|
Post by timothylane on Sept 27, 2019 17:59:07 GMT -8
That sort of self-fulfilling prophecy is all too likely. I have a philo-Semitic tendency, but I increasingly don't care about leftist Jewish elites in America. You may recall the response among leftist Jews when Mel Gibson came out with The Passion of the Christ. They were certain that it would lead to a rash of anti-Semitism, and when nothing of the sort happened (maybe because the actual perpetrators were the Romans), few if any thought of apologizing for their error.
Someday they'll be right, and they'll have themselves to blame for it. But it's what they're used to, so many may actually look forward to it. I just hope if and when it does, those Jews who don't behave this way (such as most Israelis) don't suffer for the leftists' folly.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Sept 28, 2019 16:40:52 GMT -8
Every man is capable of choking on too much ideology, intellectuals in particular who are usually successful in hiding their indulgence from themselves.
We need to protect Jews. Not only are they the canary in the coal mine, they are arguably the tribe of people who are supposed to show the rest of us how to live ethically. They are God’s chosen people. And if they are not then no one is and nihilism abounds.
Most Jews have substituted Leftist ideology for the Torah. Most Christians have substituted various me-me-me therapeutic forms for the form that is hard but meaningful.
Contemplate that for a moment and what it means to all of us.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 4, 2019 8:40:13 GMT -8
This may not directly relate to David Frenchism, but I read this article this morning on NRO about the Bridgeport Diocese abuse. I’ve been following the series of articles that George Neumayr has had on the subject, off and on, at The American Spectator. They are pointed and decidedly non-namby-pamby. But I’m reading this milquetoast one at NRO by Michael Brendan Dougherty and I’m wondering if half the problem is the death of outrage. This guy might as well have been talking about the weather for all he put into it. Even then, he brushes by this huge subject and basically says nothing about it other than “it occurred,” for all intents and purposes. One commenter said “Thank you for the gift of Christian Witness.” Witness? Really? I couldn’t write about this subject without a few f-bombs and m-f’s. InMatthew 18:6 it says: I give the Catholic, George Neumayr, tremendous credit for not being mealy-mouthed about this subject. He is obviously outraged. But where are all the others?
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 4, 2019 8:55:06 GMT -8
Well, I don't think referring to 3 successive bishops as monsters is emotionally flat. I would say that Dougherty is quite proper in his condemnation in the beginning paragraph and at the end (noting that Egan feared open scandal, but obviously did not fear God). He does miss a bet -- never saying that rooting out such vicious corruption must always be done, and the villains punished harshly (and publicly), regardless of the scandal. The moral duty of the clergy must transcend the diocese's reputation. And, practically, it will probably eventually come out, at which point the failure to act makes the scandal far worse.
Still, Dougherty does condemn the 3 bishops and the perverted priests they protected (and perhaps also envied or even acted like, which would explain their grossly inadequate responses). The middle section is somewhat different -- "just the facts" without any emotion. That no doubt is the main thing you're reacting to. Overall, I would consider the article a mixed bag -- not bad, but it certainly could have been a lot better.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 5, 2019 8:00:17 GMT -8
I still think it’s way too namby-pamby. But one commenter said something useful: I’ve never been a Catholic-basher and I resist the urge still. But there is something deeply rotten in Denmark. For a non-namby-pamby book about the situation, on commenter recommends Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church. That decidedly non-namby-pamby title gives hope that someone wrote something that pulls no punches and gives some kind of analysis for how things got to this sorry state. That is, it’s not just “drive-by conservatism” which could describe most of the junk at National Review Online.One reviewer writes: Nothing even tangential to this came out of that lame NRO article.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 5, 2019 8:55:46 GMT -8
That books sounds distressingly accurate.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 6, 2019 7:59:55 GMT -8
Here’s a decidedly non-namby-pamby article by George Neumayr: The Pope’s Pitiful Reign of ErrorHe engaged in something called “journalism” whereby you go out into the world and report what is. A quote from Michael Voris sums it up: One commenter writes: I quite agree that the Roman Catholic Church has been denuded of any real authority it pretended to have. Clearly we’re dealing with a cult because most members — despite such a large and obvious heterodoxy in their midst — don't seem to care. The devil, if there is a devil, is winning.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 6, 2019 9:15:59 GMT -8
That's a very nice explanation of the peculiar phenomenon of the Peron Anti-Pope being reported as making pronouncements that overturn traditional Catholic morality, and then a day or two later more conservative Catholics saying that was a bad translation and he really upholds traditional morality.
