Saturday, May 16, 2020
Why are our people not told to keep their immune system strong Vit D, Zinc and Vit C, to eat healthier(reduce the refined carbs),deaths can be prevented #Covid_19 look at facts @CyrilRamaphosa @HealthZA @jsteenhuisen @helenzille @ProfTimNoakes A must watch https://t.co/UiCJ0pDLfg— DrJacques Van Staden (@DrjacquesC4D) May 14, 2020
In this podcast with Ben I specifically talk about carving one’s own BEST path in life, the kind of mindset it takes and ultimately how it boils down to defining your own spiritual approach to it all. https://t.co/T5UhLWPDJx— Erwan Le Corre (@ErwanLeCorre) May 16, 2020
CWR: Recalling the glory of St. Joan of Arc on the 100th anniversary of her canonization by Father Seán Connolly
“One of the most original aspects of this young woman’s holiness,” said Benedict XVI in 2011, was a “link between mystical experience and political mission.”
Reductive nationalism can only be tamed by linking it to a universal that does not attack the natural human solidarity of place & people. If liberalism is allowed to be the only universal then it will win - paradoxically nationalism needs a non-ethnic internationalism of the good— Phillip Blond (@Phillip_Blond) May 16, 2020
Nationalism is not the primary problem; the primary problem is still the state. But even if the state were to fragment into republics organized on a human scale, there would always be the tendency for some to attempt to consolidate and centralize again because of disordered self-love and pride, whether it be in the name of ethnic unity or defense from outsiders or the "common good." At best we can achieve an international order based on mutual respect, or at least the desire not to get entangled with the affairs of others, and that is only if everyone is converted to Christ. Until then, there will be strife and no non-ethnic internationalism is going to prevent that without accumulating power to the few.
Want something different than flying swordsmen with magical powers? Looking for serious historical fiction with realistic Chinese martial arts? My novel Dragons and Boxers has both! Fight scenes like this: #kungfu #wuxia @EarnshawBooks #taichihttps://t.co/5pa8kmpG5N— Kyle Fiske - Author (@KyleFiskeauthor) May 16, 2020
.@PTBwrites: "America may not be a young nation, but it is a young multi-racial democracy. Many leftists want to draw a clear line from the march on Washington[...] to their favored cause du jour. In adopting this framework, Caldwell gives too much away." https://t.co/WGt3rUjRi9— Public Discourse (@PublicDiscourse) May 13, 2020
The book provocatively illustrates the fault lines in what different strains of conservativism try to conserve. But I was left thinking hope (not, needless to say, optimism!) is one virtue those tempted towards this reading of history (Caldwell and Coates alike) should cultivate.— Patrick T. Brown (@PTBwrites) May 13, 2020
The author, Patrick T. Brown: "We can deem the immorality of racial segregation to be an appropriate reason to use state power without conceding that every social difference gives an equally justifiable reason for government intervention; and, in so doing, we can help smooth the transition from an age of entitlement to an age of responsibility."
If he wants a future in politics. What else could he possibly say? He's also written for America Magazine. Training to be a policy wonk/swamp creature. It may be necessary for him to establish his credentials as someone mainstream/moderate etc. He'll never be more than a cuckservative, and he doesn't look like he will either.
Friday, May 15, 2020
Rod Dreher: First Things And Changing Times
However, in reflecting on how Neuhaus made First Things the most important magazine of its kind, I recognize that it’s not simply that being in New York, he could have cigars with the Greats when they passed through town. It’s that being in New York puts you at the white-hot core of American cultural change. I’ve often thought that a political magazine like National Review would be better off relocating from Manhattan to Dallas (while keeping a Washington bureau). I believe that First Things would lose something important if it left New York, even though New York is about as post-Christian as a major American metropolis can be. I lived in New York for five years, and though it is quite easy to be dazzled by the bright lights and thereby to lose sight of what the rest of the country is seeing, it is also true that to live in New York is to be in a position to see the future before everybody else.The future of blue America, perhaps.
The Trump ascension obviously signaled the diminishment of authority of conservative institutions, including magazines. It’s a confusing time. First Things has tried to seize the Trump moment, clumsily. I realized over the past day, thinking about this current controversy with Reno, that the fear that Reno was making the same mistake that Neuhaus and Weigel did, hitching the magazine too closely to Washington politicians and causes, has been gnawing at me for a long time. Consider, though, how difficult this challenge is facing any editor of First Things: how to be relevant to current debates in public affairs without aligning yourself too closely with a party or politician? It’s even harder when you see yourself as a player, as First Things was from 1990 until the end of the George W. Bush administration. You can’t be a player without picking a team. What if the team captain is Donald Trump? You see the problem. Well, that’s not a problem for some Christians, but the community of intellectual Christians who read and write for First Things are divided sharply in ways that we weren’t in the Neuhaus era.What sort of relevancy do outsiders really have to the elites? Maybe there would be a U.S. representative or two who would be sympathetic, but would the sort of attempt at mass culture of which First Things is a part have persuaded those in the Deep State, for example? Federal judges who have an erroneous understanding of the Constitution? Lawyers? Oligarchs? Cultural Marxists?
