"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
Thursday, May 14, 2020
Uh oh
What Future for First Things?
AmConMag: First Things & The Future Of Religious Conservatism by Rod Dreher
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...
Dreher:
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?
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...
Dreher:
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.
Statism
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
Liberty Fund: 60% off For the Rest of the Year
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
A Liberal v. Latin Integralists
Who should care about Poli. Sci. departments these days. when it's filled with liberals like this?
The American Mind: The Rise and Fall of the Pajama-Boy Nietzscheans by C. Bradley Thompson (Encounter Books)
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
Authority
Order
Stability
Community
Social cohesion
Continuity
Solidarity
Sacrifice
Duty
Virtue
Goodness
God pic.twitter.com/yNieoR76sS
How Are You Going to Create Solidarity?
I agree that in urban mass population areas at least, there is no social cohesiveness and no community for reasons I've gone over before on the blog. But what is the remedy to this? Coercion? Forcing people to act like a community? Human nature doesn't work that way, and identity politics should be an indication of this to intellectuals who care.
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
The Lamp Magazine
If you aren't subscribed to @thelampmagazine yet, get to it! The first issue is beautiful. pic.twitter.com/efspZJvMIY
— joe barnas 🦔 (@BarnasJoe) May 13, 2020
Taleb on Localism and Subsidiarity
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...
Christopher Caldwell, The Age of Entitlement
Simon and Schuster
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
Reviews:
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
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
Reviews:
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
Virtue Politics
HUP: Virtue Politics: Soulcraft and Statecraft in Renaissance Italy by James Hankins
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?
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 Catholic Liberal
or libertarian... Samuel Gregg.
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.
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.
Looking for Content to Publish?
I wish that were the ostensible reason for Public Orthodoxy publishing this piece:
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
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
Apostles of Empire by Bronwen McShea
University of Nebraska Press - the author's website and Twitter
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
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
Despair?
Not the right emotion -- but resignation and sadness that the great divisions between men will not be erased by "dialogue" or coercion, though coercion may nonetheless still be attempted.
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.
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.
Alas, Men Won't Pay to Support Independent Intellectual Endeavors
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
John 8:19, John 14:6-21, Matthew 10:33
First Things: On John Paul II’s Centenary by George Weigel (CWR)
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.
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.
We Need More Studies!
Not just the amount of time, but what sort of screen time: video games, or using social media? Posting selfies?
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:
https://t.co/S91U3tmgbv
The Last Narc
Edit. I don't know why the Amazon youtube channel took its video for the trailer down. Here's an alternative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)