I have described liberation theology and the social gospel as Marxism with a Christian veneer. And that's as Christian as the Peron Anti-Pope gets these days. If he lives long enough to remake the Church in his image (and he's well along on that), it will just be another amoral, atheistic leftist group -- and will never return to its traditions.
The notion of Fabian socialism is to infiltrate the means of communication, so that "democratic" socialism is created by excluded non-socialist views. I doubt that Shaw and the Webbs ever anticipated that they would be able to do this to the Catholic Church.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 6, 2019 11:50:32 GMT -8
I believe it is undeniable that from the moment Christianity became the State Religion under Constantine, the Catholic Church started becoming a corrupt institution and has remained one for most of its history. I do not believe this has anything to do with Christianity, rather it has to do with state-backed bureaucratic institutions which wish to exert state-sanctioned coercive power over others. The young Church had no such power. One became or did not become a Christian according to one's desires. The Church influenced through teaching and example, not through force.
The young Church did not build up a huge blood-sucking administrative bureaucracy, pontifical palaces and wage wars for territory or against those who disagreed with them. I think the Catholic Church's corruption was probably perfected during the so-called "Babylonian Captivity" from 1309 to 1376 during which the popes resided in Avignon. As Petrarch wrote about Avignon:
"the impious Babylon, the hell on earth, the sink of vice, the sewer of the world. There is in it neither faith nor charity nor religion nor the fear of God....All the filth and wickedness of the world have run together here...Old men plunge hot and headlong into the arms of Venus; forgetting their age, dignity, and powers, they rush into every shame, as if all their glory consisted not in the cross of Christ, but in feasting, drunkenness, and unchastity...Fornication, incest, rape, adultery are the lascivious delights of the pontifical games."
Durant believes Petrarch was probably exaggerating. I tend to think Petrarch was probably spot on.
The difference between the Church's old corruptions and today's is that in the old days, the Church held to and spread the basic Christian message, as it understood it; (I do not want to go into how this may have differed from that message as seen by Protestants) whereas today, the Church is substituting an anti-Christian/atheistic message for the Christian one, and the blasphemy is being promoted and spread from the very center of Church authority. Nothing quite like this has happened before.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 6, 2019 12:07:50 GMT -8
I would say that the combination of Church and State corrupted the Church (and to a lesser extent the State). The creation of the Papal States made it even worse, since now the Pope himself was sovereign. The Pope's confinement to the Vatican did a lot to make up for this, and the result was that the papacy in the last century was less corrupt than it had been. But then came the 60s generation, perhaps abetted by John XXIII (I've read he encouraged modernization). And that eventually led to the Peron Anti-Pope, completing the takeover.
Worse yet, the consequence of the difference between past corruption (too much attention to their personal appetites) and the modern corruption (rejection of traditional moral standards) means that (as I pointed out earlier), if the Peron Anti-Pope succeeds in remaking the Church in his image, it won't be able to recover as it has in the past. This is the difference between failing to live up to moral standards and rejecting the moral standards outright.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 7, 2019 7:56:51 GMT -8
I really can’t add anything to what you said, Mr. Kung. [That’s never stopped me before.] Your point that there is nothing wrong with Christianity, per se, but in the bureaucratizing of it, seems to get to the core.
One wonders if the “gnostic” heresy wasn’t entirely based on the idea of finding God outside of the official bureaucracy. That is what is now called “Protestantism” and it’s like a thousand different cats running around. But it’s freedom and posits the radical idea that God can be searched for by all and found by all without “expert” advice (other than the Bible).
Here at Reviews-and-Things our denomination is Church of the Wholly Lot to Say on the Subject.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 7, 2019 8:37:26 GMT -8
Gnosticism started about a century or so after Christ's death, long before Christianity held any political power. Their motivation would presumably have been a narcissistic desire to feel superior for knowing the "real" story. Certainly that seems to be the motivator for gnosticism today.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 7, 2019 12:25:32 GMT -8
The link is to an article by Andrew McCarthy which puts the ongoing "Impeach Trump" ravings of the left in perspective. While I find the piece worthwhile, it is somewhat depressing that someone needs to explain why the Dims, and others who are going on about Trump's call to the Ukrainian president, have no basis for their outrage. Most of what McCarthy writes should be obvious to an aware high school student. Nothing ThereThe worst that can be said about Trump in this case it that he is a tricky boor who lacks tact, subtlety and manners. There is nothing new in that. In fact, we have been saying this from the time he started his run for the presidency. While tiring and objectionable, such personal characteristics do not rise to "impeachable."