This is still the fundamental problem of conservatives, who accept the premise of liberalism that all are equally rational and open to persuasion. They are not.
What a bizarre situation: conservatives as the ones who have failed to preserve institutional knowledge.The reader really hits hard on these two related issues: institutional capture by technocratic liberals, and conservative resentment of expertise.
Once the trust characterizing high-trust societies has been lost, it cannot be easily regained, especially if trust is replaced by clear animosity. Red Americans need to have leadership from those whom they trust and will stand with them in life's difficulties, not nannying from outsiders who despise them, and telling them that they are qualified "experts" won't solve the trust and credibility gap.
We beseech God, the Almighty, to safeguard the entire world, to help us overcome this pandemic, to restore security, stability, health, and prosperity, so that, once this pandemic-crisis is over, our world may become a better place for humanity. pic.twitter.com/vai9QTQBRq— U.S. Catholic Bishops (@USCCB) May 14, 2020
Many men are married to strong-willed women who insist on being in charge, and these husbands get tired of fighting. Consequently, they give up. Men aren’t cut out for emotional warfare, so it’s easier to let his wife be in control. https://t.co/1YMs0ODLVv— Suzanne Venker (@SuzanneVenker) May 15, 2020
#BREAKING: President @realDonaldTrump leads first unfurling the flag of the United States Space Force (@SpaceForceDoD).— The Hill (@thehill) May 15, 2020
The flag will stand in the Oval Office alongside other service branch flags. pic.twitter.com/rpReDs5fv5
Boldly based pic.twitter.com/Px4eHEqb7D— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) May 15, 2020
The new Pike series will be as woke as STD and Picard.
The most neglected, disinvested places in America might be exactly the ones with a real future in the lean years ahead. https://t.co/ZsF5QxVy5R— The American Conservative (@amconmag) May 15, 2020
For our latest episode, Hong Kong pro-democracy activist and politician @joshuawongcf joins us to discuss his experiences and his vision for the future.— Oxford Union (@OxfordUnion) May 15, 2020
Click here to listen:https://t.co/nb0yFatpjI pic.twitter.com/895jRRXKFa
Some are complaining about America's giving members of the "other side" a platform without criticizing him for his support of Vigano, etc.
Do US Jesuits still support the Pope or not? https://t.co/cnMk6FNIv5— Massimo Faggioli (@MassimoFaggioli) May 15, 2020
“Scott Hahn praises ‘courageous’ leadership of Burke, Viganò, Schneider” (April 20, this year) https://t.co/cnMk6Fw7Dx— Massimo Faggioli (@MassimoFaggioli) May 15, 2020
Warrior Poet Society
We look to @Jhkunstler as one of our most trusted guides. Here he talks about the COVID-19 crisis, its impact on cities and suburbs, our broken supply lines, and how to live well in the long emergency. https://t.co/KO7XHP4F96— Strong Towns (@StrongTowns) May 15, 2020
In Africa, populations living along the Nile River, where the plague was introduced by slaves and Arab traders, abandoned their river towns, including Asyut, and fled to remote areas up the Nile to escape the pandemic. The Arab scholar and historian, Ibn Khaldun, wrote that a spirit of “asabiyya” protected some North Africans from the plague. He defined “asabiyya” as a communal attachment to the land, whether it was the Sahara Desert or the Atlas Mountains. Ibn Khaldun points out that self-sufficiency and a shared commitment to the tribe is what saved to Bedouin and Sanhaja of the Sahara and the Berbers in the Atlas mountain range. The same degree of self-sufficiency and independence was seen in parts of Belgium, Switzerland, Bohemia, and Poland, as well as city-states in the Bight of Benin in West Africa that owed their allegiance to the Yoruba kingdom of Ijebu. They represented places where the Black Death had little to no impact.
We see the same reliance today on local authorities. Governors of states of the United States, Brazil, and Mexico are heeded by the populace over central government leaders. Regional groupings of American states – in the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast – have stepped up to handle Covid-19 policy in the absence of any clear direction from the Trump administration. This support for local government is seen in polling that shows that 59 percent of Americans rate the Covid response by their local governments “excellent” or “good.” The numbers dramatically decrease when asked about the Trump administration’s response.
