Friedman’s Love Letter to a War Criminal
18 minutes ago
In recent years cricket has proven to be an efficient instrument for boosting interreligious dialogue (teams are composed of Muslim, Sikh and Buddhist players) and now it has also become a new means of ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Anglicans. When the club was launched back in October, Cardinal Ravasi praised the initiative, calling it an “expression of interculturalism and of “dialogue among peoples”.
As America declines and becomes a failed or failing state, the corporations and businessmen and bureaucrats who run it will continue to preach globalism and multiculturalism and feminism.
They will continue to condemn anything that could be considered racism or tribalism—especially among whites—until they are safely in the minority. They will continue to condemn “male sexism” and continue to promote any kind of go-girl female sexism that emasculates or devalues men. They will continue to promote reverence for their own academic priest class while condemning as “extreme” any religious belief that challenges the moral authority of progressive beliefs. They will continue to promote dependence on the State for security and income and healthcare—for life itself.
FROM THE PASTOR
December 8, 2013
by Fr. George W. Rutler
A young businessman told me that on a recent trip to California he was struck by how insipid the art of conversation had become among those he met there, and that the stock reply to almost every observation or critical comment on any subject was: “It’s all good.” Although New Yorkers might breezily pass this off as typical of the insipidity of what they call “La-La Land,” this insouciance has infected all parts of our society, and anyone walking among pre-Christmas shoppers here on 34th Street can marvel at the epidemic of vacuousness all around. To say of everything, “It’s all good,” is to imply that nothing is bad, and that, in turn, means that nothing is either really good or really bad.
Part of the problem here is that too many of the science media, and too many people commenting here, are assuming that the initial findings of Roger Sperry remain correct: that the left cerebral hemisphere deals with verbal phenomena, while the right deals with non-verbal phenomena. A good layman's presentation of this material can be found in Iain McGilchrist's The Master and His Emissary
A more accurate view, or at least one which is closer to current findings, is that the left hemisphere addresses close-focus processes (e.g., attention to detail, semantics, melody, etc.), while the right hemisphere deals with broad-attention processes (e.g. observation of background, syntactics, background sounds, etc.). As verbal behavior is a complex of integrated right and left brained functions, it should not be surprising from the recent study now cited that women would be better at verbalizing than men.
On the other hand, I think that several conclusions can be drawn from the recent study:
1. It would appear that men tend to work with two parallel tracks: close attention and far attention, simultaneously. This would make them better hunters and warriors.
2. This dual processing system in men would appear to integrate more in the way of executive, motor, and pan-sensory functions. This, by the bye, would explain why men are more quickly able to exercise their common sense or sensus communis than women. (I suggest that argumentative readers go through the wikipedia article on 'common sense' before beginning their disputations on this point).
3. This dual process involving a deeper integration of pan-cerebral functions could explain the reason why the creative process in men (as related by Koestler) involves intense study of a problem, prolonged contemplation, and then sudden insight: that process of cogitation has gone from the left to the right hemisphere, and then back again. It would also explain why the overwhelming majority of scientific, artistic, and literary creative breakthroughs have been (and will continue to be) accomplished by men.
4. The study would also explain why verbal instruction in childhood education works better with girls than with boys. Further, if McGilchrist is correct, a sole focus on semantic and close attention processes would tend to make worse the tendency for left brain activity to suppress right brain activity in males. A more pan-sensory and pan-motor activity approach (i.e. games and sports) would therefore be needed for boys, if people were actually interested in educating them.
I can think of more consequences from the underlying study, but this would appear to be enough to start with.
"The Chinese are generally entrepreneurial , hard-working, family oriented, social conservatives."
That's just dandy, but none of those thing make them or anyone citizens of a nation. Is the qualification for citizenship: must be hard-working, family oriented, and conservative?
Also, they may work hard, but it's to benefit themselves, not the community. They may be family oriented, but they are oriented not around their communal families, but their nation i.e. Chinese families. And like we need more people to vote Republican.
All my Chinese expat friends are moving to Houston. There, they will move out the indigenous population and take over schools and businesses. They will not assimilate or work to improve Texas as a whole. This is all textbook Putnam.
Most importantly, Francis writes that “the Church acknowledges the indispensable contribution which women make to society through the sensitivity, intuition and other distinctive skill sets which they, more than men, tend to possess. I think, for example, of the special concern which women show to others, which finds a particular, even if not exclusive, expression in motherhood.”
“I readily acknowledge,” the pope adds, “that many women share pastoral responsibilities with priests, helping to guide people, families and groups and offering new contributions to theological reflection. But we need to create still broader opportunities for a more incisive female presence in the Church. Because “the feminine genius is needed in all expressions in the life of society, the presence of women must also be guaranteed in the workplace” and in the various other settings where important decisions are made, both in the Church and in social structures.”What Catholic feminist, liberal or conservative, would not cheer him for this? How will the Church mount a resistance to liberalism, statism, and social atomism if endorses the perpetuation of the social structures that are their manifestation?
Even more importantly, says Ryn, Catholics recognize in Straussians figures who share their own “alienation” about living in a predominantly Protestant country. As Canadian philosophy professor Grant Havers documents in a forthcoming book about the studied avoidance by Straussian interpreters of America’s Protestant heritage, Straussians provide a narrative about the American founding that make ethnic Catholics feel secure about their Americanness.
According to the Straussians, America was founded on secular, materialist and democratic principles, but in no way on Protestant ones. Thus, if the Straussians try to de-Christianize and de-ethnicize America, they also conveniently cover up the Protestant aspects of a specifically American tradition.
Catholic Straussians (of whom there are many in Conservatism, Inc.) feel safe living in a “propositional nation” and “global democracy” in which they don’t feel threatened by the real American Protestant (and/or Northern European) American past, extending back to the colonial period. It’s more convenient to jettison such associations for the vision of a constantly changing hybrid society that is held together by universal, egalitarian propositions.