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 7, 2019 12:38:15 GMT -8
That was a good article. I liked McCarthy's singling out for criticism the Black God's Iran deal and the Bergdahl trade, the two actions of his I consider treasonous by the Constitution's definition.
But there is one omission. He fails to point out that even if Trump did demand an investigation of Burisma (and thus Hunter Biden) in return for aid, that can hardly be worse than Biden demanding that a prosecutor looking into Burisma be fired in return for aid. His quid pro quo was explicit by his own boast.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 8, 2019 20:18:14 GMT -8
On another subject, but one that falls in the general area of David Frenchism, I have come to the conclusion that the Bush family are probably (almost?) as deeply involved in the Russia Hoax and further attempts to impeach Trump as are the Democrats.
If this can be proven, I think the Bushes should be held accountable. But since that would damage the Republican Party, I doubt that it will happen. One can dream though.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 11, 2019 10:57:48 GMT -8
The link is to an excellent article which deals with how "conservative" intellectuals have no clue about the fundamental problem of race in this country. The author absolutely deconstructs that idiot Tim Carney, a writer who may be worse than David French or Jonah Goldberg. Conservatives and RaceThe ability to ignore reality, which these intellectuals have, is amazing.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,271
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 11, 2019 11:26:18 GMT -8
Verified. This was exactly the attitude I got from Michael Reagan when I got a chance to spend some time with him a couple years ago.
Very well said by the author.
Emphasis mine. God bless this man for his clear thinking.
Ditto. The problem is black culture. It’s toxic. If they “acted white” (or, indeed, simply acted like Asians) their problems would be cured.
I love this report from Heather Mac Donald:
I need to show this to my brother. This is precisely the reason I won’t visit New York. Minneapolis, not exactly being a tourist Mecca (but soon it could be a literal one), is not on my list of places to visit anyway. And there’s another reason it is not.
Regarding the further statistics she cites, we all (not me….but all the pukes at NRO) owe John Derbyshire an apology.
Yes. I’ve noticed that. But my stint at StubbornThings suggests that this cowardice is spread far beyond the intellectuals.
Yes, a brilliant article, Mr Kung. Add a gold star to your collection for noting it.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 11, 2019 11:36:29 GMT -8
This is a problem with identity politics, particularly victim group politics. It inherently requires some group to hate -- or maybe even every such group other than your own. This is taught in many schools and by many parents, and the result is a highly toxic urban black culture.
Making it worse, these large urbs are generally dominated by increasingly radical Demagogues, for whom criticism of blacks in unacceptable. This is why crimes such as the 3 you mention in Minneapolis (where Trump spoke last night, attracting a great deal of Antifa violence) are generally not called hate crimes. To do so is to criticize blacks -- and also to suggest that hate crimes aren't always majority (white) against minority (black). So when someone suggests that such attacks may be hate crimes, black "leaders" protest and the authorities back down.
When violence this tends to go unpunished (as increasingly happens in most leftist cities), you get more of it. It doesn't help that these radical Demagogues hate ordinary Americans, or at best are indifferent to what happens to them.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 11, 2019 12:04:38 GMT -8
Ah, great minds think alike. This was the sentence I first thought of posting, but then I decided the whole article was worth linking to.
The author's observation made me think of conversations you and I had at the beginning of ST. Specifically, we were discussing NRO and how most of the articles were useless as they were written by inexperienced/callow yutes whose only expertise/talent was writing well. They had not lived enough to gain wisdom and their educational backgrounds had given them little chance to gain in-depth knowledge of the many subjects which they pontificated upon. Thus, what they wrote might sound good, but was not backed up by life-experience or expertise in any particular field. This being the case, we could not understand why anyone would pay much attention to their scribblings. Just another case of form over content.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 11, 2019 12:11:12 GMT -8
They also tend to be compromised by their need to make a living by their writings. One suspects that sometimes they are paid by the word, and at other times, they must refrain from writing the truth as they might be docked a paycheck. See what happened to Mark Steyn.
We also noted this during our discussions about NRO.
I think the only writers who one can generally believe are those who are not dependent upon writing words for their daily bread.
|
|