The same appreciation for local and state authorities exists in India. At the end of April 2020, the states of Goa, Sikkim, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, and Tripura were declared Covid-19 free. These and other Indian states that see a decrease in Covid infections will make every attempt to keep it that way. In India and other nations, internal border controls, health checks for travelers, increased local police authorities, and other measures may become permanent. And with such local and regional control will come a popular insistence on a devolution of other powers to state and local control, including public health, taxation, commerce, residency permits, and other functions.
The “asabiyya” concept of self-sufficiency to guard against repeat phases of Covid-19 and other pandemics may eventually lead to the formation, or re-formation in some cases, of the independent city-state and other polities that would have as their first priority the health safety and security of their compact populations, whether they are urbanized areas like Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai, Venice, Barcelona, New York City, London, Gaza, Aden, Labuan, Sao Paulo, Istanbul, Mumbai, Karachi, Bangkok, Saigon, Shanghai, and Lagos or distinct regions and territories like the Basque country (which succeeded in surviving the Black Death virtually unscathed), Scotland, Kerala, Flanders, Puerto Rico, Sarawak, Sabah, American Samoa, Zanzibar, and Mindanao.
But what will the response of the elites and oligarchs be? Will they try to prevent this from happening?
Thursday, May 14, 2020
"A long time ago—during the 2010s—a young, Harvard-educated veteran from the Deep South crossed paths with Washington’s most senior Republican intellectual. His name was Tom Cotton. His mentor’s: Bill Kristol." https://t.co/6yGM69hxr5— The American Conservative (@amconmag) May 15, 2020
Given the history between Neuhaus and paleocons, First Things being discredited as an intellectually serious journal would not be a bad thing. And it does push for Judeo-Christianity as well as historically favoring neoconservatism and neoliberalism...
My point is that the First Things crisis — if you can call it a “crisis,” and I think you can — is not just a crisis for that magazine, but it symbolizes a broader and deeper crisis on the intellectual Christian Right.
The crisis is only with conservatives attempting mass politics and persuasion through mass culture. It may be that the exercise of rhetoric against opponents is more effective on social media, but are there any conservative, Christian intellectuals seeking mainstream respectability who are capable of the necessary rhetoric?
Catholicism is also a mess. The vision that inspired Neuhaus, George Weigel, and their team of thinkers in the 1980s and 1990s crashed and sank, and not just on the shoals of the abuse scandal and the Iraq War, and not just on the rocks of the progressive Francis papacy. The loss of the gay marriage issue was a crushing blow, because so much of the traditional Christian cause has been tied up in countering the Sexual Revolution. I don’t need to go into why that has been the case. You can read my “Sex After Christianity” piece from 2013 for insights, and you can read this excellent Darel Paul essay in the current issue of First Things, who explains that “queerness has conquered America because it is the distilled essence of the country’s post-1960s therapeutic culture.” If you had to summarize the mission of intellectually serious conservative Christians since the 1980s (as distinct from mere political activists or pietists), it would be to create a robust opposition to the country’s post-1960s therapeutic culture.Do the Latin churches have problems, including a problem with institutional credibility due to their handling of the clerical sex scandals? Yes, with respect to Roman Catholics and non-Roman Catholics.
A new study funded by the government has revealed, shockingly, that the solution to all problems is to give more power to the government.— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) May 14, 2020
This handy infographic summarizes the findings of the incredible, ground-breaking study: pic.twitter.com/JEFN3MUvEX
Our friends at @Liberty_Fund are offering a huge sale on books through 2020...and ISI followers get 60% off classic titles!!— Intercollegiate Studies Institute (@ISI) May 4, 2020
Use the promo code ISI60 when you shop. Enjoy!https://t.co/HbyHQCuL72 pic.twitter.com/zDp2vNKYtN
The American Mind: The Rise and Fall of the Pajama-Boy Nietzscheans by C. Bradley Thompson (Encounter Books)
The founders’ Americanism is most identifiably expressed in the leading political documents of the founding era: the Declaration of Independence, which Thomas Jefferson said was an “expression of the American mind,” and in the revolutionary state constitutions as well as the federal Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The classical liberalism of the founding era assumed that individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are grounded in nature and that government’s primary responsibility is to protect those rights.Another nuAmerican lecturing Americans about what America is. No thanks.
This meant that government must be impartial in adjudicating rival conceptions of the good life. That is not to say, however, that the founders’ liberal order was not grounded on a robust moral foundation—it was.
