.
To me, America’s worship of freedom at the empty shrine bears a striking resemblance to the Church’s worship of the Holy Trinity in the Eucharist. First of all, like the Catholic Church, the empty shrine defines itself as both universal and particular: as a universal idea, that of equal freedom for all, and as a particular country with a particular history, the United State of America. Like the Holy Trinity, absolute freedom is transcendent, unlimited, and infinite. Discourse about freedom, like talk about the Trinity, is necessarily abstract, since to speak in a concrete manner about that which transcends any particular object would be to profane it by limiting it, a kind of idolatry. Since America is not only an abstract idea but also a real place, its worship is both immanent and transcendent, like the Holy Eucharist. The immanent body, blood, and soul of the Eucharist are a thirty-three year old Jewish carpenter from Nazareth, but these are inseparable from His higher identity as the transcendent and eternal Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. The immanent land, citizens, and government of freedom-worship are a 230-year-old regime located in North America, but these are inseparable from its higher identity as the very locus of transcendent and eternal freedom.Dr. Kozinski apparently accepts the Nationalist narrative; the First Amendment is for the protection of the states, it is not an absolute curtailment of religion's influence in the public life. It merely prohibits the Federal Government from appointing a state church that would be imposed on all of the states. It thus respects the states and their identity. Has there been a deliberate substitution of civic religion for true religion by certain politicians and ideologues? Yes, but it is questionable whether this was the intention of those who ratified the Constitution. (For now, I will not deal with the question of the attitudes of those who drafted the Constitution, like Madison and Jefferson, to official religion and religious liberty.) The dominance of liberal ideolgy may be an unintended consequence, not of the Constitution (or the federal union), which respected the rights of the states to determine the question of a state church for themselves, but of the instability of the states and the lack of true communities with stable identities. (The influx of new arrivals and immigrants, the lack of proper education, or rather, the assimilation of the Yankee mythos after the "Union" defeated the Confederacy.) This sort of ethnic pluralism allows liberalism to seem like a reasaonble way of handling differences in culture.
Another of his sins was his consistency. When the rest of the anti-war left got on the bandwagon for American imperialism, Cockburn continued to criticize American's crusades to remake the world in his image. On the other hand, he also consistently defended little people from the gigantic interests of monopoly business and monopoly government. He even opposed gun control, using the Chestertonian argument that it was simply an attempt to disarm and enslave the people. Worst of all, perhaps, in the eyes of the phony left, was the rational skepticism he applied to the religion of Global Warming.
It is an interesting subject. I recently listened to young woman (about 20 or so) deliver some very sobering statistics, in a debate, regarding the physical and emotional health of women who elect to have an abortion. She was making a secular, ethical argument and made no religious argument at all.
In her argument, she cited a number of studies that showed various physical impairments that developed into problems for the mothers as a result of their abortions. But the one that really made a resounding impression on me was a long term study conducted by the University of Michigan, in which their results cited 80+ percent of women who had an abortion felt guilt, remorse, distress and exhibited some form of emotional trauma as a result of their decision to terminate their pregnancy. They reported that these feelings stayed with them throughout their lives, even into their later years.
I thought her argument was well presented, well considered and well cited; it was certainly persuasive. She blew away her opponent's argument with remarkable precision. It was the first time I've heard the argument made in a secular, moral context, and that choice by her neutralized any attempt by her opponent to cast her as a "religious fanatic."
I was impressed by this young woman's argument and by her appeal, as well as her descriptions of the clinical reports detailing the very real, very overwhelming experience of these women.