The practical implementation of these principles created the freest and wealthiest nation in human history. It also created the most moral nation known to man. The founders’ frontier republicanism created a nation of self-owning, self-governing, self-starting, and self-reliant men and women who lived by a rigorous moral code defined by certain uniquely American virtues: rationality, independence, initiative, industriousness, frugality, enterprise, creativity, adventurousness, courage, optimism. America’s liberal order was forged when the ideas of Thomas Jefferson passed through the Cumberland Gap and were put into practice by men like Daniel Boone and women like Annie Oakley.
This is precisely why hundreds of millions of immigrants—myself included—have come to this place for over 245 years. This is not flowery or filio-pietistic rhetoric. These are easily demonstrable facts. Those facts have sometimes been messy and ugly, but on the whole the rise of the United States of America may be the world’s greatest story of human achievement. There was a time, of course, when most Americans (especially conservatives and libertarians) agreed with this assessment. Sadly, that is no longer true.
We published this because it represents a lot of academic/intellectual murmurings these days about folks like @SohrabAhmari & @PatrickDeneen (neither are Nietzscheans) & recent discussions at our own @theammind. Let’s have it out in the open, shall we?https://t.co/hmjabau9Dh— Matthew J. Peterson (@docMJP) May 13, 2020
I can’t take this. I’m standing outside doubling over laughing. He’s saying our Founding does not encompass:— Sohrab Ahmari (@SohrabAhmari) May 13, 2020
I’m shocked that an aggregate of consumer-citizens, whose relationship to the state is defined solely in abstract juridical terms, can’t act with a common purpose https://t.co/lxzbmOiUm5— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) May 14, 2020
Yes, let's follow the High-School Libertarian. pic.twitter.com/IFjJmg7dYr— Rafael de Arízaga (@RafaeldeArizaga) May 14, 2020
What I mean by LOCALISM.— Nassim Nicholas Taleb (@nntaleb) May 13, 2020
Linked to subsidiarity: you leave to HIGHER collective structures things that cannot be done by the individual, under constraints of liberty. We need govt where we can't sue (systemic harm: viruses, GMOs, invasions).
Govt is the systemic risk mgr.
This presumes the current political arrangements of the United States, that there is a national ("federal") government...
Rod Dreher: Class War as Culture War and ‘Civil Rights’ And Totalitarianism
The Federalist Radio Hour: PlayerFM
The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties – Dennis Prager with Christopher Caldwell
Chuck Chalberg: Christopher Caldwell’s “The Age of Entitlement”
Peter Y. Paik: Civil Rights Against Civil Society
Steve Sailer: Civil Rights Gone Wrong
Seth Barron: America Unraveled: Christopher Caldwell’s new book argues that, for the past half-century, the U.S. has been effectively living under two competing constitutional regimes.
Darel E. Paul: Clashing Rights
Liberal democracy’s difficulties are always with us. But a reasonably just regime seems more prudent than claims for a non-partisan regime of truly virtuous rulers. https://t.co/9pStu0e77G— Law & Liberty (@LawLiberty) May 12, 2020
When James Hankins’ humanists promote virtue and humanist learning as solutions for tyranny they are being naïve. https://t.co/VCVTThNfyb— Richard Reinsch (@Reinsch84) May 12, 2020
The Complicated Politics of Virtue by Mark Blitz
Mark Blitz is probably a Straussian. Still, it doesn't seem like the book is that helpful and one should probably read the primary sources themselves instead. As for a book detailing the influence these Renaissance thinkers had on actual statesmen... what book covers that?
Wednesday, May 13, 2020
A true believer in the oligarch's "free markets" and "free trade"...
Law and Liberty podcast
Makes me question if Acton himself was able to make the connection between his brand of liberalism and the loss of political liberty that he supposedly feared. Maybe Acton was just another intellectual whoring himself out for the elites.
The Russian Orthodox Church and Coronavirus by Regina Elsner
Rethinking the Question of “Relevance to the System”
If they wanted to criticize the Patriarchate of Moscow for its handling of COVID-19, couldn't they have gotten one of their own to do it? Instead, they publish an essay written by someone who appears to be Latin, though she is identified as a "Catholic theologian." Why? For the appearance of getting a "neutral" observer to make some observations? Did they observe the protocol set forth in the New Testament, of issuing a fraternal correction privately first? One might say that a lay(wo)man is not a peer of the patriarch of Moscow and could not get a private audience with him. Then why not just write a letter? Why publish something for the world to see? The patriarch of Moscow himself might not be offended, but if a member of the patriarchate were to read this and be offended, could we blame him? And if this contributed to the poisoning of relations with Roman Catholics because of this one Catholic theologian? What then? I think it can be safely said that the exercise of fraternal charity may require the observance of protocol.
Even if one jurisdiction disagreed with another in their handling of the COVID-19, especially decisions to keep churches open and the like, this should have been done privately and fraternally. If there are no clear laws being broken, how can one judge the prudence of another in a public forum? Ah, but they broke the law of charity by putting people at risk of getting infected! Maybe they did; I certainly don't have all of the facts of the matter, nor do I know what sort of conditions were set by the ROC authorities on participation in liturgies. Were they negligent? Again, these concerns should have been expressed through fraternal communication, not by a website/organization that is not an official organ of GOARCH or the patriarchate of Constantinople, but being led by theologians.
This bickering between jurisdictions is petty and scandalous. Regardless of whether an actual schism exists or not, the schismatic spirit is to be avoided.
Fordham University: Orthodox Christian Studies Center
Just finished @bronwenmcshea’s “Apostles of Empire”. It’s excellent. The story of the French Jesuits in New France provides plenty of food for thought as regards the relationship between Christians and the temporal power in non-liberal societies. https://t.co/FtdKZ0rLqr— William (@Amariusque) May 11, 2020
CWR: A Jesuit Empire by Dr. Samuel Gregg
Bronwen McShea’s Apostles of Empire: The Jesuits and New France demonstrates how French Jesuits simultaneously spread the Catholic Faith and the cause of France in the New World.
Thomistic Institute: Apostles of Empire: The Jesuits and New France | Prof. Bronwen McShea
Adrian Vermeule's review for America Magazine
I was thinking of the divisions between Apostolic Christians and Christians and Pharisees in particular, but divisions due to "identity politics" is in the back of my mind, too. Even if peaceful separation were possible, it probably wouldn't last long, as not everyone will embrace sustainable lifestyles as collapse proceeds. Rather, conflicts over resources will underlie any conflict between identity groups that have separated.
As for the various errors embraced by Rome to justify different pastoral strategies, I don't think they will be rectified soon, and until they area, reconciliation between all Apostolic Churches seems unlikely.
All we can do is trust in God, ask for His assistance in rectifying ourselves, and live charity (which includes the order of charity) towards those around us, while we work for the best possible solution while preparing for the worst possible outcome.
New vid!— Lauren Chen (@TheLaurenChen) May 12, 2020
With all the new cam girls on OnlyFans, established sex workers are worried about the competition for men's money.
Plus, the Ahmaud Arbery shooting has white progressives keen to show black people their efforts to raise "anti-racist" children.https://t.co/sA8srsz1Tr
The second emblematic memory from that papal pilgrimage came on March 26 when John Paul walked slowly down the great esplanade before the Western Wall of Herod’s Temple, stopped at the Wall, bowed his head in prayer, and then—like millions of pilgrims before him—left a petition in one of the Wall’s crevices: God of our fathers, you chose Abraham and his descendants to bring your Name to the nations; we are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant. Amen. Joannes Paulus PP. II. These two episodes give us the key to understanding Pope St. John Paul II. He could preach solidarity, embody solidarity, and call people to a deeper solidarity because he was a radically converted Christian disciple: one who believed in the depth of his being that salvation history—the story of God’s self-revelation to the People of Israel and ultimately in Jesus Christ—is the deepest truth, the inner truth, of world history.
How many Jews converted to Christ because of John Paul II? What was the justification for not preaching Christ to the Jews? If there needed to be a healing of memories, why should that be only one-sided? Any preaching about the political duties and obligations of Jews living in Christian countries, or formerly Christian countries, or political consequences if they reject these responsibilities and identities? If there needs to be a time out, a hands-off approach so that memories can be healed, let memories be healed, but both parties must recognize the wrongs that have been committed, and there must be an honest expression by both parties of what they find at fault with the other. Are both partners equal in their dialogue?
Was Abraham a Pharisee? Moses? David? The Maccabees? How can John Paul II then call Pharisees "our elder brothers"? Our elder brothers are Abraham and the righteous ones of the Old Testament, followed by the sons of Israel who came to know Christ and believed, the first Christians. Christianity is not a "Jewish heresy," it is the true Judaism, if we can even put Christianity into the category of "religion" and rename it such. Would the Israelites have said they had a religion that was to be called "Judaism"? The system of belief and worship could be given a name as being particular to their people, but is that how they would have understood the system, or would they have given priority to God in understanding their "religion"?
John 8:39, Galatians 3:7-9 -- but Saints John and Paul, both true Jews in their ethnicity, which was superseded by their supernatural adoption by God, are anti-semites? Perhaps much of the confusion can be attributed to Vatican II and John Paul II. We can get a document from the Roman Curia like this as a result:
COMMISSION FOR RELIGIOUS RELATIONS WITH THE JEWS
"THE GIFTS AND THE CALLING OF GOD ARE IRREVOCABLE" (Rom 11:29)
A REFLECTION ON THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO CATHOLIC–JEWISH RELATIONS ON THE OCCASION OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF "NOSTRA AETATE" (NO.4)
In its critical parts, this document uses bad exegesis and equivocation to support its claims regarding the heirs of the Pharisees. It also avoids a discussion of the parts of the Gospel of St. John and the letters of St. Paul that would also be relevant to a Christian discussion of the Pharisee religion/Talmudic Judaism.
None of the claims by John Paul II, Vatican II, or various documents from the Roman Curia, or any other Latin source for that matter, touching upon the adherents of Talmudic Judaism or Talmudic Judaism itself can be infallible, since they involve judgments of particulars that do not directly pertain to the Christian Mystery, except the question of salvation. How are we to be saved? And the Gospel and Tradition are quite clear on that: through the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ. Hence the necessity of the document Dominus Iesus. Either Talmudic Judaism is the same as the salvation by Christ, or it is not. There is no alternative, even if some Christians attempt mental gymnastics to create one. A religion which is predicated upon the denial that Christ is the Son of God cannot be salvific, regardless of the subjectivity of its adherents, who may be saved despite their erroneous beliefs. That religion cannot be the faith of Abraham, which is not something Abraham gives of his own initiative, but is a response to God Himself.
Weigel's attribution of solidarity to John Paul II seems to mean nothing more than the "human fraternity" being pushed by Francis. Human solidarity is not equal, not even comparable to communion with the Most Holy Trinity.
Thread:— Jonathan Haidt (@JonHaidt) May 3, 2020
1. I join emerging consensus that “screen time” is not well-linked to mental health problems for teens. Yet @jean_twenge and I find that most studies that clear “screen time” do not clear social media for girls. Great summary by Markham Heid:
It must be nice to have financial security like that at a think tank or an academic institution and not have to worry about real survival. "But financial security allows me to speak the truth about important issues." Sure.
The Fall of Fertility: How Redefining Marriage Will Further Declining Birthrates in the United States https://t.co/sp8D5jjpHj— Public Discourse (@PublicDiscourse) May 10, 2020
Seriously, all these academics, "conservative" or "integralist" or whatever label they prefer... show us how much you care about republican virtue, political liberty, the common good... all of this talk is meaningless if you don't have skin in the game, when you are living under the protection of your employer, sheltered from unemployment because you have tenure or some other form of financial security thanks to your employer.
Representing Aristotelianism, Thomism, and Phenomenology (Edith Stein).
Part of the problem is due to the format -- less than 40 minutes, divided up among 3 speakers of 3 different traditions, meant to complement each other and provide the foundation for the next speaker. Instead, we end up with no single account that is developed satisfactorily.
I didn't bother to take notes. Off the top of my head:
1. The Aristotelian presentation focused on the mean and that it is relative to us. A good point but she didn't go any further because of time constraints.
2. Re: the Thomistic presentation. He jumped to a metaphysical account of sex differences, without looking at the physical or biological account execept superficially, was a mistake.
3. (2) Reminds me that the Aristotelian categories of being needs to be reconsidered in light of everything that has been discovered since then about natural substances of all degrees of complexity.
4. The account of the relation of soul to body as form to matter is wrong. While the proposition that biological sex is rooted in matter (taken from Aquinas), this does not mean that sex is not related to form. It depends on how one understands the relation of matter to form, and I have to say again that natural philosophy, physike, has been neglected by Catholic academic philosophers for too long.
5. The Phenomenological presentation: Virtues are the same for men and women but they are colored for men and women (or perceived? to be different). But why resort to univocal naming when analogous naming is possible? As for a sort of unitary quality, manliness or womanliness, well I would prefer to use those words to talk about subrational or corational differences.
I am not going to write much here about the essay. Latin integralists should be criticized; but should they be criticized based on the historical association of integralists with political movements deemed unsavory? At least he doesn't call them Naz1s! One of his criticisms of the Latin integralists is that they are young men who haven't grown up in institutions that would have enabled them to acquire republican virtue. He offers the Roman Catholic parish as an example of such an institution, and was mocked by Latin integralists for doing so. I can't disagree with them on that score, and find it difficult to believe that he has more "republican virtue" than the Latin integralists, nor does he have that status with which he can lecture Latin integralists. He isn't young, but he is barely middle-aged, and not a senior, and while some of the followers of Latin integralists are young, the prominent advocates are not. If he is going to "save" the young ones, what does he have to offer than parish life for them?
Arguably, republican virtue started to die out after 1865. And it is unlikely that any of these intellectuals will do the things that real American republicans would say are necessary, instead of some sort of LARPing through academia or the internet or social media.
Want to do something that is politically relevant and may even be necessary for the future? Get in shape, G&G up, and train. How many of these "conservatives" or "integralissts" are going to do that? In that respect, various prepper groups are way ahead in the game, and they don't need to preach about republican virtue as they are living it.
A Strawman and a Scotsman Walk into the Café de Flore by James M. Patterson
The critical alliances that integralists struck with fascists during the interwar years has had a considerable influence on neo-integralists from L. Brent Bozell’s Triumph to the present. https://t.co/DBeJeRiMBZ— Law & Liberty (@LawLiberty) May 11, 2020
I think his understanding of the Constitution as supreme is wrong, but he is following his conscience and believes it is part of his duty to protect the liberty of the people.
ZeroHedge: Seattle Cop Prepares To Be Fired After Refusing To Remove Viral Video Reminding Officers Not To Obey 'Tyrannical Orders'
View this post on Instagram
I’ve received tons of questions regarding my termination from the Port of Seattle Police. So I figured I should explain. I have been placed on administrative leave (still being paid) pending investigation. I was told by both the agency and my union that this will result in termination due to it being an insubordination charge for refusing to take down the video. I’m not sure what the timeline looks like. I walk un-intimidated into the fray. Thank you for all the support🙏🏻 #police #liberty #constitution #quarantine @unclesamsmisguidedchildren @eddiebravo10p @cameronrhanes @granderson33
A post shared by Greg Anderson (@granderson33) on
Herman: Port of Seattle cop reminded officers to respect the Bill of Rights — now his bosses want him fired By Todd Herman
OUP: Democracy and Dictatorship in Europe: From the Ancien Régime to the Present Day by Sheri Berman
Journal of Democracy
A review: The Making and Unmaking of European Democracy by Samuel Gregg (Acton Blog)
It seem that she has an incomplete picture of the rise of bureaucracy and other instruments of the centralization of power that enabled the rise of the state, even before the regime of the state changed to "democracy," but really, "oligarchy" is the more appropriate term.
What was central to the ancien régime—and Berman demonstrates this convincingly—was the confirmation or granting of legal privileges to particular groups, most notably the nobility and clergy, by European rulers. This sanctioning of legal privileges (such as noble and clerical exemption from taxation or giving the aristocracy a formal monopoly of appointments to the officer corps and the civil service) was an effective way for monarchs to gain such groups’ acquiescence in, and even support for, the ruler’s centralization of power.
Who are the oligarchs who facilitated the rise of "democracy"? Should we be looking at the usual suspects, the mercantile and entrepreneurial class, lawyers, and so on? After all, we are not talking about individuals but families and extended networks or alliances seeking to promote their private good in the name of the "people."
Samuel Gregg, liberal, is like Sheri Berman, another liberal, though they may have different beliefs about individual morality. (I don't doubt that Berman is some form of feminist.) Both of them believe in the illusion that is "liberal democracy" which is actually oligarchy, just as Gregg cucks for "free markets."
Tuesday, May 12, 2020
What happened to "dialogue" and "encountering the other" for these progs? Just accuse them of heresy and be done with it.
Grace on the Margins: The trope that the future of the church can be found among young, conservative Christians has reared its hackneyed head again. https://t.co/N8TEWFLNhV— NCR (@NCRonline) May 12, 2020
Rod Dreher: Yale-Educated Lesbian Catholic: ‘Ewww! Weirdos!’
Republican Liberty and the Failure of Substantive Due Process by James R. Rogers
Republican liberty means that people are not subjected to the arbitrary will of another, which is slavery. Hence, the repeated identification by the American colonists of the abuses of British rule with an intent to reduce Americans to the status of slaves. The argument wasn’t that Americans asserted the British designed to make chattel slaves of Americans. Rather, the Americans argued that if the principle be granted allowing for arbitrary governance, then they had conceded the critical principle distinguishing freemen from slaves, and there was no logical stopping point between their state and the state of abject slavery.If citizens are subjected to the will of some who are not accountable to them, how is that republicanism? This is a very poor definition of liberty, if that is all there is to it. Liberty means not being ruled by another, first of all by a foreign power, and second, by a domestic power which has no just claim to authority. As for the will being the principle under consideration, rather than order or reason, I don't know if the author is being sloppy or deliberate in espousing some form of voluntarism. Slaves are subject to the rule of another, it may be just or it may be unjust, and whether it is to be judged arbitrary or not depends on whether the good of the one ruled is considered or not. (I am not going to explain here how the good of the slave is to be taken into account and what protections slaves should have from their masters, except to say that there are standards of justice prohibiting masters from harming their slaves unjustly.)
Should it occur to anyone to start curbing the excesses of feminism in earnest, then obviously the most important step will be to deprive women of the right to vote. In itself, doing so ought not to be too difficult. In most modern countries, feeding in the right computer program and pressing a few buttons would suffice to do the job. No longer will my wife and I receive our Israeli, blue and white, voting cards in tandem. Instead of pinning two cards to the fridge as, in the past year, we have done no fewer than three times, I shall do so only with one. To prevent disenfranchised women from disrupting the voting process, as some of them regularly did at the turn of the twentieth century, perhaps a few of the noisiest ones should be placed under protective custody for a couple of days. Having each polling station watched by a policeman or two would not present a problem either.
The real problem is a different one. In ancient Greece, women’s rights and democracy were entirely separate. Neither in Athens nor in any other city were women allowed either to vote or to hold public office. To the extent that it was democratic, as in some respects it was, the same applied to republican Rome. Not so in the modern world. In it, right from the beginning the demand for women’s enfranchisement has been riding piggyback on democracy. When Congress issued the Declaration of Independence Abigail Adams, wife of president to-be John Adams, complained that it mentioned men but not women. As the French Revolution broke out more than one woman insisted that the newly-adopted rights of men should be extended to women too. The best-known one was no other than Mary Wollstonecraft, author of A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792). Another, Olympe de Gouges, was actually executed; though less for denouncing the “despotic” rule of men over women than for advocating a return of the monarchy. Not accidentally did John Stuart Mill, the most ardent male feminist of all time, publish The Subjection of Women in 1869, the year that marked a vast extension of the British electorate. To this day it is almost exclusively democratic countries that pay attention to women’s rights. Neither Putin, nor Xi, nor Khamenei, nor Kim Jong-un seems to be very interested in them. Nor, since they do not put great store on attracting female voters, or any voters for that matter, is there any reason why they should.
Anglo-American feminism was bad from the get go; first-wave feminism is irredeemable.
After the 1954 Battle of Dien Bien Phu, the Vietnamese ransomed their French POWs; the French government paid the price, and their men were returned. Schanberg’s sources revealed that after the American withdrawal, the Vietnamese made the same demand; though President Nixon assented to a $3.25 billion payment and 591 prisoners were released in 1973, including John McCain, Congress refused to authorize the “humanitarian assistance” funds because of the shattered maxim that “America doesn’t lose wars.” As the years dragged on and nothing was done, the existence of the POWs became nothing but a political liability to be hidden at all costs. As such, the American public was kept in the dark, our POWs condemned to a lingering death.
According to Schanberg, “there exists a telling mass of official documents, radio intercepts, witness depositions, satellite photos of rescue symbols that pilots were trained to use, electronic messages from the ground containing the individual code numbers given to airmen, a rescue mission by a special forces unit that was aborted twice by Washington—and even sworn testimony by two Defense secretaries that ‘men were left behind.’” Schanberg believed that the number was “probably hundreds.”
Schanberg discovered that throughout his Senate tenure, McCain worked tirelessly to hide this information by codifying prohibitions to keep POW documents classified. Presenting himself to the public as a champion of veterans and our most famous POW, McCain instead behaved as the opposite. In 1991, veteran and family pressure resulted in the creation of a Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, chaired by John Kerry, although McCain was the most important figure on the committee. McCain was not alone, though; every Administration since Nixon’s was complicit in the tragedy. Schanberg concluded that the Senate committee, though publicly pledging to finally get to the bottom of the issue, privately colluded with the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency. Future Vice President Dick Cheney and future Secretary of Defense Robert Gates led the respective organizations at the time.
Lord have mercy.
Clyde Wilson, The Way We Are Now:
Want to understand who the real rulers are in our “American democracy”? It has little to do with elections or with the politicians on television. The real rulers may be identified as those who get the most benefit from the government and almost always get their way. (Or, to put it another way, the real rulers are those with enough money to buy Congresspersons.) Take the recent epidemic relief bill, passed unanimously by Congress and both parties: $2 billion to be dispersed for temporary relief to the people, most of whom will never recover from months of lost work. $8 billion for the Banksters, who allegedly are necessary for our prosperity and are Too Big to Jail. The 1% will get ever richer and have even more control over the wealth of American society. This has been “American democracy” since Lincoln. But there are no longer enough real citizens around to notice and most don’t care as long as they are reasonably prosperous. In hard times they turn to their real rulers for relief.